Guest Phyllis Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:07 PM A 7-member board votes 3-3 on a resolution at meeting A (where one member of the board is absent). The resolution is deemed denied. At a subsequent meeting a member requests the resolution be brought back to the board. After discussion, a new vote is taken and the resolution is approved 5-1 with one member abstaining. Is the approval valid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:08 PM Yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:13 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:13 PM A 7-member board votes 3-3 on a resolution at meeting A (where one member of the board is absent). The resolution is deemed denied. At a subsequent meeting a member requests the resolution be brought back to the board. After discussion, a new vote is taken and the resolution is approved 5-1 with one member abstaining. Is the approval valid?Why wouldn't it be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Phyllis Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:43 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:43 PM One of the members objected (after the fact) to the approval, stating it was not valid because it was a reconsideration after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven Britton Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:47 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 07:47 PM One of the members objected (after the fact) to the approval, stating it was not valid because it was a reconsideration after the fact.As long as the next subsequent meeting wasn't a continuation of the same session, it wouldn't be improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted September 12, 2012 at 08:38 PM Report Share Posted September 12, 2012 at 08:38 PM One of the members objected (after the fact) to the approval, stating it was not valid because it was a reconsideration after the fact.Well, you can hardly reconsider before it's done... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted September 13, 2012 at 06:55 AM Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 06:55 AM Well, you can hardly reconsider before it's done...Yeah, but doesn't "reconsideration after the fact" sound impressively technical, almost legalese? I'm surprised poor Guest_Phyllis didn't also get "ipso facto" or "a priori." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted September 13, 2012 at 01:15 PM Report Share Posted September 13, 2012 at 01:15 PM One of the members objected (after the fact) to the approval, stating it was not valid because it was a reconsideration after the fact.Actually that would be called "renewing a failed motion" and it's perfectly valid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.