Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Validity of Motion to Table in school board rezoning hearing


Orlandoparent

Recommended Posts

Hello, myself and a group of parents have been fighting for a school rezoning that went from meetings with staff to getting a community meeting in front of the OCPS school board, followed by a rules workshop where the option we wanted was moved forward and finally the school board public hearing meeting. The enrollment department and superintendent recommended the rezone be approved, but at the meeting the chair (our biggest advocate) was absent and our district rep took advantage of this and motioned to table the rezone indefinitely.

The following is what was sent by a member of the general counsel regarding it after we tried to say Robert's wasn't correctly followed: 

"There is no right to appeal a tabling of a rezoning matter (either in statute or in Board Policy). In tabling the action, the Board acted in accordance with Board Policy JC (see School Attendance Rezoning Process – specifically section (7)(e)).  “The school board is composed of elected officials who serve a quasi-legislative function when they draw school zone boundary lines. A reviewing court may overturn a boundary line decision only when the school board has given in to a flagrant abuse of discretion. See Polk and authorities cited therein. That is why we are compelled to sustain the board’s action. Where, as here, the school board makes a decision within its discretion, the aggrieved parents’ remedy is not judicial, but political.”  Plantation Residents Association, Inc. v. School Board of Broward County, 424 So.2d 879, 880-881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).  Under Roberts’ Rules of Order, tabling allows the board to bring the item up either later in the meeting or at a later date.  In this case, Member Gould made a motion to “table this rezoning at this time and reconsider it at a future date.”  The motion was seconded and voted upon.  No specific date was discussed. At this time, there is no set date to bring back this item.  Note that the district will be required to comply with the provisions in Board Policy JC when the item is evaluated again."

If you look at the Board Policy link above in the section she mentions (7e) it says that one of four things must happen. Tabling indefinitely is not one of the four. My question is does Robert's supersede the statutes in our State Constitution and was it appropriate for the motion to be invoked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roberts rules don't have a motion to " table indefinitly" (there is a motion to "postpone indefinitely " RONR section 11)

And Robert s rules do not supersede the statutes.

So no, the motion was out of order.

The board is limited to one of the four options mentioned in the statutes.

Not that in practice it would change a lot. Sadly

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Assuming they meant "Lay on the Table", which the quote from the General Counsel implies they did ("at a later date", which you could not do if it was Postponed Indefinitely), there is a limitation on how long the motion can actually lay there...

Quote

17:8      A question that has been laid on the table remains there and can be taken from the table during the same session (8), or, if the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see 9:7), also until the end of the next regular session. If not taken from the table within these time limits, the question dies, although it can be reintroduced later as a new question. (For additional rules regarding the meetings at which a question can be taken from the table, see Time Limits on Taking a Question from the Table, 34:3.)

Robert, Henry M.. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition (p. 224). PublicAffairs. Kindle Edition. 

I read this to mean that the motion dies at the end of the next regularly scheduled school board meeting following the one at which it was tabled (assuming they are scheduled more frequently than quarterly).  If you school board meets as frequently as mine, that could be only a couple of weeks (if not much sooner).

I will leave the question of how the word "may", as opposed to "shall", is interpreted in your school board policies, to lawyers, but would note that any of the 4 options in 7(e) would presumably need to be accomplished in a parliamentary fashion through one or more motions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2023 at 9:48 PM, laser158689 said:

Assuming they meant "Lay on the Table", which the quote from the General Counsel implies they did ("at a later date", which you could not do if it was Postponed Indefinitely), there is a limitation on how long the motion can actually lay there...

I read this to mean that the motion dies at the end of the next regularly scheduled school board meeting following the one at which it was tabled (assuming they are scheduled more frequently than quarterly).  If you school board meets as frequently as mine, that could be only a couple of weeks (if not much sooner).

I will leave the question of how the word "may", as opposed to "shall", is interpreted in your school board policies, to lawyers, but would note that any of the 4 options in 7(e) would presumably need to be accomplished in a parliamentary fashion through one or more motions.

I politly disagree (sorry)

the linked policy (board policy jc, rezoning , 7 e) 

Tells us that there are only 4 decisions the board may take.

(At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board may take action to:

(i) adopt one of the recommended options;

(ii) direct staff to readvertise for a Rule Development Workshop any substantive modification to a recommended option in accordance with Step 6 above,

(iii) reject recommended options and direct that Student Enrollment undertake an additional review for the purpose of devising alternative attendance zone options, or

(iv) withdraw the proposed rezoning. 

These policies overrule RONR and tabling is not one of them.

(But "tabling" or "postponing indefinitely "can be seen as a form of the last option)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/5/2023 at 4:48 PM, laser158689 said:

("at a later date", which you could not do if it was Postponed Indefinitely),

Sure you could. A motion that has been postponed indefinitely is only killed for the current session. Nothing prevents it from being moved again at the next session (which usually means the next meeting, unless the board's rules define session as more than one meeting, as some do).

Edited by Atul Kapur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would first note that as the matter in question involves public bodies and rezoning issues, there are almost certainly extensive customized rules on this matter in applicable law and/or the assembly's own rules on this subject (and indeed, the attorney has referred to some such rules). Those rules will take precedence over RONR, and I am not familiar with those rules. As a result, I am doubtful this forum will be of much assistance, and I expect you will ultimately need to consult an attorney with expertise in zoning matters if you wish to pursue this issue further.

To the extent this information may be of assistance, however, I will attempt to answer the questions as best as I can based upon the rules of RONR.

On 5/3/2023 at 7:45 PM, Orlandoparent said:

...and motioned to table the rezone indefinitely.

This appears to confuse the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. The latter seems more likely to have been what was meant. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13. Under the rules in RONR, such a motion is in order and "kills" the motion for the duration of the current session, however, the motion may be introduced again at a later session.

On 5/3/2023 at 7:45 PM, Orlandoparent said:

"There is no right to appeal a tabling of a rezoning matter (either in statute or in Board Policy). In tabling the action, the Board acted in accordance with Board Policy JC (see School Attendance Rezoning Process – specifically section (7)(e)).  “The school board is composed of elected officials who serve a quasi-legislative function when they draw school zone boundary lines. A reviewing court may overturn a boundary line decision only when the school board has given in to a flagrant abuse of discretion. See Polk and authorities cited therein. That is why we are compelled to sustain the board’s action. Where, as here, the school board makes a decision within its discretion, the aggrieved parents’ remedy is not judicial, but political.”  Plantation Residents Association, Inc. v. School Board of Broward County, 424 So.2d 879, 880-881 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).  Under Roberts’ Rules of Order, tabling allows the board to bring the item up either later in the meeting or at a later date.  In this case, Member Gould made a motion to “table this rezoning at this time and reconsider it at a future date.”  The motion was seconded and voted upon.  No specific date was discussed. At this time, there is no set date to bring back this item.  Note that the district will be required to comply with the provisions in Board Policy JC when the item is evaluated again."

I cannot speak to the attorney's interpretation of case law or the board's policies. With respect to the attorney's interpretation of RONR, the attorney appears to be confusing the motion to Lay on the Table with the motions to Postpone to a Certain Time and Postpone Indefinitely (which is not uncommon).

I concur with the attorney, however, that at least under the rules in RONR, the board had the authority to adopt a motion of this nature if it wished to do so, and that the effect is that there is now "no set date to bring back this item" and that it will not be brought back until a board member moves this item again at a future meeting.

On 5/3/2023 at 7:45 PM, Orlandoparent said:

If you look at the Board Policy link above in the section she mentions (7e) it says that one of four things must happen. Tabling indefinitely is not one of the four. My question is does Robert's supersede the statutes in our State Constitution and was it appropriate for the motion to be invoked?

No, Robert's Rules does not supersede your school board's rules, state statute, or your state's constitution. All of those rules would take precedence over RONR.

I cannot speak to the correct interpretation of those rules.

On 5/5/2023 at 5:49 PM, puzzling said:

Tells us that there are only 4 decisions the board may take.

(At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the Board may take action to:

(i) adopt one of the recommended options;

(ii) direct staff to readvertise for a Rule Development Workshop any substantive modification to a recommended option in accordance with Step 6 above,

(iii) reject recommended options and direct that Student Enrollment undertake an additional review for the purpose of devising alternative attendance zone options, or

(iv) withdraw the proposed rezoning. 

These policies overrule RONR and tabling is not one of them.

I express no view on the proper interpretation of this rule, which I leave to the board and its attorneys. I would note, however, that based upon the wording, it may be that the rule is intended only to limit the decisions before the board for final action on the proposal, and not to limit the ability of the board to temporarily dispose of the matter, such as through postponement.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I interpret the motion to “Table indefinitely“ to be a poorly worded motion to postpone indefinitely.  A motion which has been postponed indefinitely may be renewed (Megan) at the next session or at any future session.

There is no such thing in RONR as a motion “to table“ or to “table indefinitely“. There is such a thing as a motion to “lay on the table“ but based upon the context it seems clear to me that is not what was intended.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/6/2023 at 1:29 PM, Josh Martin said:

 

I express no view on the proper interpretation of this rule, which I leave to the board and its attorneys. I would note, however, that based upon the wording, it may be that the rule is intended only to limit the decisions before the board for final action on the proposal, and not to limit the ability of the board to temporarily dispose of the matter, such as through postponement.

The board seems to have the opinion that a motion to table indefinitely is a proper motion at that time.  (Otherwise they could not have moved or adopteren it) 

But  i agree let's leave it to an attorney

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...