Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Reconsider an action taken under suspension.


J. J.

Recommended Posts

Resolution X is pending with one amendment; the amendment is the immediate pending question. Another member moves "to suspend the rules and a agree to the resolution [ i.e. Resolution X]" which will have the effect of adopting the motion [Resolution X] "without amendment or further debate (p. 262, ll. 6-8)."  The motion is adopted by a greater than 2/3.  You, as a legitimate member, vote on the prevailing side.

Later in the meeting, you realize that Resolution X is a terrible idea.  The reconsideration of Resolution X would not, at this point, violate any rule on pp. 318-9.   Can you move to Reconsider the adoption of Resolution X? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I might be missing something, and might be about to step in it, but I'm going to go ahead and take that step and say that I think the motion to reconsider would be perfectly proper and could be adopted with a majority vote.

I don't think you are missing anything.  I think it would be proper for the motion, "That the adoption of Resolution X be reconsidered."

Okay, why?  Especially since you cannot move to reconsider the motion Suspend the Rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I don't think you are missing anything.  I think it would be proper for the motion, "That the adoption of Resolution X be reconsidered."

Okay, why?  Especially since you cannot move to reconsider the motion Suspend the Rules.

Why? Because you are not moving to reconsider the suspension of the rules. You are moving to reconsider the adoption of resolution X.

The fact that resolution X was adopted pursuant to (or following) a suspension of the rules is irrelevant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Why? Because you are not moving to reconsider the suspension of the rules. You are moving to reconsider the adoption of resolution X.

The fact that resolution X was adopted pursuant to (or following) a suspension of the rules is irrelevant.

Absolutely correct.  The fact that rules were suspended does not necessarily effect the action taken under the suspension.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Why? Because you are not moving to reconsider the suspension of the rules. You are moving to reconsider the adoption of resolution X.

The fact that resolution X was adopted pursuant to (or following) a suspension of the rules is irrelevant.

As J.J. notes, the rule is that a motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be reconsidered.

And there was not any vote taken on a motion to adopt resolution X, nor was resolution X adopted by unanimous consent. Under the premise that a motion to reconsider the adoption of resolution X is in order, which members are eligible to make such a motion, and to which rule in the book can you point to back up your answer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

As J.J. notes, the rule is that a motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be reconsidered.

And there was not any vote taken on a motion to adopt resolution X, nor was resolution X adopted by unanimous consent. Under the premise that a motion to reconsider the adoption of resolution X is in order, which members are eligible to make such a motion, and to which rule in the book can you point to back up your answer?

I disagree a bit.  There was a vote taken to adopted (agree to) Resolution X.  The minutes would read "..that Resolution X was adopted (was agreed to)," or that "the resolution was adopted."

The prevailing side is the people that voted in favor of the motion that encompassed the adoption of Resolution X.  I was strongly hinting at that when I noted that this was being done by someone who voted on the prevailing side of the "to suspend the rules and a agree to the resolution [ i.e. Resolution X]."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The prevailing side is the people that voted in favor of the motion that encompassed the adoption of Resolution X.

And those people would be entitled to move a reconsideration of the vote on the motion that encompassed the adoption of Resolution X, except for the fact that said motion (the motion to Suspend the Rules) is not one that may be reconsidered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

And those people would be entitled to move a reconsideration of the vote on the motion that encompassed the adoption of Resolution X, except for the fact that said motion (the motion to Suspend the Rules) is not one that may be reconsidered.

They would be entitled to move to reconsider Resolution X, not the other things that were done by the adoption under the suspension of the rules, i.e. taking the main motion out of its proper order, rejecting an amendment, nor ending additional debate and additional subsidiary motions.  A motion "that a motion to suspend the rules be reconsidered" even if one could be in order1, would function differently than the motion to reconsider the adoption Resolution X.

 

1In theory, the assembly could adopt a special rule that said "Motions to suspend the rules can be reconsidered."  Even if there was such a rule, it would function much differently than a motion to reconsider the resolution.  A broader range of items would be undone. 

I am not suggesting such a rule be adopted, only noting how it would function if adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, J. J. said:

They would be entitled to move to reconsider Resolution X, not the other things that were done by the adoption under the suspension of the rules, i.e. taking the main motion out of its proper order, rejecting an amendment, nor ending additional debate and additional subsidiary motions.

J. J.,

You have an interesting theory, but I think most assemblies have their hands full trying to understand the rules that Robert's Rules already provides regarding the motion to Reconsider and do not need to abide by J.J.'s rules as well.

I agree with you that the assembly has taken action to adopt Resolution X. So, for example, it can later adopt a motion to rescind Resolution X, even though the enacting motion was an incidental motion and not a main motion.

However, in agreeing to adopt the resolution, the assembly explicitly bypassed any direct vote on it. RONR is clear in saying that "The effect of the adoption of the motion to Reconsider is immediately to place before the assembly again the question on which the vote is to be reconsidered—in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally." (p. 324, ll. 23-27). In this case, there is no such position, since the resolution never was voted on originally.

I'm not sure you've even thought through as to what the effect of adopting this motion "to reconsider the adoption of Resolution X" would be. Would Resolution X becoming pending again by itself? With or without the amendment? What about the motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt Resolution X? Is it pending? (Presumably you would say not.) Could it be renewed?

And what if the scenario were slightly different, and the motion "to suspend the rules and a agree to Resolution X" had been made and adopted while no motion was pending? Presumably you would say that the resolution could be reconsidered, thereby "placing it again" before the assembly. RONR says that a reconsidered motion comes back in the exact position it occupied before it was voted on originally, but when this resolution was adopted, it wasn't even under consideration at all; there was nothing pending at that time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'm not sure you've even thought through as to what the effect of adopting this motion "to reconsider the adoption of Resolution X" would be. Would Resolution X becoming pending again by itself? With or without the amendment? What about the motion to Suspend the Rules and adopt Resolution X? Is it pending? (Presumably you would say not.) Could it be renewed?

And what if the scenario were slightly different, and the motion "to suspend the rules and a agree to Resolution X" had been made and adopted while no motion was pending? Presumably you would say that the resolution could be reconsidered, thereby "placing it again" before the assembly. RONR says that a reconsidered motion comes back in the exact position it occupied before it was voted on originally, but when this resolution was adopted, it wasn't even under consideration at all; there was nothing pending at that time.

That was one of the reasons I through in a (defeated) amendment.  :)

The resolution, under suspension, was adopted without the amendment, and it would be returned to that position.  If the assembly wanted to reconsider the amendment, they would as an amendment that was defeated.   It would be possible to suspend the rules "and agree to the amendment and the resolution" and the amendment would be incorporated.

The actual motion To Suspend the Rules, could not be reconsidered.  I am suggesting the motions that disposed of under that suspension can be.

In the final case, I think that there was a motion pending, under the suspension of the regular rules.  I would again note that the minutes would read for the motion made with nothing pended, at most,  "Mr ___ moved to suspend the rules and agree to Resolution X.  Resolution X was adopted."  It would be acceptable, in my view, to minute this as  "Mr. __ moved that Resolution X be accepted.  Resolution X was adopted."  Even in that case where suspension was moved with nothing else pending that is the case.

The flip side of the coin is that if a motion is adopted under suspension, it could not be reconsidered and suspending the rules would be a way to prevent the motion from being reconsidered. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The flip side of the coin is that

• If a motion is adopted under suspension,

it could not be reconsidered

and

• Suspending the rules would be a way to prevent the motion from being reconsidered. 

No.

That is a stretch which is not supported by any text in RONR.

If the main motion is not yet executed, and if the time limits of Reconsideration are not yet expired, then there is no stopping a member (who voted on the prevailing side) from moving Reconsideration.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

No.

That is a stretch which is not supported by any text in RONR.

If the main motion is not yet executed, and if the time limits of Reconsideration are not yet expired, then there is no stopping a member (who voted on the prevailing side) from moving Reconsideration.

 

That is the flip side the premise that the it is not possible to reconsider Resolution X, because Resolution X was agreed to under suspension. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Standard Descriptive Characteristics (SDC) of motions do not change based on a Suspension of the Rules having been triggered simultaneously with the main motion.

The SDC of "main motion" does not care.

Whether the prefixed device was

(a.) a Suspension of the Rules; or

(b.) a Question of Privilege;

the SDC for main motions does not change.

***

Q. The "flip-side premise" (viz, "It is not possible to reconsider Resolution X, because Resolution X was agreed to under suspension") is an assertion based on -- what?

Q. If your prefixed-based motion had been defeated, would the rules of Reconsideration be likewise altered? (I would answer, "No.") -- Whether adoption or rejection, Reconsideration's SDC does not care which prefixed device ("a" or "b") was used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

***

Q. The "flip-side premise" (viz, "It is not possible to reconsider Resolution X, because Resolution X was agreed to under suspension") is an assertion based on -- what?

Q. If your prefixed-based motion had been defeated, would the rules of Reconsideration be likewise altered? (I would answer, "No.") -- Whether adoption or rejection, Reconsideration's SDC does not care which prefixed device ("a" or "b") was used.

  Shmuel put forth this argument:

"However, in agreeing to adopt the resolution, the assembly explicitly bypassed any direct vote on it. RONR is clear in saying that "The effect of the adoption of the motion to Reconsider is immediately to place before the assembly again the question on which the vote is to be reconsidered—in the exact position it occupied the moment before it was voted on originally." (p. 324, ll. 23-27). In this case, there is no such position, since the resolution never was voted on originally. "

My argument is that Resolution X was adopted, not under the regular rules, but under a suspension of the regular rules,  However, it was adopted and is subject to Reconsider.  The reconsideration will be done under the regular rules.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. If your prefixed-based motion had been defeated, would the rules of Reconsideration be likewise altered? (I would answer, "No.") -- Whether adoption or rejection, Reconsideration's SDC does not care which prefixed device ("a" or "b") was used.

If the motion "to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution [ i.e. Resolution X]" is rejected, resolution X will remain pending before the assembly, and the motion to amend it will be the immediately pending motion, just as it was when the motion to "suspend the rules and agree to ..." was made and rejected.

Forget all about the remaining facts in the scenario. None of it will happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If the motion "to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution [ i.e. Resolution X]" is rejected, resolution X will remain pending before the assembly, and the motion to amend it will be the immediately pending motion, just as it was when the motion to "suspend the rules and agree to ..." was made and rejected.

Forget all about the remaining facts in the scenario. None of it will happen.

 

52 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Until it does.  :)

Until what does? What does "it" refer to?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

Until what does? What does "it" refer to?

Your last line. " Forget all about the remaining facts in the scenario. None of it will happen."

I can very easily see an assembly:

A.  Adopting a main motion under suspension of the rules.

B.  Wishing to reconsider that main motion.

That is the rest of "the remaining facts in the scenario."  :)

Your answer is correct; if Suspension of the Rules was defeated, the amendment becomes the pending question.

I would express concerns about the theory that Reconsidered could, in some cases, be moved simply because the motion was adopted under suspension. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Your answer is correct; if Suspension of the Rules was defeated, the amendment becomes the pending question.

Yes, that's what I said, and in this event we can forget all about the remaining facts in your scenario because none of it will happen.

In this context, your "Until it does" post made no sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2016 at 2:58 AM, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Standard Descriptive Characteristics (SDC) of motions do not change based on a Suspension of the Rules having been triggered simultaneously with the main motion.

The SDC of "main motion" does not care.

Whether the prefixed device was

(a.) a Suspension of the Rules; or

(b.) a Question of Privilege;

the SDC for main motions does not change.

I don't know where you're getting this from, since RONR doesn't say anything at all about a "prefixed device." And please read up on what a question of privilege is. It is not a procedural device at all, but rather a type of question. You might want to read this post.

As far as reconsidering a resolution, it is not the resolution that can be reconsidered per se, but rather the assembly's decision (vote) in adopting or rejecting it. To give another example, suppose a member moves the adoption of Resolutions X, Y, and Z. Nobody asks for them to be divided, so they are all adopted in one motion. Do you think a member can later move "to reconsider Resolution X" because it is a main motion? The assembly never voted on a main motion to adopt Resolution X; it voted to adopt a motion enacting Resolutions X, Y, and Z.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, J. J. said:

The flip side of the coin is that if a motion is adopted under suspension, it could not be reconsidered and suspending the rules would be a way to prevent the motion from being reconsidered.

I agree that this is an interesting, and perhaps unintentional, consequence of the assembly's decision to suspend the rules, but it should not come as a great surprise that when you vote to bypass the regular procedures, the regular procedures no longer apply. :)

And yes, agreeing to adopt a motion without considering it is a way to prevent it from being reconsidered.

I hesitate to add the following caveat, because I suspect it may be taken undue advantage of, but I am open to the idea that there may be some other conclusion than what I have stated in this thread. However, so far I haven't seen any argument based even remotely on what RONR actually says about anything related to this subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree that this is an interesting, and perhaps unintentional, consequence of the assembly's decision to suspend the rules, but it should not come as a great surprise that when you vote to bypass the regular procedures, the regular procedures no longer apply. :)

And yes, agreeing to adopt a motion without considering it is a way to prevent it from being reconsidered.

I hesitate to add the following caveat, because I suspect it may be taken undue advantage of, but I am open to the idea that there may be some other conclusion than what I have stated in this thread. However, so far I haven't seen any argument based even remotely on what RONR actually says about anything related to this subject.

I'm looking at the idea that something is done "under suspension."  That is that suspension of the rules creates a "window," for lack of better term, when the action can be taken.  Once that "window" closes, the regular rules apply, including those that would apply to the actions taken under suspension.

I think that the act of adopting or rejecting a motion is part of considering that motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I'm looking at the idea that something is done "under suspension."  That is that suspension of the rules creates a "window," for lack of better term, when the action can be taken.  Once that "window" closes, the regular rules apply, including those that would apply to the actions taken under suspension.

I think that the act of adopting or rejecting a motion is part of considering that motion.

Well, if it's part of considering it, what follows?  That makes it sound like consideration has multiple parts - and just establishing one doesn't establish them all.  Why should we believe, then, that consideration takes place when all there is, is adoption (or rejection)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

Well, if it's part of considering it, what follows?  That makes it sound like consideration has multiple parts - and just establishing one doesn't establish them all.  Why should we believe, then, that consideration takes place when all there is, is adoption (or rejection)?

I would say that considering a main motion in inclusive of disposing it (except in the case of Objection To the Consideration of a Question).    It could include debate on the motion or subsidiary motions being applied to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...