Due to the absence of two council members at last week's meeting of the White Salmon City Council, a motion to vacate a thin strip of city-owned land failed to gain approval despite a 2-1 "Yes" vote.
With the majority vote of those present on March 17, the issue -- which would have conveyed approximately 23 feet by 146 feet of land at the corner of O'Keefe Avenue and Tohomish Street to the adjacent property owners (Elmer and Brenda Kinder) -- appeared to be settled.
But after the meeting was adjourned, the city's attorney, Deborah Phillips, pointed out that the 2-1 vote was not sufficient to OK the measure because a majority of the full five-member council -- three votes -- is required to approve an ordinance.
"I knew that, and assumed the council members knew, that it had to have three votes," said Mayor Linda Jones. "It's a very unusual thing, and it happens so rarely. I hoped she [Phillips] would have spoken up and helped in the learning process."
Council members Francis Gaddis and Richard Marx voted to OK the transaction, while Susan Benedict voted against it. Penny White Morris and Susan Gookin were not present.
Brenda Kinder, who has been working on the vacation application with the city since October, attended the council meeting with her husband Elmer, a former member of the City Council.
When the vote was taken, the Kinders believed the vacation had been approved. About 10 minutes after the meeting was adjourned, however, the picture changed.
"I've been working on this for eight months. I think a lot of people were blindsided by what happened," Brenda Kinder said the next day. "I am still weighing options as to what I need to do."
Council member Benedict, the opposing vote on the ordinance, said she too did not know of the rule.
"No one said anything," Benedict explained. "I thought once it was 2-1, it was majority rule. But after the meeting, Phillips came up and said `you know that didn't pass, don't you?' Out of the full council, you have to have three votes."
In a decision made Monday, however, the city agreed to place the ordinance back on the agenda for the April 7 council meeting.
"We'll put it on the agenda and let the council members take it where they may," said Mayor Linda Jones. "I don't want to see the Kinders have to start the process over again."
"Robert's Rules of Order allows a `renewal' of the vote that can be brought in subsequent meetings," explained Kelly Ingraham, the city's clerk/treasurer.
Benedict said she did not support the vacation ordinance because she felt there should be some financial return to the city. She noted there were earlier vacations on other city parcels where that was the case -- including some voted on while Elmer Kinder was on the City Council.
Despite her opposition to conveying city land to abutting property owners, Benedict said she supported having the council take up the issue when the full council was present.
Benedict said the issue "probably" should have been tabled last week, because the outcome represented "mistreatment" of the Kinders.
"I can't believe they would not put it up for a re-vote," Benedict said. "I think it should be the full council voting on it. The Kinders were understanding [after the 2-1 vote] that they would be able to get the land."
Phillips explained that the rule to pass an ordinance is nothing new.
"There is a state law that says an ordinance must pass by a majority of the council. There is nothing tricky about it, that's just the way it is," she explained. "It's not a technicality at all. Ordinances require approval of a majority of the council -- three people. This did not get three positive votes. The mayor and I both understood that. And Elmer [Kinder] was a council member for years."
Former Mayor Roger Holen said council members need to understand how the process works.
"They should have known what the consequences of their vote would be. They are supposed to know that as a council person," Holen explained. "The rule is, a majority of the City Council is required to pass an ordinance, not a majority of those in attendance. People need to understand the rules that govern these things. And it's up to the mayor to announce whether the motion fails or passes."
Holen added that these situations have rarely come up in White Salmon.
"I don't recall, in eight years as mayor, an ordinance that failed to pass because three councilors didn't vote in favor of it," he said. "There are a couple of instances I can recall that when there were only three council members in attendance, I entertained a motion to table a decision. The motion to table takes precedence over an ordinance itself and only takes two to approve."
At first, Jones explained that the council's vote meant the case was closed.
"The process is over," Jones said last week. "The vote finalized the process. I suspect the process would start over if they want to still petition to vacate the property."
"You can't keep bringing things back under parliamentary rules," Phillips added.
However, Jones also promised to try to clear the way for reconsideration.
"We'll try to see it we can fix it up. This is not the way it's supposed to work," Jones said. "It's unfortunate we didn't have another City Council member there, but we can't help that."
The review of how the vote was handled led to Monday's decision to bring the issue back for the April 7 meeting.
"The parcel is useless to us, and it has a value to the Kinders," Jones explained. "To me, there is not a whole lot of sense to not letting them have it, but I'm not the one who gets to vote."
Commented