Agenda 12/11/2012 Item #10 A12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that (1) the Board interprets its Reconsideration Procedure to allow a
motion for reconsideration to be made by a member who voted in the majority prior to the
adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, or at either the first
and /or second meeting, and that a prior motion for reconsideration does not bar a later
motion for reconsideration made at any time during this two meeting time frame, and (2)
that the Board (by a majority vote) deems former Commissioner Coletta's and
Commissioner Fiala's motion to reconsider (blocking further reconsideration prescribed
by 75 -16 as amended) null and void.
Objective: To bring clarity and future certainty to the Board's Reconsideration Ordinance
Considerations: At the November 13th 2012 Board meeting, Commissioners Coletta and Fiala
placed 4 items on the agenda for reconsideration, and during the meeting Commissioner Coletta
made numerous motions for reconsideration on other matters on the agenda after they had been
voted on, in an admitted attempt to procedurally block any future reconsideration by the Board of
these items. The Commissioners presumably relied on Robert's Rules of Order, 11th edition,
which provides at page 321 that a Motion for Reconsideration "Cannot be reconsidered." If it is
voted on and lost, the motion to Reconsider cannot be renewed except by unanimous consent.
By the same principle, no question can be reconsidered twice unless it was materially amended
during its first reconsideration."
Robert's Rules of Order also state "No motion is in order the conflicts with the laws of the nation
or state, or with the assembly's constitution or by -laws, and if such a motion is adopted, even by
a unanimous vote, it is null and void. Florida Statues provides County's power to adopt rules of
procedure.
125.01 Powers and duties.—
(1) The legislative and governing body of a county shall have the power to carry on county
government. To the extent not inconsistent with general or special law, this power includes, but
is not restricted to, the power to:
(a) Adopt its own rules of procedure, select its officers, and set the time and place of its official
meetings.
The Board's meeting's ordinance (Ord. 75 -16, as amended) provides that "Except as herein
provided questions of order and the conduct of business shall be governed by Robert's Rules of
Order." Accordingly, Robert's Rules of Order only applies as a default mechanism when there is
no Board rule on a procedural matter.
The Board's meeting's ordinance, however, includes a detailed reconsideration procedure. That
procedure (as codified by Municipal Code Corporation) is as follows:
Packet Page -511-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
"Sec. 2 -41. - Reconsideration of matters generally.
(a) Any matter which has been voted upon by the Board of County Commissioners may
be reconsidered as follows:
(1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter
was voted upon. If there were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the
public speakers for the item are still present in the boardroom following a
successful motion to reconsider, the Board may elect to rehear the matter during
that meeting, or direct the County Manager to place the item on the agenda for a
future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). If there were public speakers for the
item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the boardroom
following a successful motion to reconsider, the County Manager will place the
item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2).
(2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the
matter was voted upon, but only in accordance with the following:
a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to
reconsider a matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was
voted on, the member shall deliver to the County Manager a written
memorandum stating that the member intends to introduce a motion to
reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of the regular meeting at
which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall be
delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting.
The purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of
the legal or other ramifications of reconsideration.
b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular
Board meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be
reconsidered.
c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall
place the item on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission
meeting following the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration
was adopted.
d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms
or written materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County
Manager of the date of reconsideration."
2
Packet Page -512-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
Commissioners Coletta and Fiala are apparently of the view that only one motion for
reconsideration can be made, and once made, it bars the Board from reconsidering the matter
again. It is my understanding that the Ordinance allows three separate motions to be made.
First, under Sec. 2 -41 (a)(1), a motion can be made "by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted
upon." It is my view that this motion only applies to the meeting itself, and does not bar a later
motion.
Second, under Sec. 2 -41 (a)(2), a motion can be made at any time no later than the second Board
meeting. It is my view that this means that a motion for reconsideration can be made at either
the first or second meeting, and that a motion made at the first meeting does not bar a later
motion.
This will be the first time that this issue is raised by the Board. Throughout all of the discussions
during the numerous motions for reconsideration made on November 131`, at no time was there a
motion made to determine the Board's interpretation of this Ordinance.
Fiscal impact: None
Growth Management Impact: None
Legal Considerations: This issue was addressed by the County Attorney in a memo to the
Board sent November 9, 2012, with a copy in full being attached. Briefly stated, it is appropriate
for a Board to interpret its own ordinances, with such interpretation given deference by the
Courts. This is especially true with respect to the Board's procedural rules, as a general rule, the
Board may, from time to time, adopt and change its own rules or parliamentary usage as to
procedure, and may abolish, suspend, modify, or waive its own rules. Where one Board
interprets the ordinances governing their own parliamentary procedures, subsequent Boards are
free to interpret those parliamentary procedures as they see fit and will not be bound by the
interpretation of a prior Board. The rules of procedure passed by one legislative body are not
binding upon subsequent legislative bodies operating within the same jurisdiction. With that
said, this item was reviewed by the County Attorney, is legally sufficient, and requires majority
vote for approval. -JAK
Recommendation:
1. That the Board interprets its Reconsideration Procedure to allow a motion for
reconsideration to be made by a member who voted in the majority prior to the adjournment of
the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, or at either the first and /or second meeting, and
that a prior motion for reconsideration does not bar a later motion for reconsideration made at
any time during this two meeting time frame.
2. That the Board (by a majority vote) deems former Commissioner Coletta's and
Commissioner Fiala's motion to reconsider (blocking further reconsideration prescribed by 75-
16 as amended) null and void.
Submitted by: Commissioner Henning
3
Packet Page -513-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 10.A.
Item Summary: Recommendation that (1) the Board interprets its Reconsideration
Procedure to allow a motion for reconsideration to be made by a member who voted in the
majority prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, or at
either the first and /or second meeting, and that a prior motion for reconsideration does not bar
a later motion for reconsideration made at any time during this two meeting time frame, and
(2) that the Board (by a majority vote) deems former Commissioner Coletta "s and
Commissioner Fiala "s motion to reconsider (blocking further reconsideration prescribed by 75-
12 as amended) null and void. (Commissioner Henning)
Meeting Date: 12/11/2012
Prepared By
Name: BrockMaryJo
Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager, CMO
11/15/2012 10:50:19 AM
Submitted by
Title: Executive Secretary to County Manager, CMO
Name: BrockMaryJo
11/15/2012 10:50:22 AM
Approved By
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 11/19/2012 2:49:39 PM
Name: SheffieldMichael
Title: Manager- Business Operations, CMO
Date: 11/29/2012 9:08:05 AM
Packet Page -514-
12/11/2012 Item 1O.A.
BrockMaryJo
From: OchsLeo
Sent: Friday, November 16, 201211:14 AM
To: BrockMaryJo
Subject: FW: Reconsideration
Attachments: Recommendation for the Board to make a finding second draft.docx; Reconsideration Items
for Tuesday's meetings
FYA please
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: Klatzkow3eff
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2912 8:20 AM
To: HenningTom; OchsLeo
Subject: RE: Reconsideration
Commissioner: All changes made; I added your second recommendation into the title of the
Executive Summary.
Leo: As you know, Commissioner Henning would like this Executive Summary on the agenda for
the next meeting; please add it to SIRE. The other attachment is the referenced back -up in
the Legal Considerations. Both the e-mail and the attachments to it need to be loaded as
well.
3effrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
(239) 252 -2614
- - - -- Original Message---- -
From: HenningTom
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:04 PM
To: Klatzkow3eff
Subject: RE: Reconsideration
change in blue
From: KlatzkowJeff
Sent: Thursday, November 15, 2012 1:46 PM
To: HenningTom
Cc: OchsLeo
Subject: Reconsideration
Commissioner:
I have taken the liberty of redrafting your Executive Summary on Reconsideration,
which I believe meets your intent. The attached e-mail would be the referenced back -up.
3effrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
Packet Page -515-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
From: KlatzkowJeff
Sent: Friday, November 09, 2012 10:53 AM
To: CoyleFred; ColettaJim; FialaDonna; HenningTom; HillerGeorgia
Cc: OchsLeo
Subject: Reconsideration Items for Tuesday's meetings
Commissioners:
There are four motions for reconsideration on Tuesday's agenda. The question has been
posed to me by both Commissioner Henning and by outside counsel that should these motions
fail, does that foreclose a new motion made for the following meeting. This is an issue that
appears to be unique to Collier County given the structure of our local Reconsideration
Ordinance.
Our local Reconsideration Ordinance (Municode Version) provides in relevant part as
follows:
Sec. 2 -41. - Reconsideration of matters generally.
(a) Any matter which has been voted upon by the Board of County Commissioners may
be reconsidered as follows:
(1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter
was voted upon. If there were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the
public speakers for the item are still present in the boardroom following a
successful motion to reconsider, the Board may elect to rehear the matter during
that meeting, or direct the County Manager to place the item on the agenda for a
future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). If there were public speakers for the
item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the boardroom
following a successful motion to reconsider, the County Manager will place the
item on the agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2).
(2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the
matter was voted upon, but only in accordance with the following:
a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to
reconsider a matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was
voted on, the member shall deliver to the County Manager a written
memorandum stating that the member intends to introduce a motion to
reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of the regular meeting at
which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall be
delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting.
The purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of
the legal or other ramifications of reconsideration.
Packet Page -516-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular
Board meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be
reconsidered.
c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall
place the item on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission
meeting following the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration
was adopted.
d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms
or written materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County
Manager of the date of reconsideration.
As set forth in detail in the attachments, it is my opinion that a motion for reconsideration
can only be made once during the meeting in which the item was originally heard, and can only
be made once within the two meeting time frame, but a motion made during the initial meeting
does not preclude the later motion. Having said that, it is my further opinion that:
1. A local government's interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled to deference.
Courts will ordinarily defer to a governmental body's interpretation of a statute or rule unless the
agency's expertise is not required or its interpretation conflicts with the plain and ordinary
meaning of the provision.
2. The Reconsideration Ordinance is a procedural rule. As a general rule, a municipal
legislative body may, from time to time, adopt and change its own rules or parliamentary usage
as to procedure. The council may abolish, suspend, modify, or waive its own rules.
3. Where one board interprets the ordinances governing their own parliamentary
procedures, subsequent boards are free to interpret those parliamentary procedures as they see fit
and will not be bound by the interpretation of a prior board. The rules of procedure passed by
one legislative body are not binding upon subsequent legislative bodies operating within the
same jurisdiction. No legislative body can divest its successor of its legislative powers by
passing ordinances or resolutions which deprive their successor of the power to exercise fully
their legislative discretion.
Accordingly, although it is my opinion that these four motions, if they fail, preclude
further reconsideration of these items, the Board of County Commissioners, at their next
meeting, has the inherent legislative authority to interpret the Reconsideration Ordinance as
allowing a second motion, and that such a finding by the majority of the members present would
survive any legal challenge.
L, - J El
Standard of Parliamentary
El
RE: reconsideration
eview for ordinan..procedure.docx.d.. reconsideration memo.docx.docx...
Packet Page -517-
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
(239) 252 -2614
Packet Page -518-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
MEMORANDUM
To:
Scott Teach, Deputy County Attorney
From:
Emily Pepin, Assistant County Attorney
Date:
November 2, 2012
Re:
Standard of Review for a County's Interpretation of its Own Ordinances
This memorandum sets forth the controlling caselaw regarding the standard of review for a
county's interpretation of its own ordinance and, in addition, explains under what circumstances
a county commission may delegate its legislative authority.
A county's interpretation of its own ordinance is entitled to deference. Donovan v. Okaloosa
County, 82 So.3d 801 (Fla. 2012). Courts ordinarily defer to a governmental body's
interpretation of a statute or rule unless the agency's expertise is not required or its interpretation
conflicts with the plain and ordinary meaning of the provision. Verizon Fla., Inc. v. Jacobs, 810
So.2d 906, 908 (Fla. 2002); see also, Town of Longboat Key v. Islandside Prop. Owners
Coalition, LLC, 95 So.3d 1037, 1043 (2d Dist. Ct. App., 2012). Moreover, the construction of a
statute by the agency charged with its enforcement and interpretation is entitled to great weight.
Pruitt v. Sands, 84 So.3d 1267 (4th Dist. Ct. App., 2012) (stating that the courts should defer to
the interpretation of the county in determining what was considered a "hedge" for enforcement
purposes).
A proper delegation of legislative authority to a County's administrative officers must impose
sufficient guidelines upon that officer in order to withstand constitutional attacks. Pinellas
County v. Jasmine Plaza, Inc., 334 So.2d 639, 640 (2d Dist Ct. App., 1976). Without said
criteria, the decisions of the designated official could be arbitrary or capricious. Id.
Attached, for your reference, are the above cited cases.
Packet Page -519-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
MEMORANDUM
To: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
From: Emily Pepin, Assistant County Attorney
Date: November 9, 2012
Re: Interpretation of Board Adopted Parliamentary Procedures
This memorandum discusses the purpose of parliamentary procedures adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners, whether strict compliance to interpretations of the procedures
is necessary, and whether the interpretation of such procedures by one Board is binding on a
subsequent Board. Florida courts have not discussed this topic at length, but other jurisdictions
have explained that it is not the role of a court to determine the proper procedures for local
legislative bodies, and that such bodies are free to interpret and reinterpret those procedures for
the benefit of its citizens.
Parliamentary law is generally intended to provide rules of decorum and procedure to
members of a legislative body, board, or entity so that the body's business may be conducted
efficiently, expeditiously, and civilly. The interpretation of such rules is ultimately left to the
members of the Board themselves. Florida courts have not discussed in depth their stance on the
parliamentary rules of a county board of commissioners, however, other jurisdictions have
determined that it is not the role of a court to interfere with the internal procedure of a local
legislative body.
The Collier County Board of Commissioners has adopted Robert's Rules of'Order as its
guidance for referencing the proper parliamentary procedures. Strict compliance to such rules is
not mandatory. Pasadena v. Paine, 126 Cal. App. 2d 93, 96 (2d App. Dist. Ca., 1954).
Parliamentary rules are procedural, and with their observance the courts have no concern. South
Georgia Power co. v. Baumann, 196 Ga. 649, 655 (Ga. 1929). The courts will not ordinarily
annul or invalidate an ordinance enacted in disregard of parliamentary rule, provided the
enactment is made in the manner required by statute. Pasadena at 96. Absent proof to the
contrary, any action taken by a local legislative body is presumed to have been in conformity
with its own rules or parliamentary usage as to procedure.
In the absence of legal provisions or restrictions, a municipal legislative body may, from
time to time, adopt and change its own rules or parliamentary usage as to procedure. The council
may abolish, suspend, modify, or waive its own rules. McQuillan on Municipal Corporations, 3d
ed., volume 4, section 13.42, Pages 921 -923. This also may be done by implication, where a
legislative body's actions are not in accordance with the ordinary procedures. Id Only a
member of the Board may object to the failure to abide by the proper procedures since it is the
Packet Page -520-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
Board which decides how it will function; there is no cause of action for a third party for a
Board's failure to abide by their parliamentary rules unless a true violation of due process exists.
See, Sewell v. Huey, 779 So.2d 1003, 1007 -8 (0 Cir. Ct. App. La., 2001).
Where one board interprets the ordinances governing their own parliamentary
procedures, subsequent boards are free to interpret those parliamentary procedures as they see fit
and will not be bound by the interpretation of a prior board. The rules of procedure passed by
one legislative body are not binding upon subsequent legislative bodies operating within the
same jurisdiction. South Georgia Power at 654. No legislative body can divest its successor of
its legislative powers by passing ordinances or resolutions which deprive their successor of the
power to exercise fully their legislative discretion. Id
In conclusion, the Board of County Commissioners is free to interpret and reinterpret
their own rules of procedure for the benefit of their citizens and will not be bound to such
interpretations in the future. Moreover, courts will not invalidate such decisions by the Board for
failure to abide their adopted procedures.
Packet Page -521-
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
From: PepinEmily
Sent: Monday, October 29, 2012 9:40 AM
To: KlatzkowJeff
Subject: reconsideration memo
Attachments: reconsideration memo.docx
Jeff,
Here is the memo regarding the motion to reconsider an item twice by the BCC.
Please let me know if any additional information should be included.
Emily
Under Florida Law, e -mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -522-
1_,,4_ /fL ___ -- nnic' mr. i__-I-- ionc isr cccncc: n__.___ nc_ n_cr_ccin') ncccninnnnninnnicncnn iIN IA /nAln
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Commissioner:
Klatzkow.leff
Tuesday, October 30, 2012 5:01 PM
HenningTom
RE: reconsideration
reconsideration memo
i u�,v i vi ✓
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
I looked into this issue, discussed in detail with Scott and Colleen, and I concluded that under
our ordinance there are two separate points in time when a motion to reconsider can be made. The first
is during the same meeting when the item is heard, which would typically be when a Commissioner may
have a change in heart following the emotions of a public debate. The second time is any time within
the next two meetings, which typically would allow a Commissioner to bring back an item after learning
new information pertinent to the decision.
Robert's Rules of Order provides that a motion to reconsider cannot be reconsidered. "If it is
voted on and lost, the motion to Reconsider cannot be renewed except by unanimous consent. By the
same principle, no question can be reconsidered twice unless it was materially amended during its first
reconsideration." ROR 1 Ith edition, page 321. Accordingly, the motion can only be made once during
the meeting, and can only be made once within the two meeting time frame, but a motion made during
the meeting does not preclude the later motion.
As a check I asked one of my Assistant County Attorneys for her opinion, which is attached.
Our reconsideration ordinance fairly tracks the standard reconsideration procedure, and standard practice
is that the motion can only be made once.
Sec. 2 -41. - Reconsideration of matters generally.
(a) Any matter which has been voted upon by the Board of County Commissioners may be
reconsidered as follows:
(1) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion
is made prior to the adjournment of the meeting at which the matter was voted upon. If there
were no public speakers on the item, or if all of the public speakers for the item are still
present in the boardroom following a successful motion to reconsider, the Board may elect to
rehear the matter during that meeting, or direct the County Manager to place the item on the
agenda for a future meeting as set forth in subsection (2). If there were public speakers for
the item, and not all of the public speakers are still present in the boardroom following a
successful motion to reconsider, the County Manager will place the item on the agenda for a
future meeting as set forth in subsection (2).
(2) By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if such motion
is made at a regular meeting following the meeting at which the matter was voted upon, but
only in accordance with the following:
a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to reconsider a
matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was voted on, the member
shall deliver to the County Manager a written memorandum stating that the member
intends to introduce a motion to reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of
the regular meeting at which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall
Packet Page -523 -
/On cCCCCCA cn._..,Wnr.- n._cr,_cc In') 1 nccc1 n n An n 7 nnnl o7 ccc 1 nie innin
X "V-� L Vl J
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
be delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of the legal or
other ramifications of reconsideration.
b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular Board
meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be reconsidered.
c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall place the item
on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission meeting following the
meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted.
d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or written
materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County Manager of the date of
reconsideration.
Jeffrey A. Klatzkow
County Attorney
(239) 252 -2614
From: HenningTom
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:51 PM
To: KlatzkowJeff
Subject: FW: reconsideration
Meant to send you all of the language
By a motion to reconsider made by a member who voted with the majority if
such motion is made at a regular meetinq following the meeting at which the
matter was voted upon but only in accordance with the following:
a. Where a member who voted with the majority wishes the Board to reconsider a
matter after the adjournment of the meeting at which it was voted on, the member
shall deliver to the County Manager a written memorandum stating that the member
intends to introduce a motion to reconsider. The memorandum shall state the date of
the regular meeting at which the member intends to introduce such motion, and shall
be delivered to the County Manager at least six days prior to such meeting. The
purpose of this requirement is to allow the staff to advise the Board of the legal or
other ramifications of reconsideration.
b. No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular
Board meeting followinq the Board's vote on the matter sought to be
reconsidered.
c. Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall place the item
on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission meeting following the
meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted.
d. All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or written
materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County Manager of the date of
reconsideration.
Packet Page -524 -
L�.iti_ t_ioncc.CrCCACC-* nc_ n_cr_ccrn') incccinnnnninnni InIAInni^
12/11/2012 Item 1O.A.
From: HenningTom
Sent: Tuesday, October 30, 2012 3:34 PM
To: KlatzkowJeff
Subject: reconsideration
If I vote on this item does it prevent me from bring it back December 13th? Please advise
Request for reconsideration by Commissioner Fiala of Item 11C from the October 23, 2012 BCC Meeting titled:
Recommendation to consider an out -of -cycle Tourist Development Council ( "TDC ") Grant Application from the
City of Marco Island /Hideaway Beach District for Erosion Control Structures at Hideaway Beach and if approved
make a finding that the project is in the public interest and authorize all necessary budget amendments.
Estimated fiscal impact: $925,000.
Q
C.
791
No motion to reconsider shall be made any later than the second regular
Board meeting following the Board's vote on the matter sought to be
reconsidered.
Upon adoption of a motion to reconsider, the County Manager shall place the
item on an agenda not later than the second regular Commission meeting
following the meeting at which the motion for reconsideration was adopted.
All parties who participated by speaking, submitting registration forms or
written materials at the first hearing, shall be notified by the County Manager
of the date of reconsideration.
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e -mail address released in response to a public records request, do not
send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
Packet Page -525-
1_. . /It ------- AnIVTTni ncc. nc _n_chccIn7lnccclnAAnA1nAnto7ccL 1n1AInni11
12/11/2012 Item 10.A.
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ATTORNEY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeffrey Klatzkow, County Attorney
FROM: Emily Pepin, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: October 29, 2012
RE: Can Commission Members Motion to Reconsider an Item Twice?
The question was asked whether commission members may motion to reconsider the same
matter twice. Section 2 -41, Code of Laws and Ordinances of Collier County, Florida, allows for
commissioners to reconsider a matter up to two board meetings after the matter originally was
set before the board and voted on. This brings up the issue: If one commission member motions
for reconsideration at the meeting immediately after the meeting where the item was first heard,
can another commissioner at the second meeting after original meeting, motion for
reconsideration again? The Florida courts have not made a determination on this particular issue
to date.
In our Code of Laws and Ordinances, the County has referred to Robert's Rules of Order as a
default source to govern the parliamentary procedures of our commission meetings when our
Code is silent on an issue. In this instance, our Code is silent on whether a motion for
reconsideration may be made twice on the same item.
Robert's Rules of Order states, "[t]he motion to Reconsider: [ ... ] Cannot be reconsidered. If it
is voted on and lost, the motion to Reconsider cannot be reviewed except by unanimous consent.
By the same principle, no question can be reconsidered twice unless it was materially amended
during its first reconsideration. " Robert's Rules of Order. Newly Revised, I Ith ed., pp.321
(2011). Many jurisdictions utilize Robert's Rules of Order as a reliable source for determining
the proper procedures for commission meetings.
The United States House of Representatives follows a similar practice. Its House Practice, citing
to Deschler's Precedents, states "[w]hen a motion to reconsider has been made and acted upon, a
second motion to reconsider is not ordinarily in order. Deschler, Ch. 23 §39.16. In addition,
House Practice states, "[ ... ] the motion to reconsider a vote on a proposition having been once
agreed to, and that vote having again been taken, a second motion to reconsider may not be made
unless the nature of the proposition has been changed by amendment. 5 Hinds § §5685 -5688.
Therefore, a motion for reconsideration should not be made twice by the Board of County
Commissioners unless the item was materially amended during its first reconsideration,
regardless of the Commission's ability to reconsider an item at two meetings subsequent to the
original discussion and vote on that item.
Packet Page -526-