Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney says council cannot ‘reconsider’ ordinances already signed; council withdraws motions to reconsider 9, 10 and 11
Summary
After public comment and legal explanation, City Attorney Nicodemus told the Whitehall City Council that once the mayor signed ordinances they could not be reconsidered; the council untabled ordinances 9–11 and then voted to withdraw motions to reconsider, leaving any changes to future repeal or amendment or a referendum.
City Attorney Nicodemus advised the Whitehall City Council on June 3 that motions to reconsider ordinances 9, 10 and 11 are not available once the mayor has signed the ordinances and the petitions that triggered a referendum have been certified.
“Counsel can't reconsider these ordinances because the moment the mayor signed them, they became an active law,” Nicodemus said, adding that council’s remaining options are to “rescind them or to amend them with future ordinances.” He explained the distinction between a law that is enacted and one that is in effect, noting certain charter and state procedural timelines.
The council then moved through procedural steps on the three items. For each ordinance (9‑20‑25, 10‑20‑25 and 11‑20‑25) a motion by Councilor Dixon to untable was seconded by Councilor Morrison and carried on roll call. Following the legal explanation, Councilor Elmore made a motion to withdraw the reconsideration on ordinance 9; the chair said there was no opposition and the withdrawal was accepted. Similar motions to withdraw reconsideration on ordinances 10 and 11 were made and accepted by unanimous voice or no recorded opposition, and the clerk announced each ordinance’s reconsideration had been withdrawn.
Members of the public addressed council before and during the agenda item, urging the council to respect the petitioners’ referendum rights. Patricia Bolesar, who said she collected signatures, told the council the petition process was lawful and urged the council to honor it. Amanda Wallach and Holly Stein also spoke during public comment, arguing the timing of petition certification vested referendum rights and that the council’s motion to reconsider could disrupt that process. Stein read from a letter delivered to council indicating, in her view, the council’s actions violated the council’s rules of procedure and requested retraction; she said the petitioners intended to seek an injunction if the council did not withdraw the reconsideration.
Nicodemus told council that because the ordinances were signed the council could not use the reconsideration motion to affect those same ordinances; instead, any change would require repeal and replacement or passage of new ordinances. He noted the referendum process would instead proceed toward the November election if the petitioners maintain their path.
No new ordinances were passed or repealed during the June 3 meeting as a direct result; the formal motion recorded on the record was to withdraw the reconsideration of ordinances 9, 10 and 11. The council left the original statutes in place; any further legislative action would require new legislation or the outcome of the referendum process.
