Reconsider

[Guest Michael]

If a body has seven members. Four is quorum. Four votes are required in the affirmative to pass an item. Only four members are present. The vote results in a 3-1 outcome. Who are the only member(s) allowed to reconsider?

[George Mervosh]

If a body has seven members. Four is quorum. Four votes are required in the affirmative to pass an item. Only four members are present. The vote results in a 3-1 outcome. Who are the only member(s) allowed to reconsider?

To answer your question, answer this one.......who says four votes are required in the affirmative? Not Robert's Rules, that's why I ask.

Edit - and it's probably too late to reconsider but we can get into that in a minute.

[hmtcastle]

Who are the only member(s) allowed to [make a motion to] reconsider?

Those who voted on the prevailing side.

If the motion was adopted, that's those who voted in the affirmative. If the motion was lost, it's those who voted against it.

[Guest Michael]

To answer your question, answer this one.......who says four votes are required in the affirmative? Not Robert's Rules, that's why I ask.

Edit - and it's probably too late to reconsider but we can get into that in a minute.

The adopted rules of the planning board state that it shall be governed by Robert's Rules, but goes on to add certain language that a quorum is four and that four votes are required in the affirmative to pass an item.

[J. J.]

If a body has seven members. Four is quorum. Four votes are required in the affirmative to pass an item. Only four members are present. The vote results in a 3-1 outcome. Who are the only member(s) allowed to reconsider?

Was the motion declared adopted or defeated?

[Guest Michael]

Was the motion declared adopted or defeated?

This is the portion of the draft minutes in question - However, it appears that the determination that the 'vote has failed with no action' is a Loose interpretation of the adopted rules of the planning board.

d. To consider the Planning Board initiated amendment to Appendix A. Article XI, Section 13©(6) to eliminate boarding houses and to allow lodging houses in the Centreville District.

Xxxx asked if the comments from Xxx are the same as the Downtown Residential District and Xxxxx stated they were. She asked if there were any comments from the Board or the public and there were none.

The following motion was made.

MOTION: by Xxxxx Xxxxx pursuant to Appendix A, Article XVII of the Code to send a favorable recommendation to the City Council to amend Appendix A, Article XI, Section 13©(6) of the Code to eliminate boarding houses as a permitted use and to allow lodging houses as a permitted use in the Centerville District. Second by Xxxx Xxxxxxxx.

VOTED: 3-1 (Opposed – Xxxxx Xxxxxxxxxxx. No action taken-public hearing requires concurring vote of at least four members.)

Xxxxx stated that because Xxxxx is opposed, the vote has failed with no action taken. Any matter that requires a public hearing technically requires a concurring vote of at least four members. Xxxx asked Xxxxx to articulate for the record why he voted no. Xxxxx stated because of the use and what we are thinking of doing in the future to the downtown and the matrix, he was not sure lodging houses are best for the area. Xxxxx stated if the ordinance is left as is only boarding houses would be allowed in the district. Xxxx stated that this could be brought up at a later date. He stated if there were more members present, there may be more members that agree or are opposed. Lucy stated this could also be discussed again when the matrix comes up.

The following motion was made.

MOTION: by Xxxxx Xxxxx to continue the Centerville District discussion until the August 8, 2010 Planning Board Meeting. Second by Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx.

VOTED: 4-0 (Passed).

[hmtcastle]

This is the portion of the draft minutes in question - However, it appears that the determination that the 'vote has failed with no action' is a Loose interpretation of the adopted rules of the planning board.

The motion was not adopted. It's too late to make a motion to reconsider but any member can renew the motion (i.e. make it again as if it had never been made). Your rules may vary.

[bobbjohnhendry55]

If a body has seven members. Four is quorum. Four votes are required in the affirmative to pass an item. Only four members are present. The vote results in a 3-1 outcome. Who are the only member(s) allowed to reconsider?

I have the same predicament. I serve on a city board of adjustment. Last week I was the prevailing vote as I voted no. We have five members and two alternates usually. Last week we only had four members present. In the past, we always allowed the applicants to defer till the next meeting in the beginning. This time three of the members allowed the applicants to go the whole case and then decide on whether or not to defer depending on our questions. This one company chose to go ahead and take the chance. I was very uncomfortable with the case and voted against it. The member next to me was upset, turned to the chairman and ask how to revisit the case. He was told the prevailing party would have to open the case for it to be revisited, because I would not revisit it, the chairman allowed this member to change his vote [ WHICH HAD ALREADY ] been recorded in the minutes, then he opened the case wit a re visit and allowed the applicant to defer her case until oour next meeting. Should a vote be allowed to be changed after it is recorded in the records.

Bob

[Josh Martin]

This is the portion of the draft minutes in question...

You should stop including discussion in the minutes. The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said.

Should a vote be allowed to be changed after it is recorded in the records.

After the result of the vote has been announced, a member may change his vote only by unanimous consent. After the next item of business has been stated by the chair, no one may change his vote. It is also not necessary to do so. The requirements for the prevailing party only apply to the motion to reconsider, which has very strict time limits. Any member, regardless of how he voted on the original motion, could renew the motion at the next meeting.

[Trina]

...

After the result of the vote has been announced, a member may change his vote only by unanimous consent. After the next item of business has been stated by the chair, no one may change his vote. It is also not necessary to do so. The requirements for the prevailing party only apply to the motion to reconsider, which has very strict time limits. Any member, regardless of how he voted on the original motion, could renew the motion at the next meeting.

However, it may be that the applicants (who aren't members) don't have the right to apply again at the next meeting if their case is turned down. This does sound like an odd situation, in that the motion was being reconsidered not in order to have the members further debate and take another vote, but rather, to allow the applicant (non-member) to make a decision to defer the vote to a future meeting.

In any case, since no one objected at the time to the chair allowing the member to change his vote, it's a done deal. There doesn't seem to be any continuing breach.

[bobbjohnhendry55]

on the board of adjustment question, there has always been 5 members on the board. so 4 must vote to affirm. if there is only 4 members present they stii say you must have a 4 count for affirmation.

the vote was already complete and recorded so i was the prevailing party.

the other three changed the vote on one of them and he reopened the issue, so they could allow the petitioner to defer to next meeting. this was done with all backs turned to me..bob

[Josh Martin]

on the board of adjustment question, there has always been 5 members on the board. so 4 must vote to affirm. if there is only 4 members present they stii say you must have a 4 count for affirmation.

the vote was already complete and recorded so i was the prevailing party.

the other three changed the vote on one of them and he reopened the issue, so they could allow the petitioner to defer to next meeting. this was done with all backs turned to me..bob

Bob, as I have already noted, they could have just renewed the motion at the next meeting. Additionally, the relevant rules are suspendable, and they had enough votes to suspend the rules. So at the end of the day it doesn't really make a big difference.

I don't understand why your board has such a high voting requirement for this, but that doesn't affect the parliamentary rules.