Legality of Motion "Intent"

[Guest KimW]

Hi! Last night we had an interesting situation occur during a joint meeting of our planning commission and city council. When it came time for the motion, the maker of the motion read from the city's staff report as: Staff recommends that the planning commission approve..." but in neither case did the makers say I move that or I make a motion that...

City attorney says leaving that off doesn't negate the "intent" which was to adopt staff's recommendations. But everything I know says that since the makers didn't actually say they moved, there wasn't a motion.

I'd love to hear your expert advice! Thanks in advance.

[George Mervosh]

Did they vote on the recommendation?

[Richard Brown]

So, what happened?  Did the chair permit the motion/recommendations to be considered?   Were they adopted (or approved)?

Even though there was never a formal  motion to adopt or approve the recommendation, if the chair permitted it to be considered and there was no point of order raised, it is too late to do anything about it now.  In my opinion, the intent could have been obvious to the chair and the chair treated it as an assumed motion, which is permissible.   See pages 506-509 and 514ff.

Proper procedure, of course, would have been for the member to formally move to adopt/approve the recommendations, but failure to make the motion does not render it invalid in the absence of a timely point of order.

Note:  Since this is a public body, this procedure might be subject to state or local law and procedures, all of which trump  RONR.

 

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Note:  Since this is a public body, this procedure might be subject to state or local law and procedures, all of which trump  RONR.

It appears their city attorney had no problem with whatever happened.  

[Guest Zev]

I had the impression that the planning commission just referred to themselves in the third person. Perhaps they thought it was kind of cute and lent an air of formality to the process.

[Guest KimW]

4 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

Did they vote on the recommendation?

Yes, they did. There was the intent to approve the staff's recommendation from the city council and commission. It sounds as if it didn't matter that they didn't use the word "motion" or "move" and that as long as the intent was there, it was all good. No one made a point of order. The only concern is whether that is something that can be of legal issue later given that we expect a member of the community seeking to have a manufactured home park in an area the text amendment was approved last night removed the ability. Long story.

The attorney actually reconvened quickly and had them make the motion in the correct way.

Thank you!

[Gary Novosielski]

It is not uncommon for the chair to assume a motion, and if debate follows, and a vote to approve carries, the failure of the reporting member to say the word "move" does not seem to me to create a continuing breach.

I'm not certain what you mean by "reconvened", but if action was taken after adjournment, that would appear to further complicate the matter, not remedy it.