Could a school board revive a superintendent-contract motion months after a tie vote?

Plain-English summary

Williamsburg County’s school-board attorney asked how to treat a proposal to renew the superintendent’s contract after an earlier tie vote and intervening meetings. The AG agreed that reconsideration under Rule 36 was too late because it was limited to the day of the vote or the next succeeding day. The tie vote had not carried the motion, and the later proposal could be treated as renewal of a motion under Rule 38 at a future session, subject to the board’s notice and rules.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 2004. 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.

Common questions

Q: Was the later contract proposal a motion to reconsider?
A: The AG said no. Rule 36’s short time window had passed.

Q: Could the contract motion return at a later session?
A: Yes. The AG treated it as renewal of a motion under Rule 38.

Q: What effect did the earlier tie vote have?
A: The AG said the tie vote took no action and effectively rejected the motion for this parliamentary analysis.

Background and statutory framework

The board used Robert’s Rules of Order. The AG compared Rule 36’s reconsideration window with Rule 38’s treatment of renewed motions at future sessions. It also noted that an administrative body such as a school board had to follow the rules it adopted.

Citations

Source

• Landing page: https://www.scag.gov/opinions/opinions-archive/april-1-2004/
• Original PDF: https://www.scag.gov/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/04apr1mcfadden.pdf

Original opinion text

The State of South Carolina

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
HENRY McMAsn:R
A1TORNEY GENERAL

t

I
I

April 1, 2004

Helen T. McFadden, Esquire
Attorney, Williamsburg County School District
P. 0. Box 1114
Kingstree, South Carolina 29556
Dear Ms. McFadden:
In a letter to this office you requested a parliamentary opinion regarding an issue that recently came before the Williamsburg County School Board of Trustees' meeting. You indicated that the question arises from a tie vote on a motion to renew the Superintendent's contract in a meeting in November, 2003. On March 1, 2004 another motion to renew the contract was proposed and tabled. The issue is whether reconsideration is the appropriate manner to bring the question before the Board. You indicated that the Board relies upon Roberts' Rules of Order. The question at issue is whether the matter is to be treated as a point for reconsideration pursuant to Rule 36 or a renewal of a motion pursuant to Rule 38 of Roberts' Rules of Order.

L

I

I agree with your conclusion that reconsideration is not the appropriate analysis for the question at issue. You pointed out that there have been meetings of the Board since November I 0, 2003. As set forth by Rule 36 of Roberts' Rules of Order, a motion to reconsider " ... can be made only on the day the vote to be reconsidered was taken, or on the next succeeding day, a legal holiday or a recess not being counted as a day." I agree with your analysis that because no motion has determined the matter, the same motion or any other topic can be made by any member at any meeting for which there is notice. As you point out, and based upon my review of Rule 38 of Roberts' Rules of Order, the matter would be in the form ofrenewal of a motion. Rule 38 provides that When an original main motion or an amendment has been adopted, or rejected, or a main motion has been postponed indefinitely, or an objection to its consideration has been sustained, it, or practically the same motion, cannot be again brought before the assembly at the same session, except by a motion to reconsider or to rescind the vote. But it may be introduced again at any future session. Support for the construction of the matter as the renewal of a motion is found in a decision by the Michigan Court ofAppeals in Wbitev. First United Baptist Church, 2002WL1575243 (July 16, 2002) where an aJlegation had been made that there had been a violation of Rule 36 by a "reconsideration" at an October 2, 1999 regular meeting of a decision not to terminate an

~~~INQ . POST0FFJCEBoxll549. COUJMBIA,S.C. 29211-1549 . TELEPHONE: 803-734·3970 . fACSIMJLE: 803-253-6283

f

!
Ms.McFadden
Page2
April 1, 2004

individual's employment which was made on a vote taken at a July 25, 1999 regular meeting. The
Court ruled that
The vote on October 2 was not a "reconsideration" in the technical sense governed
by Section 36. Rather, it was a vote on a previously rejected motion governed
by... Section 38, and proper under that section because the church conducts its
business meetings more often than quarterly, and a regular business meeting
intervened between the first and second votes.

I
I
J

The Court ruled that Roberts' Rules of Order were not violated by the renewal of the rejected
motion.
The same situation as was present in the Michigan case would appear to exist here as well.
Because there was a tie vote as to the motion to extend the superintendent's contract, such motion
was effectively rejected. See Op. Atty. Gen. dated January3, 1973 (a tie vote takes no action). Rule
36 would have been applicable to revisit this motion on the same day as its rejection. However,
inasmuch as a considerable amount of time elapsed before the issue again arose, Rule 36 became
inapplicable. Instead, Rule 38 represented the operative Rule.
Consistent with such, a motion to reconsider would not be an appropriate motion in your
situation in that as you pointed out in your letter, the Board is not in a position for such a motion due
to the passage of time between meetings. Of course, an administrative agency, such as a school
board, must follow its own rules adopted by it. See, Op. Attv. Gen. May 8, 2003, citing Triska v.
DHEC, 292 S.C. 190, 355 S.E.2d 531 (1987). Thus, in our opinion, Rule 36 of Roberts' Rules of
Order is simply inapplicable here. Cf. Ackerman v. 3-V Chemical. Inc., 349 S.C. 212. 562 S.E.2d
613 (2002) (motion for reconsideration untimely where Rule 59(a)(2), SCRCP not complied with).
Moreover, as pointed out in a prior opinion of this office dated May 19, 1982, reconsideration is not
generally favored. Instead, the matter can be co:qsidered as the renewal of a motion.
Sincerely,

Ciado!(/lLJ,__
Charles H. Richardson
Senior Assistant Attorney General
REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY:

~[?_,~
Robert D. Cook
Assistant Deputy Attorney General