tabled items

[Guest Robert]

Does tabled appointments that were under the old mayor's term still be considered valid if a new mayor takes over before the appointments have been removed from the table? Or does the new mayor get to appoint new people.

[Gary Novosielski]

If the rules in RONR apply, that business would fall to the ground at the end of that administration, and new appointments would be made by the new mayor, but it's not unusual that public bodies have rules that go beyond, or supersede the rules in RONR, so you should also check your own bylaws or equivalent rules.  If you have a municipal attorney, that could be a good place to shoot a question to.

[Guest Robert]

Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately, the attorney is not conforming to RONR and states the table items stand. I searched the internet and found this site. I'm trying to reference what has been stated and know there is something relatable, I'm just trying to find it in the book to prove what you have stated. Again thank you. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/23/2024 at 4:20 PM, Guest Robert said:

Does tabled appointments that were under the old mayor's term still be considered valid if a new mayor takes over before the appointments have been removed from the table?

I would first note that the organization is almost certainly using the motion to Lay on the Table improperly. See FAQ #12.

As to your question, my understanding is that the situation in question is one where certain appointments are made by the Mayor, but are then confirmed (or approved, ratified, whatever term you use) by the City Council. The appointments were in some manner delayed until after the Mayor's term ended and a new Mayor took office, and the question is whether the council may still act on these appointments.

In so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, these appointments (and any other business under the control of the council) "falls to the ground" when new terms of office begin.

But ultimately this is not a question about Robert's Rules of Order, but is a question concerning your council's rules, your city's charter and ordinances, and other applicable laws.

On 2/23/2024 at 5:48 PM, Guest Robert said:

Thank you for your quick response. Unfortunately, the attorney is not conforming to RONR and states the table items stand. I searched the internet and found this site. I'm trying to reference what has been stated and know there is something relatable, I'm just trying to find it in the book to prove what you have stated. Again thank you. 

The rule in RONR on this matter is as follows.

"When the adjournment closes a session in a body that will not have another regular session within a quarterly time interval (see 9:7), or closes a session that ends the term of all or some of the members (as may happen in an elected legislative assembly or in a board): Matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred (see 9:8–11), fall to the ground. They can, however, be introduced at the next session, the same as if they had never before been brought up." RONR (12th ed.) 21:7

But once again, the council's own rules and applicable law will take precedence over RONR in this matter.

[J. J.]

On 2/24/2024 at 11:07 AM, Josh Martin said:

 

As to your question, my understanding is that the situation in question is one where certain appointments are made by the Mayor, but are then confirmed (or approved, ratified, whatever term you use) by the City Council. The appointments were in some manner delayed until after the Mayor's term ended and a new Mayor took office, and the question is whether the council may still act on these appointments.

In so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, these appointments (and any other business under the control of the council) "falls to the ground" when new terms of office begin.

 

That may not be correct.  It is possible that the mayor made the appointments and submitted then to council; when pending, they were laid on the table.  The mayor's term ended, but the term of council did not.  In that case, the motion could be taken from the table and considered, subject to the rules relating to the motion Lay On the Table, i.e. at some point beyond the end of the next session and within the quarterly time interval (17:6-9). 

There is also the possibility that there is a single session, that may constitute a number of meeting throughout the year, with each additional effectively being an adjourned meeting.  (I have references to some public bodies doing that in previous posts.)

There is not enough information provided to determine if this correct or incorrect under RONR. 

[Josh Martin]

On 2/24/2024 at 10:41 AM, J. J. said:

That may not be correct.  It is possible that the mayor made the appointments and submitted then to council; when pending, they were laid on the table.  The mayor's term ended, but the term of council did not.  In that case, the motion could be taken from the table and considered, subject to the rules relating to the motion Lay On the Table, i.e. at some point beyond the end of the next session and within the quarterly time interval (17:6-9). 

I agree that to the extent the Mayor's term ended and the terms of the council did not, and assuming the Mayor is not a member of the council, then the motion would not fall to the ground. My answer assumed that the terms of some or all of the council members coincided with the term of the Mayor.

On 2/24/2024 at 10:41 AM, J. J. said:

There is also the possibility that there is a single session, that may constitute a number of meeting throughout the year, with each additional effectively being an adjourned meeting.  (I have references to some public bodies doing that in previous posts.)

I have no disagreement with this, but generally my experience is that when the terms of some or all of the council members end, that constitutes the end of the session.

I suppose, however, that if the terms of council members have not ended, this fact would prolong the length of time the motion could remain on the table.

"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. As long as a question remains on the table, any member can move to take it from the table at a regular meeting, including a meeting that is an adjournment (9) of a regular meeting. At a special meeting, however, a question can be taken from the table only if: (a) it has been laid on the table earlier at the same session, or (b) the call of the special meeting specifies either the particular question that lies on the table or its subject matter." RONR (12th ed.) 34:3

[J. J.]

On 2/25/2024 at 9:16 AM, Josh Martin said:

I agree that to the extent the Mayor's term ended and the terms of the council did not, and assuming the Mayor is not a member of the council, then the motion would not fall to the ground. My answer assumed that the terms of some or all of the council members coincided with the term of the Mayor.

I have no disagreement with this, but generally my experience is that when the terms of some or all of the council members end, that constitutes the end of the session.

I suppose, however, that if the terms of council members have not ended, this fact would prolong the length of time the motion could remain on the table.

"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. As long as a question remains on the table, any member can move to take it from the table at a regular meeting, including a meeting that is an adjournment (9) of a regular meeting. At a special meeting, however, a question can be taken from the table only if: (a) it has been laid on the table earlier at the same session, or (b) the call of the special meeting specifies either the particular question that lies on the table or its subject matter." RONR (12th ed.) 34:3

In some states, a mayor may be elected by a shorter period.

In my state, of the more than 900 mayoral positions, most are not permitted by statute to be a member of the council at the same time (though they are elected at the same time as council); you comment would be correct as to the election timing. However, not every state is my state.   

Guest Robert could provide perhaps more detailed information. 

 

Edited February 25, 2024 at 08:00 PM by J. J.

[J. J.]

It did occur to me that this exchange illustrates the difference between parliamentary law and parliamentary procedure.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/26/2024 at 3:26 AM, J. J. said:

It did occur to me that this exchange illustrates the difference between parliamentary law and parliamentary procedure.

How so?

[J. J.]

On 2/26/2024 at 9:09 AM, Dan Honemann said:

How so?

The standard in RONR is expressed by Mr. Martin, without regard to what the society's rule might be.  That is parliamentary law, in the sense that RONR uses it (p. xxix).

The possibility that I note includes rules that the creating body may have adopted for bodies of this specific type (p.  xxx).  It would be a better analogy if the assembly adopted the varying rules.  It would not be "parliamentary law" as defined in RONR.