rescind something impossible to undo, by whom?

[Guest Dan]

The motion to rescind is not allowed in RR 11th Ed. by §37 for:

"e) any vote which has caused something to be done that it is impossible to undo."

Previous versions of RR used slightly different wording, saying:

"votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo;

Is the current wording meant to imply that the impossibility relates to the powers of the assembly, as was explicit in the older wording?

In other words, if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, does that prevent a rescission in the 11th Ed that was not prevented in previous editions?

(note: a similar change was made to the wording for motions to reconsider.)

 

[Guest]

correction: I wrote:

"In other words, if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, does that prevent a rescission in the 11th Ed that was not prevented in previous editions?"

but meant:

"In other words, if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, does that allow a rescission in the 11th Ed that was prevented in previous editions?

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It seems that the older versions may have been ambiguous as pointed out. I think that the current version removed that ambiguity.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest Dan said:

The motion to rescind is not allowed in RR 11th Ed. by §37 for:

"e) any vote which has caused something to be done that it is impossible to undo."

Previous versions of RR used slightly different wording, saying:

"votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo;

Is the current wording meant to imply that the impossibility relates to the powers of the assembly, as was explicit in the older wording?

 

1 hour ago, Guest said:

In other words, if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, does that allow a rescission in the 11th Ed that was prevented in previous editions?

 

1 hour ago, Guest Dan said:

(note: a similar change was made to the wording for motions to reconsider.)

But the wording you quoted is for the motion to Reconsider. And this wording has been the same since the 1970 edition (i.e., the first edition of the Newly Revised book).

[Dan Honemann]

I'll restate Guest Dan's question.

On page 308 we are told that the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order when "something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo", and on pages 318-319 we are told that the motion to Reconsider cannot be applied to "any vote which has caused something to be done that it is impossible to undo".

Does this difference in wording mean that if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted will not be in order, but a motion to Reconsider will be (assuming it is otherwise in order)?

Got that? 

[Shmuel Gerber]

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I'll restate Guest Dan's question.

On page 308 we are told that the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order when "something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo", and on pages 318-319 we are told that the motion to Reconsider cannot be applied to "any vote which has caused something to be done that it is impossible to undo".

Does this difference in wording mean that if something is impossible for the assembly to undo, but not impossible for someone outside the control of the assembly to undo, motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted will not be in order, but a motion to Reconsider will be (assuming it is otherwise in order)?

Got that? 

I don't got it, but anyway I'm going to say the answer is no.

[Guest]

There seems to lots of confusion about what wording has changed.

In an earlier edition, online at:

http://www.robertsrules.org/rror-06.htm

§36 Reconsider, says:

"The motion to reconsider cannot be applied o a vote on a motion ..., or something has been done as the result of the vote that the assembly cannot undo;"

Similarly, §37 Rescind, says:

"The motion to rescind can be applied to votes on all main motions, ... with the following exceptions: votes cannot be rescinded after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo;"

In both cases, it is unambiguous that the inability to undo relates to powers of the assembly.

 

In the current 11th edition, 

§37 Reconsider says:

The motion to reconsider is not allowed in RR 11th Ed. by §37 for:

"e) any vote which has caused something to be done that it is impossible to undo."

Similarly, §35 Rescind says:

Actions that cannot be rescinded or amended:

"b) when something has been done, as the result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo."

So I would like to know if the intent is the same, that the impossibility relates to the powers of the assembly,

or perhaps now the impossibility is in regard to the powers of an unspecified 3rd party outside the control of the assembly.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

If it's impossible to undo, it can't be rescinded. The older version was ambiguous by referring to "the assembly".

[Guest]

> If it's impossible to undo, it can't be rescinded. The older version was ambiguous by referring to "the assembly".

What if it's possible, but not by the assembly?  Say for example it involves recovering a deleted email.  The assembly can't do it, but perhaps the FBI could, but the assembly can't order the FBI to do it.

 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

If it's possible, then it's not impossible.

[Guest]

> If it's possible, then it's not impossible.

 

So If I understand you correctly, the intent has changed, and we now need to consider the powers of agencies outside the control of the assembly, including 3-letter government agencies with unknown and unknowable powers, but in earlier versions of RR we only needed to consider the powers of the assembly. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

10 minutes ago, Guest said:

 

So If I understand you correctly, the intent has changed, and we now need to consider the powers of agencies outside the control of the assembly, including 3-letter government agencies with unknown and unknowable powers, but in earlier versions of RR we only needed to consider the powers of the assembly. 

 

I had nothing to do with the authorship of the 1970 edition, but I'm quite sure that this is not a reasonable assumption to make based solely upon this change in wording.

[Dan Honemann]

32 minutes ago, Guest said:

 

What if it's possible, but not by the assembly?  Say for example it involves recovering a deleted email.  The assembly can't do it, but perhaps the FBI could, but the assembly can't order the FBI to do it.

 

This is a rather poor example, isn't it?

I assume you mean that the assembly passes a motion to delete an email, and it is deleted. Neither the assembly nor the FBI nor anyone else can undo the fact that this was done. The fact that it may be possible to recover it is beside the point.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This is a rather poor example, isn't it?

I assume you mean that the assembly passes a motion to delete an email, and it is deleted. Neither the assembly nor the FBI nor anyone else can undo the fact that this was done. The fact that it may be possible to recover it is beside the point.

I'm interpreting the phrase "impossible to undo" as meaning that it would be relevant if the FBI could reverse the action of deleting the email, because it would place the parties back in their original position.  But it's dubious to me that what the FBI can do is relevant, since the assembly has no authority over the FBI.

[Dan Honemann]

14 minutes ago, Guest said:

I'm interpreting the phrase "impossible to undo" as meaning that it would be relevant if the FBI could reverse the action of deleting the email, because it would place the parties back in their original position.  But it's dubious to me that what the FBI can do is relevant, since the assembly has no authority over the FBI.

I think this is a misinterpretation of what is meant by "impossible to undo".

[Josh Martin]

20 minutes ago, Guest said:

I'm interpreting the phrase "impossible to undo" as meaning that it would be relevant if the FBI could reverse the action of deleting the email, because it would place the parties back in their original position.  But it's dubious to me that what the FBI can do is relevant, since the assembly has no authority over the FBI.

It seems to me that a motion to Rescind or to Reconsider is out of order if undoing the action is beyond the assembly's power, although I can't think of an example where this distinction would matter.

Although I would note that, as a practical matter, if the assembly needs to recover e-mails or other files, there are companies which provide that service. No need to contact the FBI.

As a technical matter, recovering a file is not the same as undoing the action to delete it. Similarly, if an assembly paints its red clubhouse blue, this is not something which can be undone. The clubhouse can be painted again, but this is a new main motion, not a motion to Rescind.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It seems to me that a motion to Rescind or to Reconsider is out of order if undoing the action is beyond the assembly's power, ...

If so, why was mention of the assembly removed from the wording?

Is there some record of the rule change that might show that the intent is unchanged?

[Dan Honemann]

10 minutes ago, Guest said:

If so, why was mention of the assembly removed from the wording?

Because it was superfluous

11 minutes ago, Guest said:

Is there some record of the rule change that might show that the intent is unchanged?

Not that I know of, although in the Preface to the 1970 edition, the authors say that it was written to be in complete harmony with the preceding edition.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Not that I know of, although in the Preface to the 1970 edition, the authors say that it was written to be in complete harmony with the preceding edition.

OK, that's good enough for me.

Here's a different example:  Suppose the assembly votes to ratify an agreement that the other side has not yet ratified.  The other side subsequently ratifies the agreement.  A 3rd party appeals the assembly's ratification.  Before the agreement is implemented by either side, the assembly votes to rescind its ratification.  Would the other side's ratification or the 3rd party's appeal be considered something that the assembly can't undo?

[Josh Martin]

14 hours ago, Guest said:

OK, that's good enough for me.

Here's a different example:  Suppose the assembly votes to ratify an agreement that the other side has not yet ratified.  The other side subsequently ratifies the agreement.  A 3rd party appeals the assembly's ratification.  Before the agreement is implemented by either side, the assembly votes to rescind its ratification.  Would the other side's ratification or the 3rd party's appeal be considered something that the assembly can't undo?

I certainly don't think the assembly can undo the other side's ratification or the third party's appeal. I believe that it can rescind its own ratification, although there may be legal consequences for the assembly acting unilaterally in this regard.

One thing which has changed is that it no longer violates any parliamentary rule to Rescind a motion in the nature of a contract.