withdrawing a application after a motion to vote on it

[Guest guy phillips]

a recent city council made a motion to vote on an applicants text amendment. after hearing all the councils remarks,and realizing the applicant would lose by a 4-3 margin, the applicants lawyer got up and said the applicant is withdrawing his application. the motion had already been made and seconded, just not voted on. the city lawyer said this was ok . I dont think so. is there a precedent?

[Gary Novosielski]

a recent city council made a motion to vote on an applicants text amendment. after hearing all the councils remarks,and realizing the applicant would lose by a 4-3 margin, the applicants lawyer got up and said the applicant is withdrawing his application. the motion had already been made and seconded, just not voted on. the city lawyer said this was ok . I dont think so. is there a precedent?

It is okay, with the consent of (a majority of) the city council. But if they want to, they can insist on taking it to a vote. From what happened it sounds like the withdrawal was okay with them.

[David A Foulkes]

a recent city council made a motion to vote on an applicants text amendment. after hearing all the councils remarks,and realizing the applicant would lose by a 4-3 margin, the applicants lawyer got up and said the applicant is withdrawing his application. the motion had already been made and seconded, just not voted on. the city lawyer said this was ok . I dont think so. is there a precedent?

Might be worth clarifying that the city lawyer was not quite right. Before the motion is stated by the chair, the maker can withdraw his motion with no need for anyone's consent or approval. After the chair states the question (but before any voting has begun), the assembly "owns" it, and only with their approval (general consent, or a majority vote) can it be withdrawn. It's not enough for anyone, lawyers included, to stand up and simply say "My client withdraws his motion." Of course, as Mr. Novosielski notes, if no one objects, that could be interpreted as consent. And since it appears the motion would have been defeated anyway, a little time saved perhaps.

And I see now by Mr. Mt's post that I addresses the wrong issue here, eh?

[hmtcastle]

It is okay, with the consent of (a majority of) the city council.

Though it's not up to the applicant (who, presumably is not a member of the council) to either make or withdraw the motion.

[David A Foulkes]

Though it's not up to the applicant (who, presumably is not a member of the council) to either make or withdraw the motion.

Ah,.... motion... application.... yes, a bit of difference there. Je regret...

[Gary Novosielski]

Might be worth clarifying that the city lawyer was not quite right. Before the motion is stated by the chair, the maker can withdraw his motion with no need for anyone's consent or approval. After the chair states the question, the assembly "owns" it, and only with their approval (general consent, or a majority vote) can it be withdrawn. It's not enough for anyone, lawyers included, to stand up and simply say "My client withdraws his motion." Of course, as Mr. Novosielski notes, if no one objects, that could be interpreted as consent. And since it appears the motion would have been defeated anyway, a little time saved perhaps.

Mr. Foulkes is right. When I read that the "city lawyer said it was ok", what came to mind was that someone on the council probably asked the lawyer, "Is that okay, can we let him withdraw it?" At least I hope someone asked him. I don't have a lot of patience with lawyers who pipe up with their volunteered opinion on every item of business that comes along.

(Of course, for all I know, lawyers say that about parliamentarians.)

[Josh Martin]

a recent city council made a motion to vote on an applicants text amendment. after hearing all the councils remarks,and realizing the applicant would lose by a 4-3 margin, the applicants lawyer got up and said the applicant is withdrawing his application. the motion had already been made and seconded, just not voted on. the city lawyer said this was ok . I dont think so. is there a precedent?

So far as RONR is concerned, the motion may only be withdrawn by the motion maker, and after the question is stated by the chair, this requires the consent of the assembly. Whether and when the application can be withdrawn will be controlled by local law. The lawyer may or may not be correct, but I have no idea as I'm not familiar with your local laws.

(Of course, for all I know, lawyers say that about parliamentarians.)

If parliamentarians are piping up on every item of business which comes along, they aren't doing a very good job, so the lawyers can say what they will about them.