Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

SptbgLawyer

Members
  • Content Count

    7
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

187 profile views
  1. Following every General Election year, our Council is required, by their Rules, to adopt Rules of Procedure. There is no notice requirement since it is laid out in the Rules and majority vote is all that is necessary to both pass the Rules as a whole or to make any changes while the Rules are in effect. With a new Chairman, some changes to the longstanding Rules of Procedure are now a possibility. The Rules of Procedure are quite lengthy, almost 20 pages in total with multiple sections. I am aware that the Chairman can proceed with adopting of the Rules of Procedure by section and if he does not choose to do so, another Member can make the motion to do so. If the Chairman does not proceed by section and if a motion to proceed by section is not successful, my concern is that there will be numerous requests for amendments to varying sections of the Rules of Procedure and they would not necessarily all work together where a motion to divide the question would be possible. That being said, if the Chairman and Council decide to proceed with consideration of the document as a whole, would the proper procedure then be a motion to adopt the Rules of Procedure, a second, and then during discussion one amendment at a time is brought up and voted upon (obviously these would not be primary and secondary amendments because they are all different amendments to different sections of the Rules) and then the Rules of Procedure as amended by multiple amendments be voted upon - or would each amendment be brought up and voted upon and provided it passes, there need to be a vote each time a successful amendment passes on the Rules of Procedure as a whole? I guess the same may be true with section by section consideration, as well, if there are multiple amendments to the pending section - would it be all amendments can be made and voted upon and then the section, as amended, is adopted or would there need to be each amendment taken up separately and each time, provided it passes, the section must be adopted? I am sorry if I am not make a lot of sense. I guess I am really just trying to get to whether multiple amendments which are unrelated can be brought up and voted upon without the need each time to return to the main motion to adopt the Rules. Thank you in advance for any guidance.
  2. Committee of full Council meets on same day as full Council/Council Meeting (all committees meet prior to the full Council Meeting starting on same day). Committee takes up first reading of an ordinance but member of committee moves to postpone definitely to next Committee Meeting (which would be the next regular Council Meeting since they meet prior) and it passes Committee. During the full Council Meeting, the Committee reports are taken and member of Committee (Chairman who reports out to full Council) advises of Committee action to postpone but then moves to reconsider the action to postpone approved by the Committee. I believe Robert's Rules are more relaxed in timing for reconsideration for a Committee, but since the Committee adjourned earlier and what was being provided now was a Committee Report to full Council, was it proper for a motion to reconsider the Committee action to be made at that time? (the end of the story is a point of order was raised on the reconsideration and the Chairman ruled that the reconsideration was out of order and the postponing action until the next Committee Meeting stood).
  3. Main motion on the table - member moves to amend and receives a second but the amendment fails - main motion carries without amendment. Following close of meeting, some members approached about revisiting the motion to amend. Since it failed, there is no rescind or amend and given the meeting ended and there is no continuing session, it cannot be reconsidered. Is it possible to renew the motion as new business at an upcoming meeting? And is there any notice requirement as with rescinding or amending? Also - the matter of the motion had to do with a budget and that budget does not go into effect until after the date of the upcoming meeting.
  4. In our Committee settings, typically the Committee Chair will ask if there is a motion to _____________________ (fill in the blank). Typically a Committee Member then makes the motion and the other member will second. What I envision is he will be looking for a motion to include certain things, but the motion will only include some of the things he envisions when he asks if there is a motion. Sorry if I am confusing but as long as the Chairman can amend the motion and then call for the second on the amendment and for the vote on the amendment without having to relinquish his position as Chairman, I am good. We did have one situation in the past where no Committee member would make the motion so the Chairman relinquished his position momentarily in order to make the motion - but I don't think that was necessary given the Chairman has the same rights as any member.
  5. In a Committee of 3 Members, can the Chair of the Committee amend a motion in his Committee? I am envisioning a situation where the Committee Chairman may be anticipating a motion to be made by a Committee Member but it doesn't include all the parts he envisioned. Can he then attempt to amend the motion he called for?
  6. Main motion is on the floor and is seconded; during discussion, the main motion is amended (and seconded), but no vote on the amendment is taken. The amendment is subsequently amended (and seconded), but no vote is taken. In the end, the Chair states that the vote is on the "amendment, amendment" and then restates the main motion as amended (then the vote takes place). Technically, this appears to be inappropriate, but does the Chair's handling in the end by stating they are voting on the "amendment, amendment" and restating the main motion as amended cure this deficiency? Or have they only truly voted on the second amendment? And what cure is there - a complete do over? (sorry this is confusing)
  7. We have a Council that meets monthly. We have an ordinance on which Council has discussed postponing action on. The desire, however, is to postpone action until a meeting which is the third month after their present meeting (or until their November meeting - they plan to make this motion at the August meeting). The hope is to have action on the ordinance after a possible planning session. Can the motion be to postpone to the November meeting or should the motion be to postpone until after a planning session (presently not scheduled or confirmed). They do not want to kill the ordinance. Any guidance and suggestions appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...