City attorney’s recommendation to chair conflicted with Robert’s Rules of Order
Kreller made motion to raise limit to 170 apartments after developer asked
Zuckerman called point of order citing Robert’s Rules of Order
Motion to ‘Reconsider’ out of order
Amendments can’t nullify, modify amendments from previous meeting
Updated August 17, 2023, at 10:31 a.m. — Expands coverage. Adds more citations from Robert’s Rules of Order.
This updates and expands coverage on an earlier story.
MANDEVILLE — The City Council’s special meeting on Sucette Harbor August 15th degenerated into near chaos during a parliamentary standoff, triggering two separate recesses during which assistant city attorney David Parnel Jr., council members, as well as local attorneys in attendance all huddled and debated competing interpretations of Robert’s Rules of Order. The end result was, the 90-unit limit remained in place.
After an opening pitch from developer Bill Hoffman, asking that the council consider increasing the number of apartments from the previously amended 90-unit limit to an earlier 178-unit limit, District II Councilman Skelly Kreller made a motion to comply with the request from the outset.
Councilman at Large Jason Zuckerman immediately called for a “point of order” under Robert’s Rules of Order, alleging that such an amendment is out of order because it would have a nullification effect on a previous amendment.
When a member calls a pointer of order, the chairman is supposed to consult with the parliamentarian and then after a possible recess, announce to the assembly that the point of order was either “well taken” or “not well taken.” These rulings can be appealed.
According to Robert’s Rules of Order, §12:25 on amendments, a new amendment cannot alter or nullify an existing amendment on a ordinance that is still before the council, even across multiple-day sessions. A session is not limited to a single meeting. (See a full explanation are reference from Robert’s Rules or Order at the end of this piece.)
This triggered the first of two recesses where Parnell Jr., Council Clerk Kristine Scherer, acting Council Chairman Councilman at Large Rick Danielson and other officials huddled for about 20 minutes before returning the meeting to order under a ruling that a “motion to reconsider” instead of a new amendment could move forward.
This was an indirect acknowledgment that Zuckerman’s first point of order was indeed “well taken” in parliamentary terms, meaning, he was right.
A motion to reconsider a previously adopted amendment, if allowed to proceed, would essentially allow the council to vote again on the amendment that was adopted July 12th.
Robert’s Rules of Order addresses the motion to reconsider under §37 where it basically says this can only be done at the same meeting the amendment was adopted or only at the very next meeting, if the business spans multiple meetings.
Robert’s Rules §37:10 (b) reads:
“The making of this motion is subject to time limits, as follows: In a session of one day—such as an ordinary meeting of a club or a one-day convention—the motion to Reconsider can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken. In a convention or session of more than one day, a reconsideration can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held.”
(See a full explanation and excerpts from Robert’s Rules or Order at the end of this piece.)
But for a reason that remains unclear, Parnell Jr. returned a factually incorrect opinion to Danielson, stating that because the business of Ordinance 23-16 was still ongoing, the motion to reconsider was still in order.
As the meeting proceeded, the procedural dust-up continued while council members debated the motion to reconsider the previous amendment, which was adopted July 12th.
At one point, Zuckerman asked Scherer to read his original amendment from July 12th for which the motion to reconsider was being debated. Danielson said the request was out of order, saying discussion was limited strictly to whether the motion to reconsider should move forward or not, to which Kreller quickly concurred.
But Zuckerman insisted that the amendment itself was germane:
“All I’m asking is as part of this discussion of whether or not to reopen the amendment is if we can read the amendment we’re discussing reopening. Can we do that? … I think it’s very important before we make a motion to reconsider an amendment if we’re all on the same page as to what that amendment was. I don’t think that’s out of order.”
After waiting for Parnell Jr. to agree that it was OK to have the amendment read aloud, Scherer read from the July 12th meeting minutes.
Again, according to Robert’s Rules of Order §37:18, “Whenever the motion to Reconsider is taken up, it is debatable if the motion proposed to be reconsidered is debatable, and debate can go into the merits of the question proposed to be reconsidered, as noted in Standard Characteristic 5.”
The back-and-forth continued among council and members of the public until Zuckerman basically called a second point of order, asking for Parnell Jr. to read from Robert’s Rules of Order exactly where he pulled his first interpretation which said that the matter could be revisited. Parnell Jr. could not immediately provide an answer.
This caused a parliamentary impasse, leading to a second recess of roughly 25 minutes while the same officials huddled, looked up information on their computers and smart phones. This time round, a few local attorneys who happened to be in attendance joined the fray.
Finally, Danielson returned with a ruling that Kreller’s motion to reconsider was out of order and, like his earlier amendment attempting to remove the 90-unit limit, could not move forward either.
“The decision is we will not vote on the motion to reconsider… that is killed, OK… We are multiple meetings past… So the position from my position is, we will not, and that motion then to reconsider is killed,” Danielson explained.
This is the equivalent of the acting chairman acknowledging that Zuckerman’s second “point of order” was considered “well taken” like his earlier one. Danielson’s remark “we are multiple meetings past” is an obvious reference to Robert’s Rules of Order §37:10 (b) (found at the bottom of this piece).
The 90-unit apartment limit, established by the amendment offered by Zuckerman at the July 12th meeting and adopted by the council, will remain in place, and cannot be undone moving forward.
Below are the relevant sections and subsections of Robert’s Rules of Order for the reader’s examination:
Robert’s Rules of Order
An amendment cannot alter or nullify a previously adopted amendment
§12:25
“It should be noted that many of the rules governing the different forms of amendment are particular applications of the following principle: After the assembly has voted that certain words (or a certain paragraph) shall, or shall not, form part of a pending resolution, it is not in order, during the same session at which that vote was taken, to make another motion to Amend that raises the same question of content and effect. Common sense should guide the presiding officer in interpreting the rules, both to give freedom for improvement of the main motion finally to be voted on, and at the same time to protect the assembly from motions for amendment that present questions it has already decided.”
Robert’s Rules of Order defines a ‘session’ as being a single meeting or multiple meetings. This means Zuckerman’s amendment from July 12th cannot be nullified or altered by a new amendment on the same ordinance, even days or weeks later.
Amendments can be ‘reconsidered’ by the council under certain circumstances
§12:7 (8)
“Can be reconsidered.”
This is what opened the door to ‘reconsideration’ of an adopted amendment but strictly in accordance with §37 or Robert’s Rules of Order. Once Parnell Jr. and Danielson realized Zuckerman’s first point of order had to be well-taken, they moved to the motion to reconsider as the path to lift the 90-unit limit.
Only amendments on ordinances that have not been adopted and are before the council can be ‘reconsidered’
§37:9 (2)(h)
“In the case of subsidiary or incidental motions that adhered to a main motion, however, Reconsider can be applied only in such a way that the reconsideration takes place while the main motion to which they adhered is pending—either before the main motion is voted on or when it is being reconsidered at the same time.”
Amendments can only be ‘reconsidered’ while the main motion (ordinance) is before the council and before a final vote occurs. Once an ordinance is adopted, all amendments become the ordinance and cease to exist separately.
Debate on motion to reconsider can consider merits of item to be reconsidered
§37:18
“Whenever the motion to Reconsider is taken up, it is debatable if the motion proposed to be reconsidered is debatable, and debate can go into the merits of the question proposed to be reconsidered, as noted in Standard Characteristic 5.”
During debate on whether to reconsider the 90-unit-limit amendment from July 12th, Danielson attempted to rule — and Kreller concurred — that Zuckerman’s request to have that original amendment read aloud was “out of order” when clearly that is not the case.
A motion to ‘reconsider’ an amendment is subject to time limits
§37:10 (b)
“The making of this motion is subject to time limits, as follows: In a session of one day—such as an ordinary meeting of a club or a one-day convention—the motion to Reconsider can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken. In a convention or session of more than one day, a reconsideration can be moved only on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held. ”
§37:8 (b)
“Except in committees, it must be moved either on the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held.”
A motion to ‘reconsider’ an amendment must be done at the same meeting or at the very next meeting if part of a multi-meeting or multi-day session. This is where Parnell Jr. returned inaccurate information to the council chairman in an attempt to find a workable way for Kreller to move to undo the 90-apartment limit. The result was, Zuckerman’s second point of order ended up being well-taken also.
Excerpts From
Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition
Henry M. Robert III, Daniel H. Honemann, Thomas J. Balch, Daniel E. Seabold & Shmuel Gerber
https://books.apple.com/us/book/roberts-rules-of-order-newly-revised-12th-edition/id1502060875
This material may be protected by copyright.
-30-
Mandeville Daily 
Thank you!
LikeLike