Label
Council Member Komives
Agenda Review
6/16/2026
Flock Camera Legislation
Title
From: Council Member Komives Response Requested: ASAP
Since the legislation failed last week and given that Council President Williams mentioned "this is an amendment to the failed legislation, is this ordinance legal? Doesn't it require a 1 year waiting period?
Body
Referral Response:
* Neither the Charter or the TMC, nor Council's Rules, impose a 1-year waiting period before re-presentation of failed legislation
o No case law addressed this question directly. As a home-rule municipality, any analysis of this question would turn on the language of the Charter. Our Charter is silent as to the issue, except to permit Council to establish its own rules (Charter, Sec. 35).
o Council's Rules at IV.M defer any point not addressed to the process established in Robert's Rules of Order. Robert's Rules does not prohibit the renewal of a defeated motion (or ordinance in our case) at a future meeting. (RR Sec. 38:1). Thus, the failure on 6/9, would not preclude it being voted on again on 6/23.
* To prevent abuse of the renewal process (ex. to manage time efficiently and/or respect the voting process), Robert's Rules allows the body to enact special rules of order (RR Sec. 38)
* For example, the special rule could restrict the ability of members to renew failed legislation for a 1-year period, unless otherwise approved by majority consent of council
* Council President Williams terming this legislation as an "amendment" will not affect Council's ability to consider and vote on the ordinance at its next meeting
o The ordinance title does not indicate it is an amendment to the previous ordinance. While it addresses the same subject matter, it proposes a different material term (contract length of 2 yrs. v. 1 yr).
* If we consider the ordinance as either new (because it has substantively different material terms) or renewed, as discussed above, it would be a proper topic for...
Click here for full text