CK_2055

Would you say that this is true of an elected legislative body as well?

I know it's a little odd that an organization would adopt their bylaws annually, however this organization does. Annually, at the beginning of the year, the first meeting in an organizational meeting in which they vote on meeting days, times, location; elect the chairperson and vice chairperson for the year; adopt their bylaws for the year that include the year on the bylaws; and other organizational type logistics. In March of 2020 they voted on a resolution to amend their bylaws by adding section XXVIII. When they passed their bylaws for 2021, section XXVIII was not included. When they passed their bylaws for 2022, section XXVIII was not included. Now that they need section XXVIII to have been in effect for something they did in June, they are implying that it exists in the bylaws because of the resolution in 2020 and as such their action was covered by it. This seems absurd to me...what say you?

The situation is that a member did motion to adjourn the meeting but that member was not allowed to participate in the meeting by the group bylaws - so that would make their motion and thereby the subsequent vote invalid - correct? So would the meeting still effectively be in session?

If items were voted on in a meeting, but that meeting was never adjourned, is the meeting still considered actively ongoing? Can you act on the items voted on if the meeting was not adjourned?

Sorry, I'm having a little trouble trying to navigate how to respond to individuals so I'll try to clarify some points across the board... The board in question is a County Board of Supervisors consisting of 5 supervisors. There are two meetings in question June 15 and the next meeting July 6. At the June 15 meeting the chair was absent. The vice chair had the emergency and participated electronically. The County Attorney is the parlimentarian and did not indicate an issue with him participating even though their bylaws did not allow. Additionally, their bylaws state that in the absence of the chair and vice chair, the County Administrator is to conduct an election for a temporary chair. That was not done. Instead the vice chair virtually passed the gavel to another members. No vote was made regarding the vice chair's participation. At the meeting, the vice chair was instrumental in the discussion that resulted in a controversial motion being passed. Had he not participated it is likely that the motion would have been deferred. Ultimately, after much discussion the 4 members unanamously passed it. Move forward to the following meeting on July 6. The County Attorney tells the board that they need to amend their bylaws to allow for electronic participation and that should have been done for the June 15 meeting for the vice chair to participate. As there was a different member who needed to attend on July 6 electronically, the County Attorney had drafted a change to the bylaws (consistent with what state code indicates for electronic participation in government meetings) for the board to move and pass and then acknowledge that he could participate. Until that motion was made and passed, that member was not acknowledged. It was made known by the County Attorney that he could not participate until they voted to change the bylaws and then they could recognize him and he could join the meeting. So he did not vote to approve the agenda or this motion nor was he involved in any of the discussion around it. Whereas, in the June 15 meeting the vice chair fully participated from the adopting of the agenda throughout the meeting.

You all are such a wealth of information and I'm learning more and more as I continue to dive into a deeper understanding of RR. Thanks! Here's the scenario... A board has a meeting in which the chair is not in attendance. The vice chair has been called away to an emergency but is participating remotely. The bylaws did not allow him to do so (at the following meeting they voted to amend their bylaws to allow electronic participation because another member was out and it was noted that since their bylaws did not allow it nor did RR that they needed to add it in order for him to join and for future situations). There was no vote to allow him to participate nor a suspension of the rules vote. It was simply stated that he would be joining remotely and he was asked to pass the gavel to another member as he was the presiding chairperson since the chairperson was not present. However, could he do that since he wasn't even suppose to be a part of the meeting? He actively participated and voted in the meeting. Does any of these violations of their bylaws and/or RR invalidate the meeting or the business conducted?

If a member plans to move that a previously adopted item be rescinded or amended, do they need to have that placed on the agenda prior to the meeting agenda being approved? If so, when does that come up in the meeting? If not, when do they raise the point in the meeting? Thanks.

I'm trying to determine if there are any options through RR regarding this matter and I'm thinking rescind or amend the previously passed motion but I'm unsure. Advice and opinions appreciated... At our last board of supervisors meeting they passed a motion to approve a rezoning request. Prior to that motion being made and passed several things were pointed out to them including the county's failure to respond to an FOIA request within the legal timeframe and the county not following their own process. Regarding the FOIA, the info was not all received until earlier in the day prior to the meeting, a request had been made 4 business days prior to the meeting for the board to move the agenda item to a latter meeting since the request had not been fulfilled (crickets - no response) and when a board member asked the county attorney about legal concerns or issues his response to the FOIA failure to respond was simply that it was an oversight of which the person is very sorry and that in his opinion it yielded nothing that would impact the matter for them to decide. One thing the FOIA did yield was that the county did not follow their process and this was shared with them prior to vote in public hearing. They had a meeting on the matter prior to an application being received. Additionally, I noted to them that their pre-stated motions do not include all their options. The application states that they can also remand back to planning but their pre-stated motions only state approve, deny or defer. In discussion they were conflicted, but ultimately voted to approve. Do you see grounds to encourage one of them to rescind or amend the previously passed motion at their upcoming meeting? Or some other RR avenue to pursue. We are still in the midst of sorting through the FOIA material as well and have filed an additional request. Sorry for length. Thanks for reading.