Lead by Mr. Dini and Ms. Glass, four county board members have requested a special meeting of the county board. Below is the States Attorney’s view of the matter.
Office of the
State’s Attorney
601 N. MAIN STREET SUITE 302 BELVIDERE, ILLINOIS 61008-2609 (815) 544-0868
Michelle J. Courier
Boone County State’s Attorney
To: County Board Members, County Administrator, & County Clerk
From: Michelle Courier, Boone County State’s Attorney
Date: November 22, 2009
RE: Special Meeting
On Friday, I was called to a meeting with County Board Members Anthony Dini and Terri Glass, who expressed their concern that the budget was not passed. Following the meeting, in which I reviewed the official written minutes of our County Clerk and the tape of the vote, I opined that the budget was passed. The basis for my opinion is Robert’s Rules of Order.
The motion was originally introduced by Marshall Newhouse as an attempt at a compromise in order to get a budget passed. He stated that the motion was an amendment to the budget. The problem with his terminology is that the word “amendment” has a different connotation under Robert’s Rules of Order than merely compromising to get a budget passed. A motion to amend in the technical sense is considered a secondary motion to a main motion on the floor. However, there was no main motion on the floor as the motion to approve the budget had failed.
Therefore, County Board Member Newhouse’s motion had to be made as a main motion. I corrected the terminology to meet his intent by stating that the motion was to approve the budget as amended. The Chair agreed and then put the question to the Board that the vote was on the budget, as amended. The question was repeated for Cathy Ward, who acknowledges she understood the motion. In fact, Anthony Dini is heard on the tape repeating that the vote was on the budget as amended.
The vote was taken, the Chair declared that the motion was passed, and the County Clerk recorded that the budget passed, as amended. Pursuant to Robert’s Rules of Order, the exact wording the chair uses in putting the question to a vote is definitive, and the wording in the minutes should be the same. If any County Board member felt the chair’s wording was erroneous, the time to have made a correction to the wording was prior to the vote.
Based upon the above legal reasoning, I opined to Anthony Dini on Friday that there was no need for a special meeting. On Saturday, I learned that, despite my legal opinion, Mr. Dini still wished to proceed with a special meeting.
As legal advisor to the County Board, I cannot prohibit a special meeting from being called, but I will not condone it. A special meeting would serve no purpose but to further waste county resources on a vote that was already taken. Moreover, there is no procedure for allowing a “re-vote” or a “clarifying vote.” If any County Board member had a question as to what they were voting on, they should have asked prior to voting. Lastly, the calling of a special meeting could have severe legal consequences. If the vote were called to approve the budget again, County Board Members could change their vote or County Board Members could fail to attend a special Board Meeting. In either case, the County could be faced with a conflicting vote against the budget, which may require litigation.
