Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Council Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council deadlocks twice on filling vacant seat; nominations split 3–3
Summary
Taylor City Council failed to appoint a successor to a vacant council seat after two nominations produced 3–3 roll-call votes. Councilors debated whether a renomination within a new meeting counts as a new motion under Robert’s Rules and the city charter (section 4.5).
Get email alerts on the Council Operations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Taylor City Council was unable to fill a vacant council seat after two successive nominations failed on 3–3 roll-call votes, leaving the position open as the council moves into budget season.
The first nomination, by Councilwoman Witten, was for Rhonda Deny (name as read at the meeting). That nomination, supported by Councilman Johnson, lost on a recorded vote: Mr. Johnson — yes; Miss Witten — yes; Mrs. Bridal — no; Miss Rose — no; Mrs. Daniels — no; Mr. Geist — yes (result: 3 yes, 3 no). The chair declared the motion failed.
Councilman Johnson then nominated Caroline Patz (former council member); Councilwoman Witten supported the nomination. The council again voted by roll call with identical results — three votes in favor and three opposed — so the appointment failed a second time.
Council members discussed procedural questions about whether a motion to reconsider or a renominated candidate within a separate meeting is permissible. Corporate counsel explained that a motion for reconsideration typically must be made during the same meeting; a nomination brought at a later meeting is treated as a new motion under Robert’s Rules and is permissible. The chair said he would accept nominations but cautioned against extended repeated nominations that prolong the meeting.
Several council members said they intend to re-contact previously nominated candidates and to pursue conversations across members (not in groups that would create a quorum) to try to resolve the deadlock before the next meeting. The council did not adopt any additional rule or deadline for filling the vacancy at the meeting.
Ending
With the seat still vacant after the two 3–3 votes, council members said they will continue outreach to potential appointees and consider the item again at a future meeting.
