Kenosha County Board reconsiders and approves changes to county board rules in Ordinance 17

Kenosha County supervisors voted to approve Ordinance 17 as amended, a change to the County’s municipal code governing county-board rules, after first voting to reconsider the measure and then approving an amendment to a waiting-period provision.

The measure, described to the board as “an ordinance to amend Municipal Code of Kenosha County chapter 2, rules of the county board,” returned to the floor after Supervisor Nudo moved to reconsider the item and Supervisor Gerson seconded that motion. After debate, the board approved an amendment offered by Supervisor Gerson that adjusted the waiting-period language in section 202. The final vote on Ordinance 17 as amended was 18 yes, 2 no and 1 abstain.

The motion to reconsider was introduced by Supervisor Nudo, who said he had voted against the resolution two weeks earlier because he believed it would not pass with the then-attached amendments and wanted the board another opportunity to review it. “I voted against this resolution 2 weeks ago because I felt that it was not going to pass with the amendments that were added,” Supervisor Nudo said. He added that, while not in full agreement with every provision, he supported the resolution as improved and moved to bring it back for a new vote.

Supervisor Gerson proposed the amendment that changed the waiting-period language in section 202. “I am making an amendment to move the waiting period in section 202 from 6 months to 365 days,” Supervisor Gerson said. He described the change as a compromise between supervisors who wanted elimination of the six-month restriction and those preferring a longer restriction on reintroducing items.

Supervisor Morrissey opposed the compromise and urged removing the time restriction entirely. “I certainly don't see it as a compromise,” Morrissey said. He argued that the existing rules already require majority support to place an item back on the agenda and that additional time-based restrictions could restrict transparency, limit public input and prevent supervisors from responding to emerging issues.

Supervisor Grady said he supported Ordinance 17 and would accept the amendment if that was the only way to secure passage. Grady questioned whether repeated resubmissions had been a real problem in practice: “In the period of time that I've been here, that's never happened,” he said, adding that while it could occur, he did not see it as a sufficient reason to hamstring the board.

Board members held a roll-call vote on the amendment proposed by Supervisor Gerson; the chair announced that the amendment passed and later that Ordinance 17 as amended passed by the stated margin. The transcript does not specify the complete roll-call tally for the amendment beyond the chair’s announcement that the amendment passed.

The ordinance was described as having passed unanimously in the relevant committees prior to the full-board action: it “passed unanimously at both committees,” the clerk read for the record, with two supervisors excused from the legislative committee and one excused from the executive committee. The transcript does not state an effective date for the ordinance.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to reconsider Ordinance 17: moved by Supervisor Nudo; seconded by Supervisor Gerson; outcome: motion to reconsider passed (roll-call requested; tally not specified in transcript excerpts).

- Amendment to Ordinance 17 (Supervisor Gerson): change waiting period in section 202 from “6 months” to “365 days”; outcome: amendment passed (chair announced vote as passed; full roll-call tally for amendment not specified).

- Final passage, Ordinance 17 as amended: outcome: passed, 18 yes, 2 no, 1 abstain.

The meeting record does not show an implementation timeline or an effective date for the ordinance. The committee history and the board debate indicate the change centers on restrictions and timing for reintroducing items to the county-board agenda.