Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (17) . ALESHIRE & WYNDER, LLP A 1'TORN[YS AT LA\v www.awa t to to eys.com ATTORNEY-CLIENT COMMUNICATION MEMORANDUM TO: HONORABLE MAYOR RON ODEN AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL CC: CITY MANAGER CITY CLERK FROM: DAVID J.ALESHIRE X- DATE: JUNE 8,2004 RE: AMENDMENT TO COUNCIL HANDBOOK;MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER I. INTRODUCTION Councilmember Foat recently suggested she wished to make a motion to reconsider the decision not to proceed with Assessment District 162. This District died when the motion to approve it did not pass on a 2-2-1 vote (Councilmember Pougnet abstaining due to a conflict). Councilmember Foat was on the prevailing side in that the motion was defeated. The City Clerk properly pointed out that the motion to reconsider was out of order since under the Council's rules, the motion would not be made at the same Council meeting. The City Attorney suggests an amendment to the Council's rules, similar to many of the City Attorney's other cities, where the motion can be made at a different Council meeting so long as no prejudice will result to any person due to the delay in reconsidering the matter. II. DISCUSSION The City Council has adopted a set of rules and policies to govern its procedures through its Council Rules of Procedure Handbook ("Council Handbook"). The Handbook generally adopts Robert's Rules of Order for questions of procedure. When a council takes an action and later wishes to review or change an action, that is governed by the rules concerning motions to reconsider or rescind. A motion to reconsider must be made by someone on the "prevailing" side. This is so that the losing side cannot continue to present the same question over and over again when they don't have enough votes to carry the question. The other major issue is to make sure that no one is prejudiced by the legislative body's reconsideration of its actions. There are two protections for this. The first is that the motion to reconsider is out of order if there has been any "detrimental reliance" on the original action: if 1003/001/32096.01 Amendment to Council Handbook June 8, 2004 Page 2 someone has taken action based on the original action and would be prejudiced by a change in the action. The second protection is that the motion to reconsider must be made at the same "legislative session." With respect to legislative bodies which rely on Robert's Rules of Order, such as Congress and the State Legislature, a legislative session can last two years, and this rule is understandable. With respect to cities and city councils, this requirement is often interpreted to mean the same meeting, and this is the interpretation adopted by your current Council Handbook in Section 7.5 ("at the same meeting, so long as there has not been detrimental reliance on the original decision by the party affected thereby"). The problem which arises is both legal and practical. The legal issue is that interpreting legislative session to mean "council meeting" in essence eliminates the detrimental reliance criterion. How can there ever be detrimental reliance if the reconsideration is at the same council meeting? The practical issue is that in our experience, city council members who wish to rethink things they have done don't become aware of the need until after the council meeting when they hear about the action's consequences from constituents and others affected by the action. If the motion to reconsider cannot be made because we are no longer in the salve legislative session or meeting, then the city's parliamentary rules have become an obstacle to the council's purposeful governance. This does not need to be the result. Our Firm has prepared procedural guidelines for our other cities where we eliminate the criterion that the motion be made "in the same legislative session (or meeting)" and simply provide that the motion (a) be made by someone on the prevailing side, and (b) is in order only when the action can be reconsidered without prejudicing a party who has relied upon the council's prior action. Attached is a resolution revising the Council Handbook with respect to motions to reconsider. 1003/001/32096.01 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AMENDING THE COUNCIL RULES OF PROCEDURE CONCERNING MOTIONS TO RECONSIDER Section 1. That Section 7.5 of the Council Rules of Procedure, adopted by Resolution 18147, is hereby amended to read, as follows: 7.5.1 RECONSIDERATION: Except for votes regarding matters which are quasi-judicial in nature or matters which require a noticed public hearing, the Council may reconsider any vote taken either at the same meeting or at a subsequent meeting provided that there has not been detrimental reliance on the prior decision by a person affected thereby or that an action has been taken as a part of the earlier decision which would be impossible to undo. The motion to reconsider must be made by a Council Member who voted on the prevailing side, must be seconded and requires a majority vote of the quorum for passage, regardless of the vote required to adopt the motion being reconsidered. If the motion to reconsider is successful, the matter to be reconsidered takes no special preference over other pending matters and any special voting requirements related thereto still apply. Except pursuant to a motion to reconsider, once a matter has been determined and voted upon, the same matter cannot be brought up again. ADOPTED this day of 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By: City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED &APPROVED AS TO FORM s