Board of Aldermen Page 10
March 8, 2016
offense and Alderman Siegel has every right to raise his hand and call personal privilege and call him out
on that. Unfortunately, | begrudgingly accept the ruling on the fact that we have required ten votes to
suspend the rules can be undone by only eight votes. In Mason’s Rules it says that a majority does not
have the power to make a rule that cannot be modified or repealed by a majority so if a majority makes a
rule that says a super majority has to do something then that same majority can undo that rule that makes
a super majority. Of course we didn’t follow that procedure, we just ignored it and actually that would have
been a point of order. My question is Mason’s talks in terms of rules; it doesn’t talk in terms of ordinances
so the fact that the Board made an ordinance that requires ten votes to suspend the rules makes me think
that what we really need to do is submit an ordinance to undo that ordinance. Just like you may rule that
we can’t do that because the Constitution says we can’t and just like in the United States if you pass a law
that’s unconstitutional it’s still in effect until someone challenges it in court. So, in some sense | believe
that ordinance is still in effect until somebody actually legally challenges it. I'll finish by asking our new,
esteemed Corporate Counsel if you can please research this and tell us if there is a difference between
Mason’s Rules and how it defines a rule versus an ordinance. If the ordinance is in effect is it still in effect
until it’s legally challenged even though it might be unconstitutional and finally, what is it going to take for
us to change the Constitution so that it takes ten votes to suspend the rules because it’s ridiculous... there’s
a reason we have rules and just to be able to throw them out the window with a majority | think is absurd so
| am all for a Constitutional amendment and put it on the Charter vote and put it on a ballot and have the
people of Nashua make it so it requires ten votes. That’s the question that | have.
President McCarthy
Alderman Moriarty, would you please turn to rule #1 and read it to the Board?
Alderman Moriarty
Sure. It is necessary that every deliberative body be governed by rules of procedure in order that the will of
the majority of its members may be determined and revealed in an orderly manner. Right, so the majority
can decide to do whatever the heck it wants. | agree with that and that’s why | am thinking what we really
need is a change in the city Charter that says to suspend the rules takes ten votes. Thank you for all of
your patience.
President McCarthy
Attorney Bolton, would you like to answer?
Attorney Bolton
I'd be happy to research this further because what | say just off hand may not be the last word on the
subject. It strikes me that my recollection is that there is an enactment somewhere in the city Charter
that provides that the Board of Aldermen will adopt by ordinance rules of procedure so | would say this is
both an ordinance and a rule of procedure. Just as a side, that provision exempts those rules of
procedure from the otherwise veto power of the Mayor because they are to govern the Boards own
procedure. Basically | guess it’s recognition that the Mayor has no role in telling the Board how to
conduct its business. While it is certainly possible to by ordinance repeal that existing requirement, the
existing wording, that would lead to tend to indicate that there is a requirement of a ten vote super
majority to suspend the rules, | tend to agree with the President that that was not a proper rule when
passed and therefore, this Board does not run afoul of anyone else by not following it. If the desire is to
absolutely repeal it and avoid confusion then our office would be pleased to prepare that for anyone who
wishes and if you want a more detailed answer | would be happy to provide a written opinion after a little
more research but off the top of my head that is my understanding.
