Ordinance Amendment passed, but the text repeals the wrong Ordinance

[Guest Geekywan]

I don't want to be too specific, but my local city government voted on an ordinance change (after not verbally reading the ordinance, I might add) and it passed with full approval. However, the text signed by the Mayor repeals and replaces the wrong ordinance number. They meant to replace Ordinance 42, but in the printed Ordinance (the one bearing the Mayor's signature) it says it replaces Ordinance 48, which is an entirely difference ordinance. I can't find any State government guidance if the Ordinance change is invalid as the law defers to RONR for such things. So, I have to ask, did the city mess up here or will a little bit of white out fix it? Will they need to re-vote on the Ordinance, and furthermore, will they need to re-vote to restore Ordinance 48 to the original?

[Joshua Katz]

What matters for RONR is what the chair said when putting the question.  RONR says nothing about the text signed by a Mayor.  Since this is a public body, there likely are laws bearing on the question.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Guest Geekywan said:

I don't want to be too specific, but my local city government voted on an ordinance change (after not verbally reading the ordinance, I might add) and it passed with full approval. However, the text signed by the Mayor repeals and replaces the wrong ordinance number. They meant to replace Ordinance 42, but in the printed Ordinance (the one bearing the Mayor's signature) it says it replaces Ordinance 48, which is an entirely difference ordinance. I can't find any State government guidance if the Ordinance change is invalid as the law defers to RONR for such things. So, I have to ask, did the city mess up here or will a little bit of white out fix it? Will they need to re-vote on the Ordinance, and furthermore, will they need to re-vote to restore Ordinance 48 to the original?

If this was merely a typographical error, made after the meeting, then so far as RONR is concerned, "a little bit of white out will fix it." On the other hand, if the chair stated the question on replacing Ordinance 48, then that is what was adopted, and the council will need to fix it.

Since this is a government body, there may also be legal issues involved.

[Guest Geekywan]

I'm reaching out to some local resources to see if I can get a legal opinion on the matter, finding someone who knows an answer to this is tricky. Thanks for your input on this. The city doesn't adhere to the RONR despite it being in their standing ordinances that they must follow it. *Sigh* The joys of local government.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, Guest Geekywan said:

The city doesn't adhere to the RONR despite it being in their standing ordinances that they must follow it.

So have them arrested.  (Note:  Don't actually do that.)

Does the city have a city attorney?

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

59 minutes ago, Guest Geekywan said:

The city doesn't adhere to the RONR despite it being in their standing ordinances that they must follow it.

In my experience, this is the rule rather than the exception.

[J. J.]

16 hours ago, Guest Geekywan said:

I don't want to be too specific, but my local city government voted on an ordinance change (after not verbally reading the ordinance, I might add) and it passed with full approval. However, the text signed by the Mayor repeals and replaces the wrong ordinance number. They meant to replace Ordinance 42, but in the printed Ordinance (the one bearing the Mayor's signature) it says it replaces Ordinance 48, which is an entirely difference ordinance. I can't find any State government guidance if the Ordinance change is invalid as the law defers to RONR for such things. So, I have to ask, did the city mess up here or will a little bit of white out fix it? Will they need to re-vote on the Ordinance, and furthermore, will they need to re-vote to restore Ordinance 48 to the original?

 

 

I will assume that the mayor has some part in the process, but cannot "replace" an ordinance on his own. 

It will depend on what your city legislative body actually voted upon.  If the were given the text of the ordinance, and it said Ordinance 48, they have replaced Ordinance 48.  That would be true even if they didn't read that text. 

I know of no requirement in RONR that requires people to know what they were voting on.

If, after voting, the number was changed by the person typing this up to Ordinance 48, for any reason, that was not something that this legislative body adopted, then that is not something that was adopted.

I strongly suspect that the number of the ordinance, or even the text, would have been advertised and would suggest that you look there as well.