Immediate reversal of passed motion

[Sandi2881]

Our upcoming town board meeting is to be held next month where after unfinished business, a new board will be taking over before new business. It is expected that the outgoing board members are going to be passing a motion before they leave to spend quite a substantial amount of money from a specific department.  A number of the newly elected board members have expressed concern as to what they say is an unnecessary expenditure. Can the newly seated board immediately reverse the motion that was previously made under "unfinished business" during "any other business before the board" which comes immediately after "new business" by making another motion to halt the expenditure and subsequent action? If not, is there another way to halt the action to spend this money, until another vote of the new board can be taken? 

[jstackpo]

In "pure" RONR-land rules, there would be no problem with someone on the "new board" (actually the SAME board but with some, or all, new members) moving to rescind the previously adopted motion to spend those big bucks.  See page 305ff.

HOWEVER (1 of 2 "howevers"):  since it won't be possible for the new board members to give prior notice, it will require a 2/3 vote to rescind the expenditure motion, or a majority of the entire membership of the board.  This could be a stopper. Or not.

HOWEVER (#2): Many municipal board rules (which go beyond and supersede RONR's rules) require some sort of public previous notice for all business to be brought up at a board meeting.  Do yours?  Does the rule apply?  Ask your town's lawyer.  We can't answer that one since it isn't RONR's rule.

A third option with all sorts of contingencies:  IF a particular "old board" member is continuing service on the "new board" (he got re-elected) AND he was opposed to the expenditure, AND he was willing to vote for the expense (which might get him in trouble with his constituents!) during the first portion of the board meeting, he could THEN, when the new members take over, move to reconsider (p. 315ff) the earlier vote.  Adopting reconsider, followed by presumably a vote to defeat (not "rescind) the expenditure vote, could all be done by majority votes.  Again, check with your lawyer as to possible notice requirements.

[Joshua Katz]

Dr. Stackpole: it looks to me like the OP is talking about reversing this action at the same session. Why not use Reconsider?

[jstackpo]

That was the third option...

[Joshua Katz]

Sorry, just woke up.

[Dan Honemann]

Chances are that, if virtually all board members are in attendance after the mid-meeting change of membership, the making and adoption of a motion to rescind the previously adopted money expenditure motion may be the easiest way to achieve the desired result, since the vote of a majority of the entire board, as then constituted, will do the trick (Dr. Stackpole's initial suggestion). 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Dr. Stackpole: it looks to me like the OP is talking about reversing this action at the same session. Why not use Reconsider?

Reconsider can only be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side, so this will only work if one of the board members who voted in favor of the motion was re-elected and has had a sudden change of heart.

[jstackpo]

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

has had a sudden change of heart

Or voted strategically first time around,  as suggested.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I'm not convinced that a new board can be installed during the same session as the current board, let alone during the same meeting.

[Guest Zev]

51 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm not convinced that a new board can be installed during the same session as the current board, let alone during the same meeting.

I do admit it sounds a little bit unusual but I cannot think of a reason why a board could not hold a business meeting, make decisions, and afterwards hold an election and installation of a new board followed by an additional business meeting.

[Shmuel Gerber]

12 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I do admit it sounds a little bit unusual but I cannot think of a reason why a board could not hold a business meeting, make decisions, and afterwards hold an election and installation of a new board followed by an additional business meeting.

What does that have to do with what I said?

[Dan Honemann]

14 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm not convinced that a new board can be installed during the same session as the current board, let alone during the same meeting.

Well, apparently that's the way this board does things, so I suppose it is in accordance with its own rules.

[Shmuel Gerber]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, apparently that's the way this board does things, so I suppose it is in accordance with its own rules.

Maybe. But unless their rules are very specific on this point, I would guess that from a procedural perspective they are actually doing what Zev suggests:

18 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I cannot think of a reason why a board could not hold a business meeting, make decisions, and afterwards hold an election and installation of a new board followed by an additional business meeting.

To me it just doesn't seem possible that under the rules in RONR there could be a continuation of the same board meeting or session after a periodic change in board membership has occurred.

[Guest Zev]

49 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

To me it just doesn't seem possible that under the rules in RONR there could be a continuation of the same board meeting or session after a periodic change in board membership has occurred.

Why not?

Quote

An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time.

RONR 11th edition page 444. I know of no rule that requires a meeting to adjourn following an election and installation of new officers. Perhaps it is here somewhere. 

[Richard Brown]

21 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm not convinced that a new board can be installed during the same session as the current board, let alone during the same meeting.

The language on pages 488-499 regarding "Periodic Partial Change in Board Membership" does tend to lend support to Mr. Gerber's position:

EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP. In cases where a board is constituted so that a specified portion of its membership is chosen periodically (as, for example, where one third of the board is [page 489] elected annually for three-year terms), it becomes, in effect, a new board each time such a group assumes board membership. Consequently, when the outgoing portion of the board vacates membership, all matters temporarily but not finally disposed of (see pp. 90–91), except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground under provision (c) on page 237. (See also p. 502, l. 26 to p. 503, l. 2, regarding the continuity of matters that have been referred to a special committee appointed by the board.) If the board is one that elects its own officers or appoints standing committees, it chooses new officers and committees as soon as the new board members have taken up their duties, just as if the entire board membership had changed. The individual replacement of persons who may occasionally vacate board membership at other times, however, does not have these effects.

FWIW, I have attended meetings of organizations at which the newly elected president takes the gavel and takes over the meeting smack in the middle of the meeting as soon as elected.  RONR does state that elections take effect immediately unless there is a bylaw provision to the contrary. 

Intriguing situation.   We must keep in  mind, too, that it appears this might be a public body subject to superior state or local laws.  The original post did refer to the  "upcoming town board meeting".

[jstackpo]

53 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

To me it just doesn't seem possible that under the rules in RONR there could be a continuation of the same board meeting or session after a periodic change in board membership has occurred.

Mais pourquoi pas?

If a membership meeting can switch officers, perhaps sequentially, as election results are announced by the (soon to be past) chairman, or the new one, for lesser offices, and then continue the same meeting with more business, why couldn't the board, although "effectively" (whatever that means)  a new board  (p. 489), continue business right after some or all of its members are swapped out for new ones?