Bradley to Delgado: You are out of order. Mayor Johnny Dupree: You can suspend the rules


This photo shows Mayor Johnny Dupree Hattiesburg instructing the council to suspend the rules. In an unheard move Mayor Johnny Dupree said the council could,"suspend the rules" and allow Delgado to motion to reconsider the appointment of Eleanor Harris and Fredrick Burns to the school board. Councilman Henry Naylor quickly seconded. Council president Kim Bradley fired back, “You are out of order”. He then read the rules of order adopted by the city council. The council follows a set of rules called "Robert's Rules of Order".

President Bradley accused Delgado of grandstanding with “Monn” the WDAM cameraman. Monn then turned to the audience and gave a somewhat embarrassed shake of his head, indicating no. Bradley then stated “It’s about accountability. It’s simply about accountability", referring to Burns and Harris’ lack of cooperation with the council for budget request. Bradley fired back at Delgado, “We have a system that we follow. You (Delgado) are trying to usurp that that things the way we do business and it’s wrong.”(sic)


21 thoughts on “Bradley to Delgado: You are out of order. Mayor Johnny Dupree: You can suspend the rules

  1. John Mark Taylor

    Soooo…The council voted on these two education employees to be in a position and a motion was requested that they reconsider after it was voted on? And Robert's rules is saying that "once it's been voted on there is no need to try and reconsider it?" I am sincerely asking this as a question lol.

    1. Hattiesburg Patriot

      It is important to note that if a losing side were able to make motions to reconsider, one could do so in perpetuity on every lost vote. It could gridlock government business.

      Wikipedia for Robert's Rules (our council's adopted set of rules)

      Under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR), the motion to reconsider must be made within a limited time after the action on the original motion: usually at the same meeting or, in the case of a multi-day session or convention, on the next day within the session or convention in which business is conducted.[2] Until the motion to reconsider is disposed of or lapses, the effect of the original vote is suspended, and no action may be taken to implement it.[3] This is in contrast to the motion to rescind, which may be made at any later meeting, but until passed, has no effect on the original decision.

      Under Robert's Rules of Order and some other authorities, the motion to reconsider may be made only by a member who voted on the prevailing side in the original vote.[4] If another member disputes an assertion by the maker of the motion to reconsider that he voted on the prevailing side, the member moving to reconsider is to be believed unless the record of a roll call vote says otherwise.[5] The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, however, permits the motion to be made by any member and explains that this removes the incentive for a member to "switch sides" just in order to be eligible to move for reconsideration, and also preserves the secrecy of a ballot vote.[6]

      Under Robert's Rules, the motion to reconsider is debatable to the extent that the motion being reconsidered is debatable.[7] Under the Standard Code, the motion is debatable only as to the reasons for reconsideration, and the original motion is opened for debate only if the motion for reconsideration passes.[8]

      The making of the motion to reconsider takes precedence over all other motions and yields to nothing. It is not, however, considered at the time it is made if other business is pending, and the timing of its consideration depends on the ranking of the motion that led to the vote to be reconsidered.[9]

      A special form of reconsider is the motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes, whose intended use is to prevent a temporary minority from taking action that would be opposed by the majority.[10] This motion cannot be called up on the day that it is made. Demeter's Manual, but not The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, also supports the use of this form of the motion.

  2. Britton K. Loftin

    James MONTGOMERY you should probably take note that their are 3 sides to every story -the truth and the other two sides-. Name calling is childish Mister.

    obviously Bradley was the one grandstanding. I see nothing wrong with making sure your constituents voices are heard.

    Sad comment Mr. Montgomery. Grow up. This is a democracy not the Bradley Dictatorship of which you seem to be a proponent.

    1. Tom Garmon

      There are several issues here all wrapped in one. The 1st issue is whether or not an appointed body with power to raise property taxes
      7% a year is constitutional. That's taxation without representation.

      Then there is the issue that taxes are raised 5% with NO BUDGET. And not not just no budget, but a board members that REFUSED to have any accountability to the tax payers and flat out refused to submit a budget. This has as much to do about race as the man in the moon. The next two appointees will be black and will likely be approved.

      If the rules permitted the defeated side of an agenda item to simply keep rehashing the loss over and over we would be in perpetuity with these same issues. If government could just suspend rules when they don't like the outcome where would we be? This is what happened with the Hunt Club being chained shut illegally by the Mayor and with the illegal, closed meetings for drafting shady new bar ordinances by city officials. Mississippi Open Meetings Act of 1972.

      We must expect our leaders to follow the laws and follow the rules; even if they don't like them. They are there for a reason.

Leave a Reply