Amendments

[Guest Joe]

In a City legislative body, a shift in the tax factor is required. The city council votes to shift the tax factor. A main motion was made to shift the factor to 1,0, an amendment was made to shift to 1.6 (it failed 7to2). Another amendment was made to shift to a factor of 1.3 ( it failed 8 to 1). finally the main motion of a factor of 1.0 was voted and passed 5 to 4. The Mayor vetoed the rate which now requires a 2/3 vote to override. Assuming the council doesn't have the votes to override, mu question is this: Can the Council once again amend the main motion of 1.0 with the 1.6 or 1.3 even though they were voted down during the last meeting? Are the amendments out of order?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR does not give anyone the power to veto. Since your council has rules which supersede those in RONR, I think the answer to your questions would have to be found in those rules.

[Guest Joe]

The Mayor does have the right to veto according to the bylaws. But my question is procedural. Can the same  amendment be made even though it wasvoted down at the last meeting?

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Generally, a defeated motion could be renewed at the next meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

By "next meeting", HHH means "any later session", and each of your council's sessions may continue over a substantial period of time. Your city charter (or whatever) will determine this.

 

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Joe said:

The Mayor does have the right to veto according to the bylaws. But my question is procedural. Can the same  amendment be made even though it wasvoted down at the last meeting?

 

48 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Generally, a defeated motion could be renewed at the next meeting.

 

42 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

By "next meeting", HHH means "any later session", and each of your council's sessions may continue over a substantial period of time. Your city charter (or whatever) will determine this.

I've been pondering this (and researching it) for over an hour.  My initial reaction was gong to be essentially the same as Hieu's, but I refrained from responding at that time because of my concern over whether each meeting of this city council is considered a separate session.  As Dan pointed out, a motion may be renewed at the next session,, but not necessarily at the next meeting.

However, there must be a way for the council to adopt an amendment that was originally rejected, short of suspending the rules.

Dan, if for the sake of argument we assume that each session of this council lasts four years (which may or may not be the case), wouldn't it be possible, at the next meeting (which is still within the same session)  when the vetoed ordinance is being reconsidered to move to reconsider the vote on an amendment which had been rejected?

Since a vetoed ordinance generally returns to a city council as if it had been reconsidered (which may or may not be the case here), when it comes up for reconsideration it is in the same posture it was in immediately before it was initially voted on.  Would the proper procedure at that time be for someone to move to reconsider the earlier rejected amendment which now seems to have majority support?

If not, what would the proper procedure be, other than to suspend the rules?

[Dan Honemann]

41 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 

 

I've been pondering this (and researching it) for over an hour.  My initial reaction was gong to be essentially the same as Hieu's, but I refrained from responding at that time because of my concern over whether each meeting of this city council is considered a separate session.  As Dan pointed out, a motion may be renewed at the next session,, but not necessarily at the next meeting.

However, there must be a way for the council to adopt an amendment that was originally rejected, short of suspending the rules.

Dan, if for the sake of argument we assume that each session of this council lasts four years (which may or may not be the case), wouldn't it be possible, at the next meeting (which is still within the same session)  when the vetoed ordinance is being reconsidered to move to reconsider the vote on an amendment which had been rejected?

Since a vetoed ordinance generally returns to a city council as if it had been reconsidered (which may or may not be the case here), when it comes up for reconsideration it is in the same posture it was in immediately before it was initially voted on.  Would the proper procedure at that time be for someone to move to reconsider the earlier rejected amendment which now seems to have majority support?

If not, what would the proper procedure be, other than to suspend the rules?

I think it is almost certain that Guest Joe's City Council has its own rules governing the reconsideration of vetoed bills or resolutions. That is where Guest Joe needs to look.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, it is ordinarily in order to move to reconsider a vote previously taken on a subsidiary motion to amend a main motion while that main motion is pending (whether on reconsideration or not).