Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procedural Vote Special Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tazewell County Board rescinds denials, approves special-use petitions after procedural vote
Summary
The Tazewell County Board held roll-call votes to rescind prior denials of several special‑use petitions and then approved related petitions. The meeting included a procedural discussion on whether board members may vote “present” or “abstain.”
The Tazewell County Board voted to rescind previous denials of several special‑use petitions and then approved the related petitions following roll‑call votes and procedural discussion about voting options.
The issue began when Mr. Schneider moved to put the rescission on the floor and Mr. Fallon seconded. Board members then conducted a roll‑call vote that, by the board’s count, resulted in 11 yes votes, five members voting “present” and one abstention; the motion passed. The board then moved on to a related agenda item (item M) with a separate roll‑call motion by Schneider, seconded by Meadow, which also passed.
The votes came after an extended procedural inquiry about whether members may vote “present” or record an abstention without stating a conflict. A board member who said he had served as the parliamentarian explained that, under his understanding of local practice, “if you wanna vote abstain, the only people who can do that are people who have a legal or official conflict of interest and are willing to state that conflict for the record.”
County staff and legal advisors referenced the Tazewell County board rules in answering the question. According to a staff explanation cited during the meeting, the county board’s meeting procedure (Rule 33.76, roll‑call voting) places the rescission vote under a subsection that allows members to respond “yes,” “no,” “abstention with reason,” or “present.” The explanation characterized “present” as effectively an abstention without a stated reason.
During the first roll call several members were recorded by name as voting present, yes or abstaining. Examples recorded in the roll call included Crawford (recorded as “present”), Don Arthur (yes), Brad (present), and Paul (yes). After the roll call concluded the chairman declared the motion passed. The board then moved to item M, which the chair again placed on the floor for a roll‑call vote; that motion also passed after members’ recorded votes were read.
Board members who voted present explained they did so because of concerns about the underlying rule and a belief that the county’s procedures around special‑use decisions require revision. One member said explicitly during the roll call, “I’m gonna abstain, and I wanna abstain because I think that the…there needs to be a major change in how this rule is done.”
The board’s state’s attorney and staff were directed to follow up on the matter after the votes. The meeting then proceeded to the next agenda item (item P).
Votes at a glance: - Motion: Rescind denial of special‑use petitions (items identified on the floor as h, i, j, g, l) / approve the special‑use petitions. Mover: Mr. Schneider; seconder: Mr. Fallon. Tally: 11 yes, 5 present, 1 abstain. Outcome: Passed. - Motion: Consideration of item M (approving special use as described at the meeting). Mover: Mr. Schneider; seconder: Mr. Meadow. Tally: not specified in full on the transcript; meeting record shows the roll call completed and chair declared the motion passed.
Why it matters: The votes reversed prior denials and approved special‑use petitions that had been decided earlier; the session also clarified how the county interprets “present” and “abstain” on roll‑call votes, a procedural point that board members said may warrant rule changes.
The board did not adopt changes to the rules during the meeting; members asked staff and the county attorney to research and report back on the applicable rules and any needed clarifications.
