Voting on a adopted motion

[starr007]

2 months ago we voted on a motion and it passed with over 2/3 votes, the following month the minutes were read and accepted, now this month a different group of members attended the meeting and a new motion was to cancel or resend the motion that had passed, they voted and 2/3 vote in favor to resend, or over turn. Can this happen? if so how many times can this be done on the adopted rule?  

[jstackpo]

In the order you asked....

 

Yes, it is proper to rescind something previously adopted - see p. 305.

 

Only once, I suppose.  Once the rule is rescinded, it isn't "there" any more so, clearly, it can't be rescinded again.  However, if the rule is adopted again it can be rescinded again.  This cycle can continue indefinitely.

 

Moral of the story:  members gotta show up at every meeting for democracy to work properly.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . the minutes were read and accepted . . . 

 

Minutes are approved (not "accepted").

 

Note, too, that some motions can't be rescinded (e.g. if the action authorized by the motion has been completed, the motion can't be rescinded).

[Richard Brown]

2 months ago we voted on a motion and it passed with over 2/3 votes, the following month the minutes were read and accepted,

 

Minutes are approved (not "accepted").

Thank you, Mr. Guest!!!  This business of the minutes being "accepted", rather than "approved", is a pet peeve of mine.  I have no idea how that practice got started, but it seems to have taken on a life of its own.  Even my own local unit of NAP got into the habit, for a few months, of "accepting" the minutes.  And we have two PRP's, one RP and the president of a national parliamentary association in our unit!!  I think it was because of a secretary who was new and just didn't know any better and kept writing that the minutes from the previous meeting had been accepted.  It took months...and a couple of "hissy fits"... to finally get the practice stopped, or at least almost stopped.  The word still occasionally rears its ugly head.  I try never to miss a meeting, in part to be sure I'm there in case I hear someone utter that word.  I'm determined to permanently ban it from our unit. 

 

Heck, I'm even half seriously thinking of proposing a standing rule that anyone who utters that word in regard to the minutes in a meeting must provide free pizza for everyone at the next meeting. 

 

OK.  Rant over.  Thanks again, Mr. Guest!

[Shmuel Gerber]

Well, accepting the minutes is better than rejecting them, isn't it? :-)

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps it may be helpful to explain the difference between being "accepted" and being "approved".

[Guest starr007]

_{Well the motion that had been voted in was, That no general membership meetings could be canceled for the year 2015.  So they motioned June ,July and August be canceled at the May meeting and it passed.  Now as far as meeting attendance, we were all there but the ones that wanted meetings all year  had to leave and go to work, so after we left they had the motion, pretty dirty!} 

[George Mervosh]

Well, accepting the minutes is better than rejecting them, isn't it? :-)

 

And later on down the line, we of the cognoscenti prefer to amend something previously approved.

[keefe]

_{Well the motion that had been voted in was, That no general membership meetings could be canceled for the year 2015.  So they motioned June ,July and August be canceled at the May meeting and it passed.  Now as far as meeting attendance, we were all there but the ones that wanted meetings all year  had to leave and go to work, so after we left they had the motion, pretty dirty!} 

 

There are many on this forum that are smarter than I that can speak to this but I don't believe you can cancel a properly called meeting.  On a side note if you want to meet in June, July or August to take care of business then call a Special Meeting for a date in June, do the same for July and August (bylaws permitting) I do find it odd though that those who wanted to not allow for the cancelation of general membership meetings where the ones who walk out of your May meeting and missed the opportunity to discuss that motion.  I would be curious to hear what the others on this forum have to say.

[Richard Brown]

Perhaps it may be helpful to explain the difference between being "accepted" and being "approved".

 

Generally, with perhaps some exceptions, to "accept" something is to receive it.  To "approve" it is to agree with it. 

 

If the secretary will be absent from the next meeting and sends her draft minutes via Federal Express or with another member, we will probably "accept" the package containing the minutes but may or may not "approve" the minutes as submitted.

 

If I order something from Amazon and it comes via UPS, I might "accept" the package but not "approve" of the contents if it is not what I ordered or if it is broken.

 

If I am a book publisher and you send me a manuscript for a book you hope I will publish, I will most likely "accept" the manuscript, but I am quite likely to not approve it for publication.

 

And, perhaps most important of all, because I have NEVER, not even once, seen ANY book on parliamentary procedure refer to "accepting", rather than "approving", the minutes.

[Guest starr007]

First shift ends at 2:00 therefore the meeting starts at 2:10, 2nd shift starts at three so we have to head to work by 2:45, the meeting had quorum so it continued after we left, believe me we all want to be there but can't, also that motion was brought up after 2nd shift left, 1st shift wanted to cancel, 2nd didn't. they blind sided us very dirty. 

[Josh Martin]

First shift ends at 2:00 therefore the meeting starts at 2:10, 2nd shift starts at three so we have to head to work by 2:45, the meeting had quorum so it continued after we left, believe me we all want to be there but can't, also that motion was brought up after 2nd shift left, 1st shift wanted to cancel, 2nd didn't. they blind sided us very dirty.

The next time this happens, one strategy would be for a member to move to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes after the motion to rescind is adopted. This will suspend the effect of the motion to rescind until the motion to reconsider is called up - and it cannot be called up until the next meeting. The motion to rescind could then be defeated upon reconsideration, when more members will be present. This motion is useful when a temporary majority attempts to take action which is unrepresentative of the full society.

[Edgar Guest]

And later on down the line, we of the cognoscenti prefer to amend something previously approved.

 

And all this time I thought we preferred to amend something previously adopted.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Generally, with perhaps some exceptions, to "accept" something is to receive it.  To "approve" it is to agree with it. 

 

If the secretary will be absent from the next meeting and sends her draft minutes via Federal Express or with another member, we will probably "accept" the package containing the minutes but may or may not "approve" the minutes as submitted.

 

If I order something from Amazon and it comes via UPS, I might "accept" the package but not "approve" of the contents if it is not what I ordered or if it is broken.

 

If I am a book publisher and you send me a manuscript for a book you hope I will publish, I will most likely "accept" the manuscript, but I am quite likely to not approve it for publication.

I received this message, but I don't accept it.

In fact, it is quite wrong, as far as the definitions of these terms in RONR. (See 11th ed., p. 508)

 

And, perhaps most important of all, because I have NEVER, not even once, seen ANY book on parliamentary procedure refer to "accepting", rather than "approving", the minutes.

 

This is a more acceptable statement.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And later on down the line, we of the cognoscenti prefer to amend something previously approved.

 

 

And all this time I thought we preferred to amend something previously adopted.

 

That's exactly the point. (Your irony meter seems to be a bit out of calibration.)

[Edgar Guest]

That's exactly the point. (Your irony meter seems to be a bit out of calibration.)

 

Perhaps. But rather than a faulty meter, I suspect an Irony City Beer deficiency.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

_{Well the motion that had been voted in was, That no general membership meetings could be canceled for the year 2015.  So they motioned June ,July and August be canceled at the May meeting and it passed.  Now as far as meeting attendance, we were all there but the ones that wanted meetings all year  had to leave and go to work, so after we left they had the motion, pretty dirty!} 

 

Do your bylaws establish the general membership meetings? It may be the case that the adopted motion to cancel the meetings is null and void.

 

Also, I think that a motion that "no general membership meetings could be canceled for the year 2015" is out of order since the same thing could be accomplished without adopting this motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

And later on down the line, we of the cognoscenti prefer to amend something previously approved.

 

Or reject something previously accepted?