HomeMy WebLinkAboutA006 - Legal opinion dated January 10, 1997 - Council procedure CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MEMO
CITY OF AMES
TO: Sandra L. Ryan, City Clerk JAN
FROM: John R. Klaus, City Attorney
DATE: January 10, 1997
SUBJECT: Item 23A, Agenda of January 6, 1997— Council Procedure
You have provided me with a transcript relative to City Council action on item 23A of the
agenda for the Council's meeting of January 6, 1997. It is my understanding that after the
meeting had adjourned,a member of the Council raised with you the question of whether
the action on item 23A was procedurally correct and complete under Robert's Rules of
Order. The next day you brought the question to the attention of the Mayor, and the
Mayor has asked,through you, for my analysis and opinion.
The procedural rules of the City Council, adopted pursuant to Section 372.13(5), Code of
Iowa are found at Section 2.25 of the Ames Municipal Code. Subsection 2.25(18) states:
"Upon questions arising not covered by this section, Robert's Rules of Order
shall govern."
Therefore, consideration will be given to both the City's Code and to Robert's Rules, as
appropriate.
From your transcript,it appears that the Mayor called for a motion with respect to items
23A and 23B together,and that a motion to adopt the staff recommendation on both those
items was made and seconded (Tr. p. 5).
After some discussion on that motion,a motion was made and seconded to consider items
23A and 23B separately (Tr. p. 6). That would seem to be a "Motion to Divide the
Question" which is governed by Section 24 of Robert's Rules, which states, in relevant
part:
"When a motion relating to a certain subject contains several parts, each of
which is capable of standing as a complete proposition if the others are
removed, it can be divided into two or more propositions to be considered
and voted on as distinct questions, by the assembly's adopting a motion to
divide the question in a specified manner. The motion must clearly state
how the question is to be divided..."
The requirements of Robert's Rules on a Motion to Divide the Question appear to have
been met. In any case, no objection was made. The motion passed 4/2 (Tr. p. 6). As a
result, two measures were then pending: a) a motion to adopt the staff recommendation
on agenda item 23A,and b) a motion to adopt the staff recommendation on agenda item
23B.
It was then moved and seconded that the motion on item 23A be amended to use 30% of
square footage instead of 25%of dwelling units(Tr. p. 7). After protracted discussion and
debate, the motion to amend was withdrawn by the movant (Tr. p. 15). That was in
accordance with subsection 2.25(3), Ames Code,which states that a motion:
11
... may be withdrawn by movant at any time."
Following the withdrawal of the motion to amend, a motion was made that the calculation
be made on the basis of square footage,with a limit of 25% (Tr. p. 15). From the transcript,
it appears that this was not stated as a motion to amend. It was stated in the form of a
main motion. As such, it was out of order. Per Section 11 of Robert's Rules, a main
motion cannot be made when any other question is before the assembly. But, there was
no objection. The motion was debated. Upon a 3/3 vote of the Council, the Mayor voted
to break the tie in favor of passage and declared the motion adopted (Tr. p. 17). The
Council then moved on to item 23B.
Although the motion adopted with respect to item 23A could have been objected to as an
out of order main motion, that point of order was not raised. In Section 21 of Robert's
Rules it is stated:
"The question of order must be raised at the time the breach of order occurs,
so that after a motion has been discussed, it is too late to raise the question
as to whether it was in order."
Similarly, Section 23 of Robert's Rules states:
"An objection may be made to the consideration of any original main
motion, and to no others, provided it is made before there is any debate or
before any subsidiary motion is stated."
There is an exception to this,as stated in Section 21 of Robert's Rules:
"Where the motion is in violation of the laws, or the constitution, or of
fundamental parliamentary principles, so that if adopted it would be null
and void. In such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order against
the motion."
However, no legal constitutional or "fundamental parliamentary principal" has been
transgressed. Indeed, the requirement to raise points of order on time is a fundamental
parliamentary principal. It serves the important purpose of protecting members from any
temptation to hold procedural objections until after it is seen where the vote has gone.
It seems from comments made after the meeting that many, if not all, of those in
attendance perceived the motion adopted on 23A to have been a motion to amend the main
motion that was then pending. There is nothing in Robert's Rules to authorize the
presiding officer to treat a motion other than as it is actually stated. However, if the Mayor
and/or Council do treat this motion as a motion to amend, then there was an amended
main motion left pending at the adjournment of the meeting. The applicable provision of
Robert's Rules on the effect of adjournment on unfinished business is stated at Section
17(b):
"When the adjournment closes a session in an assembly having regular
sessions as often as quarterly, the unfinished business should be taken up,
just where it was interrupted at the next succeeding session previous to new
business;..."
That is, as the first item of business at the next Council meeting, the Council would vote
on the pending main motion.
In any case, under Section 21 of Robert's Rules, the issue:
"must be decided by the presiding officer without debate, unless in doubtful
cases he submits the question to the assembly for decision..."
As the matter now stands, I will draft the ordinance in accordance with the motions the
Council adopted with respect to agenda items 23A and 23B. The procedural issue has
little, if any, legal significance. It is the law of Iowa that failure of a City Council to
conform to one of its procedural rules, or to parliamentary practice, will not void or
invalidate an action when the requisite number of Council members have voted for it.
McGraw v. Whitson, 69 Iowa 348, 28 N.W. 632 (1886); Mann v. LeMars, 109 Iowa 244, 80
N.W. 327 (1899); 4 McQuillin Mun. Corp. Ord Ed.) 13.42a.
Alternatives:
1. The Mayor can reject a point of order raised after the meeting as not timely,
and rule that the business has been concluded by the enactment of a main motion that
conflicted with the motion that was pending.
2. The Mayor can treat the motion adopted as an intended motion to amend the
pending main motion and place a vote on the pending main motion as the first item of
business on the agenda of the next Council meeting.
3. The Mayor can declare this procedural question a "doubtful case" and submit
it to the Council for decision.
Recommendation:
The first alternative is recommended. Procedural rules are for the purpose of controlling
conduct at a meeting,but not for determining the results of a meeting after it is adjourned,
when there has been a recorded vote of a requisite number of Council members on the
item of business to be determined.
JRK:gmw