Published: November 06, 2008 10:05 am      

Attorney says council vote OK

A questionable vote during a recent council meeting about spending money for city hall renovations has been turned over to the city’s attorney who issued an opinion that the work was approved.

William Joe Ervin said the vote at the Oct. 28 meeting approved the renovations, even though the mayor had announced prior to the vote that the issue being voted did not include the work.

The renovations were part of an ordinance amending the city’s budget. The ordinance included three items: the addition to the budget of $9,723 in American Disability Act grant funds, the addition of $337,746 in Federal Aviation Administration grant funds, and authorizing the expenditure of $12,500 in renovation funds.

The council had already approved the renovation project for $25,000 and the city manager was asking for another $12,500 to pay for carpeting and tile work.

The grant funds had been received in June 2008, as the budget was being finalized, and had been omitted from the budget, City Manager Mark Roath said.

During discussion of the ordinance, Ward 3 councilman John Browne said he had objected to the renovation expenditure and also opposed the added expense. But his motion to remove that item from the ordinance failed in a tie vote.

Mayor Kevin Priddle then announced the council would vote on the remaining two items on the ordinance — adding the grants to the budget — and the council voted unanimously for approval.

Later, city attorney Ervin was asked to issue an opinion on whether or not the vote had approved the renovation.

The opinion issued by Ervin indicates he was asked: “Whether a budget amendment ordinance presented for vote of the Council by the Chair as amended which in fact was un-amended was legally adopted by the majority vote case for its adoption?”

“The answer to the question is yes,” Ervin’s legal opinion states. “The result of the Council’s action is determined by the vote cast on the question as presented for vote. The fact that other measures were considered which did not change the original question does not alter the result. The original ordinance voted on was not amended.”

Ervin went on to say that any other changes to the ordinance would require additional council motions and votes.

“If any council member feels he would not have voted for the question as presented due to the apparent confusion caused by the pronouncement from the Chair, the remedy would be by a motion to reconsider the vote by which the ordinance was adopted.”

The issue was not taken up at Tuesday’s special council meeting.

Contact Kandra Wells at kwells@mcalesternews.com.