Guest John A. Kinnaird Posted November 16, 2010 at 05:12 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 05:12 AM At a municipal Board of Commissioners meeting two weeks ago a motion to adopt a change in the Zoning Regulations was defeated 3-2. A week ago there was a closed workshop and some change were made to the proposed regulation. At this weeks meeting the motion was once again introduced, voted on and passed 5-0.My question is, should one of the majority from the vote to defeat have moved to revisit the motion before the second vote? I have always been under the impression that in order to revisit a defeated motion one of those who voted in the majority had to move to do so.If this is the case my next question would be is the newly adopted motion valid? In discussing this with others I have been told that the motion passed this week was a new motion in light of the small changes introduced in the recently amended version. State law required that the original regulation be subject to a public hearing before it could be considered for adoption. If this was a motion to adopt a new regulation then it should also be subject to a public hearing before a vote to adopt.Thanks for your assistance, John A. Kinnaird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:05 AM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:05 AM At a municipal Board of Commissioners meeting two weeks ago ...Ah! "Two weeks ago"?This is an important parliamentary fact.... a motion to adopt a change in the Zoning Regulations was defeated 3-2. Ah! "Defeated"?This is likewise an important parliamentary fact.A week ago there was a closed workshop and some change were made to the proposed regulation. At this weeks meeting the motion was once again introduced, voted on and passed 5-0.My question is, should one of the majority from the vote to defeat have moved to revisit the motion before the second vote?No.You are confusing two concepts: (a.) Reconsideration; (b.) renewal of a (defeated) motion.I have always been under the impression that in order to revisit a defeated motion one of those who voted in the majority had to move to do so.That's "Reconsideration" you are remembering.If this is the case my next question would be is the newly adopted motion valid?Yes. - All other things being equal. In discussing this with others I have been told that the motion passed this week was a new motion in light of the small changes introduced in the recently amended version. State law required that the original regulation be subject to a public hearing before it could be considered for adoption. If this was a motion to adopt a new regulation then it should also be subject to a public hearing before a vote to adopt."State law"?That is up to you and your legal counsel.We don't practice law. We don't give legal advice.Our answers are based on ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED, 10th edition, published by DaCapo, 2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest John A. Kinnaird Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:38 PM Report Share Posted November 16, 2010 at 06:38 PM Ah! "Two weeks ago"?This is an important parliamentary fact.Ah! "Defeated"?This is likewise an important parliamentary fact.No.You are confusing two concepts: (a.) Reconsideration; (b.) renewal of a (defeated) motion.That's "Reconsideration" you are remembering.Yes. - All other things being equal."State law"?That is up to you and your legal counsel.We don't practice law. We don't give legal advice.Our answers are based on ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER NEWLY REVISED, 10th edition, published by DaCapo, 2000.Thanks for your input, I see that I am confusing two issues. John A. Kinnaird Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.