Reconsideration

[Guest Steve Gray]

The Mayor explained at the beginning of a special meeting that she had called the meeting to reconsider a decision made at our last regular Council meeting.  At that last meeting, a motion was made on a matter but that motion was withdrawn and a consensus decision was made to postpone consideration of the matter until the fall.  Her authority to call a special meeting to reconsider a matter and vote again on the matter is not in question.  At the special meeting, no motion was made to reconsider the consensus decision to postpone the matter.  Instead, a motion was made on the matter itself and the vote passed. Is the vote on the matter valid given the earlier postponement decision was not reconsidered? Much appreciate your advice.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, I have a few questions, but I don't think the answer turns on any of them. Even though pieces may have been out of order, I don't see anything that would create a continuing breach, and so the vote would be valid given that there was no point of order raised at the time.

[Bruce Lages]

If the rules in RONR govern - which may or may not be the case (see below) - the 'consensus decision', which would seem to be similar to a unanimous consent decision as defined in RONR, was probably not in order. If the motion was in fact withdrawn, there would be nothing to postpone. The motion to postpone definitely (RONR, 12th ed. §14) is applied to main motions, motions to Postpone Indefinitely, Amend, and Commit, and certain other procedural motions. In this case, none of these were pending so there was nothing to apply Postpone Definitely to. 

So, in agreement with Mr. Katz, I think what happened at the special meeting was in order and stands. A new motion on the same subject could have been made at the same meeting, and could also be made at any subsequent meeting.

However, since this seems to be a town council, there may well be applicable rules and procedures which will supercede many of the rules in RONR. It maybe worthwhile to check with the town's attorney to see whether there any such provisions or whether RONR does apply to the council's proceedings.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Mr. Lages that weather what happened was appropriate depends more upon local and state law and the council’s own rules than upon the rules in RONR. I will add that under the rules in RONR, I believe that reconsideration was not proper. Bringing the motion or ordinance up again as a new motion would be proper under RONR, but might well violate whatever open meetings or sunshine laws and requirements for previous notice that your council might be subject to.

[Josh Martin]

On 8/1/2024 at 2:49 PM, Guest Steve Gray said:

The Mayor explained at the beginning of a special meeting that she had called the meeting to reconsider a decision made at our last regular Council meeting.  At that last meeting, a motion was made on a matter but that motion was withdrawn and a consensus decision was made to postpone consideration of the matter until the fall.  Her authority to call a special meeting to reconsider a matter and vote again on the matter is not in question.  At the special meeting, no motion was made to reconsider the consensus decision to postpone the matter.  Instead, a motion was made on the matter itself and the vote passed. Is the vote on the matter valid given the earlier postponement decision was not reconsidered? Much appreciate your advice.

Since this is a public body, this will ultimately be a question for an attorney.

As a purely parliamentary question, however, I don't see a problem.

I would also note that (at least under the rules in RONR), reconsideration does not appear to have been in order under the circumstances described, so the appropriate course of action would have actually been to suspend the rules to take up the motion prior to the time to which it had been postponed.* The fact that this was not done, however, is not a sufficiently grave violation to constitute a continuing breach. A Point of Order concerning that error would have had to have been raised at the time. (Assuming for the sake of argument that reconsideration is an option under the organization's rules, my answer would still be the same.)

* There is also a question as to whether a decision "postpone consideration of the matter until the fall" is itself in order, since there are time limits as to how far a motion may be postponed, but I don't think it's necessary to reach that issue here.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, since the original post makes hash out of the "lingo" of parliamentary procedure, I really cannot begin to be able to figure out what happened.

[Atul Kapur]

On 8/2/2024 at 1:12 PM, Josh Martin said:

so the appropriate course of action would have actually been to suspend the rules to take up the motion prior to the time to which it had been postponed

There is another interpretation of the events that doesn't raise concerns or require a suspension of any rules

On 8/1/2024 at 3:49 PM, Guest Steve Gray said:

At that last meeting, a motion was made on a matter but that motion was withdrawn 

As the motion was withdrawn, it is treated as if it was not ever made. There was no disposition of a motion that needs to be reconsidered or rescinded. At the next meeting, or any subsequent meeting, the motion can be renewed if desired.

On 8/1/2024 at 3:49 PM, Guest Steve Gray said:

motion was withdrawn and a consensus decision was made to postpone consideration of the matter until the fall. 

It appears that, after the motion was withdrawn, there was an informal agreement ("consensus decision") to consider the topic or subject in the fall. But nothing was formally postponed because there was no pending motion. 

So there is no barrier to the mayor bringing a motion to a special meeting, before the fall, and it being validly adopted.

While there was no barrier, it sounds like there was definitely some confusion arising out of uninformed use of parliamentary terminology, such as postpone and reconsider. Such confusion is an unfortunately common result of excessive informality.

It is also possible that withdrawn has been used incorrectly, which would affect my analysis. The OP may be able to advise whether my description matches what occurred.

Edited August 2, 2024 at 09:51 PM by Atul Kapur