Can a motion that has been rescinded be "renewed?"

[Guest Julie Pioch]

A council wants to start all over again in the decision making process because they realized  a week or so after the meeting at which they adopted a motion that they had violated some of their citizen input rules. To me, it is clear that the time limits to reconsider the motion have expired and that a motion to rescind should now be made at their next meeting to cancel their decision. However, their attorney is advising them differently - but that is not relevant to the question. The question is: Can a decision once rescinded come back as the same question before the assembly at a later time? I don't find anything in RONR that states it can not. The desire of the council is to start the process over from the beginning, take the matter through the proper channels and then have it presented to them again. Of course, the issue at hand is of a controversial nature and there is the likelihood that the motion would not pass the second time around - however it might. In other words, they desire to do what the motion to reconsider allows - to re-open the issue again for discussion. My question stated a bit differently: Does rescind allow a group that same luxury? To return to debate and then vote again on the same question?

[Rev Ed]

The Council is free to adopt a motion to Amend (or Rescind) Something Previously Adopted.  This assumes that the motion has not been carried out - for example, if the motion was to purchase a property and the property is purchased, you cannot undo the purchase.  Instead you would have to make a new motion to sell the property.

 

If there really is a need for more discussion on the issue, move to rescind the motion and refer it to a Committee.

[Josh Martin]

The question is: Can a decision once rescinded come back as the same question before the assembly at a later time?

 

Yes. A motion which has been rescinded may be renewed.

 

In other words, they desire to do what the motion to reconsider allows - to re-open the issue again for discussion. My question stated a bit differently: Does rescind allow a group that same luxury? To return to debate and then vote again on the same question?

 

The motion to Rescind, if adopted, cancels out the original motion. The original motion may then be renewed, in which event the assembly may debate and vote again on the same question.

[Guest Julie Pioch]

Thanks to you both. It seemed very simple to me and just wanted to verify with someone else that I was not missing something. I appreciate your time. Just getting started as a PRP, and this is my first encounter with an attorney arguing with what I have to say, lost a bit of confidence for a minute. 

[Dan Honemann]

Thanks to you both. It seemed very simple to me and just wanted to verify with someone else that I was not missing something. I appreciate your time. Just getting started as a PRP, and this is my first encounter with an attorney arguing with what I have to say, lost a bit of confidence for a minute. 

 

What was the attorney's advice?

[J. J.]

A council wants to start all over again in the decision making process because they realized  a week or so after the meeting at which they adopted a motion that they had violated some of their citizen input rules.

 

Depending on the rule, the motion might be void. 

[George Mervosh]

I don't mean to trample on Julie's very good question, but when a motion is rescinded, is it really "renewed" if made again at the next session?   Not that it matters much since it can be made again anew, but I'm not sure if it is really being renewed given the definition of renewal in RONR.

[Josh Martin]

I don't mean to trample on Julie's very good question, but when a motion is rescinded, is it really "renewed" if made again at the next session?   Not that it matters much since it can be made again anew, but I'm not sure if it is really being renewed given the definition of renewal in RONR.

 

No, I suppose not.

 

A motion which has been adopted and is later rescinded may be made again, but it appears this is not technically "renewal," since that applies specifically to a motion "made and disposed of without being adopted." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 336).

[Guest Edgar]

 . . . when a motion is rescinded, is it really "renewed" if made again at the next session? 

 

No, I suppose not.

 

If not "re-newed", perhaps it was simply "newed".

[Julie Pioch]

Renewed or re-newed or newed - I think the result is the same. It can be brought up again. But I guess that is the fun of this forum isn't it - to discuss the nuances of our parliamentary language! I do appreciate the clarification for my own sake, however as I was troubled in using the word renewed being aware of the citation provided by Josh above.

 

What was the attorney's advice?

 

Dan: Since you asked…Here is the advice given to the council from their attorney ( I removed some specifics from the correspondence but all of the text is otherwise verbatim. The italics comments are mine)

     "At the January 6^th Council meeting, under the Old Business section of the agenda, one of the council members who voted in the majority at the December2nd hearing should submit a motion as follows:

" I motion for reconsideration of the Council's December 1,2013 decision granting X conditional use permit for a XXXXXX on the ground that public notice was not published in the local press prior to the hearing. As part of this motion, I request that: 1)proper notice be posted and published for a February X,2014 rehearing of the permit application, and,2)that the Council consider written response to the permit application is submitted to the Clerk by January 30, 2014.”

 

Further the attorney offered his wisdom to dispute the advice given to one of the members by a parliamentarian (me):

 

Following is a brief opinion of why a motion for reconsideration is the appropriate way to address this issue:

I. Reconsideration implies “re-examination” and possibly a different decision upon doing so. In this case, it is the proper procedure because council is responding to the notice deficiency that did not give a full opportunity to the public for testimony. Upon re hearing the council will have heard and deliberated not only on the Dec 2nd presentation but any new evidence….(the balance of this sentence pertained to specifics of the case)

 

II. Recision is not appropriate under the circumstances.

Contrary to opinion, recision or cancellation of the December 2nd Council decision is not appropriate because there is no evidence the lack of notice tainted what was heard on December 2^nd not resulted in mutual mistake, fraud, impossibility or performance or other improper purpose.

 

I asked if there was something in the City charter that provided the definition above but was sent the zoning ordinance – not the charter so still unsure where that came from.

[Josh Martin]

I. Reconsideration implies “re-examination” and possibly a different decision upon doing so. In this case, it is the proper procedure because council is responding to the notice deficiency that did not give a full opportunity to the public for testimony. Upon re hearing the council will have heard and deliberated not only on the Dec 2nd presentation but any new evidence….(the balance of this sentence pertained to specifics of the case)

 

Unless the rules of the council provide otherwise (which is entirely possible), the time limits for the motion to Reconsider have past, and the motion is therefore not in order.

 

Now, if the council's rules do permit Reconsider in this instance, that does sound like a very good idea.

 

II. Recision is not appropriate under the circumstances.

Contrary to opinion, recision or "cancellation of the December 2nd Council decision is not appropriate because there is no evidence the lack of notice tainted what was heard on December 2^nd not resulted in mutual mistake, fraud, impossibility or performance or other improper purpose.

 

I have no idea whether this is correct, but it's irrelevant in any case. Rescinding a motion is simply another way for an assembly to change its mind. It does not necessarily mean that the assembly did anything improper when it made its original decision.

 

With that said, the idea of rescinding the motion and then possibly adopting it again does seem a bit convoluted. Why not make the motion to Rescind (following whatever notice requirements there are), listen to the opinions of the citizens, and make the decision about whether to Rescind the original motion based on that information?

[Dan Honemann]

Unless the rules of the council provide otherwise (which is entirely possible), the time limits for the motion to Reconsider have past, and the motion is therefore not in order.

 

 

City councils very often have year-long sessions. If, a motion to Reconsider the December vote at the January meeting would have been timely (I assume the meetings are monthly). I gather however, from Julie Pioch's postings, that this must not be the case.

[jstackpo]

City council's ...

Yours belongs here.

[Dan Honemann]

Yours belongs here.

 

Sorry about that.

[Julie Pioch]

Unless the rules of the council provide otherwise (which is entirely possible), the time limits for the motion to Reconsider have past, and the motion is therefore not in order.

 

Now, if the council's rules do permit Reconsider in this instance, that does sound like a very good idea.

 

 

I have no idea whether this is correct, but it's irrelevant in any case. Rescinding a motion is simply another way for an assembly to change its mind. It does not necessarily mean that the assembly did anything improper when it made its original decision.

 

With that said, the idea of rescinding the motion and then possibly adopting it again does seem a bit convoluted. Why not make the motion to Rescind (following whatever notice requirements there are), listen to the opinions of the citizens, and make the decision about whether to Rescind the original motion based on that information?

Josh, your last question is an excellent point as it does seem convoluted and with rational boards who simply made an error, that might be a logical course of action - I don't believe that is the case here as I think there are all sorts of other things happening behind the scenes..but anyway,  I guess the primary "upfront" reason in this case is that I do believe the council would like to make sure that the applicant impacted by this decision makes no changes to the property in question under the current decision's provisions.