Could a Kentucky mayor refuse to put a properly made council motion to a vote?

Plain-English summary

In 1993, Kentucky's Attorney General said a mayor presiding at a city council meeting had to put a proper motion before the council for consideration. A council member had moved to accept the lowest bid for a vehicle, another member seconded the motion, and the mayor refused to allow a vote because he favored a different dealer. On those limited facts, the AG said the motion had to be accepted, stated, and presented to the council.

The opinion addressed the handling of the motion. It did not decide which vehicle bid the city should accept.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1993. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

Council members

The AG relied on parliamentary authorities saying a presiding officer should state a motion once properly made and seconded, unless it is ruled out of order. The council, rather than the presiding officer alone, would then consider and act on it.

Mayors presiding at meetings

The opinion quoted Mason's manual: a proper motion must be entertained when made at an appropriate time, consistent with the rules, and not clearly dilatory. The AG concluded that the mayor in the described situation could not refuse to present the motion.

Common questions

Could the mayor block the motion because he preferred another dealer?

No. Under the facts presented, the AG said the properly made and seconded motion had to be put before the council for its consideration and action.

Did a council motion always require a second under this opinion?

The opinion noted that Mason's manual did not require seconds unless local rules did, while Robert's Rules generally called for them. The motion at issue had been seconded, so the AG did not have to resolve a dispute about a motion without a second.

Did the AG decide which bid should win?

No. The answer concerned whether the mayor could withhold the motion from the council, not the merits of the vehicle purchase.

Background and statutory framework

John E. Pennington described a council motion to accept the lowest vehicle bid and the mayor's refusal to permit a vote. The AG used Robert's Rules of Order Revised and Mason's Manual of Legislative Procedure to explain the presiding officer's duty to present a proper motion. The opinion cited no statute or case and limited its conclusion to the facts supplied.

Citations and references

• Robert's "Rules of Order Revised," § 5 and § 6: seconding a motion and stating the question.
• Mason, "Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and Other Governmental Bodies," § 156 and § 157: entertaining motions and the effect of a second.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG93-046.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 93-46

June 8, 1993

John E. Pennington

347 Railroad Avenue

Manchester, Kentucky 40962

Dear Mr. Pennington:

Your letter raises a question about parliamentary procedure at a city council meeting.

Bids were received by the city in connection with the purchase of a vehicle. A motion was made by one of the councilpersons to accept the lowest bid. Another councilperson seconded that motion. The mayor, as presiding officer, refused to permit the council to vote on the motion and stated that the city should purchase the vehicle from some other car dealer.

Your question is whether the mayor may refuse a motion that has been properly made and seconded.

In Robert's "Rules of Order Revised," under the topic of seconding motions (§ 5, pp. 36-37), the author states that as a general rule every motion should be seconded. This prevents time being consumed in considering a matter in which only one person is interested. A person need not be recognized by the chairperson or presiding officer in order to second a motion.

In Robert's "Rules of Order Revised," under the topic of stating the question (§ 6, p. 38), the following appears in part:

When a motion has been made and seconded, it is the duty of the chair, unless he rules it out of order, immediately to state the question -- that is, state the exact question that is before the assembly for its consideration and action.

In Mason, "Manual of Legislative Procedure for Legislative and Other Governmental Bodies," in § 156, the author states in part as follows:

It is the duty of the presiding officer to accept or to entertain any proper motion whenever it is in order. A motion is in order when it is presented at an appropriate time, violates no rule, and is not clearly dilatory.

The same source states in § 157 that motions no longer need to be seconded. While a second to a motion is not out of order its only effect is to disclose that one or more other members may favor the motion made. Unless the local rules require seconds they may be ignored and the presiding officer may not refuse to put a question before the body because it has not been seconded.

Thus, under the limited factual situation you have presented, a motion properly made and seconded must be accepted by the presiding officer and stated and presented to the legislative body for its consideration and action.

Sincerely,

CHRIS GORMAN

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Thomas R. Emerson

Assistant Attorney General

(502) 564-7600

TRE:sjj