Dottie

Motion to never bring something up again

45 posts in this topic

We have moved and chosen a date to go non-smoking in our club. This has gone back and forth from attempting to rescind it, to finally amending it and choosing the date. In order for this to not be brought up at every meeting here out, is it appropriate to move that it not be brought up again for two years?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, and an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be raised regarding a motion to rescind or a motion to amend something previously adopted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it has been passed that we go non-smoking on December 31st. We think smokers (who lost 55 to 15) will bring it up again this month to go non-smoking just during mealtime. This has been on the agenda in various forms since August . The chair is asking me how we move forward since the 2/3 majority has decided to go non-smoking on the 31st. Thus my question can a member move that we set the conversation aside for some period of time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are parliamentary tools available to quash motions you don't want to spend time on.

You don't need to "set a clock" (or "set a calendar").

When the issue comes up, just move to postpone indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

When the issue comes up, just move to postpone indefinitely.

Wouldn't Postpone Indefinitely allow debate on the question (which is what the majority apparently wants to avoid)?  Wouldn't it be better (after whoever made the motion gets their time to speak in debate) for a member to move the Previous Question?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

What if a special rule of order was adopted "to never bring something up again"?

If adopted, wouldn't it be subject to a motion to rescind, or amend, afterwards?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

If adopted, wouldn't it be subject to a motion to rescind, or amend, afterwards?  

 

4 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Yes.

Then I don't think that helps. She wants the matter to go away for a while, and a motion to rescind or amend the adopted rule is dealt with as any other main motion, and I doubt they want to waste time dealing with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

So a rule to never bring something up again doesn't stop someone from bringing it up again at any meeting.

A motion to rescind/amend the underlying smoking rules would be out of order if a special rule of order was adopted to prohibit it, but the rule itself is fair game.  There's really no good way to stop "it" from rearing it's ugly head, in reality, from what I can see by the rules in RONR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well george that's kind of what I thought after trying to wade through this book. I am very new at this and find myself not liking Robert very much..thanks to his wisdom, you either always have a way out or no way out!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although someone could bring it up again, you could cut off debate on it by adopting the Previous Question (as suggested in an earlier post). The Previous Question is a motion to close debate and requires a two-thirds vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Dottie said:

So it has been passed that we go non-smoking on December 31st. We think smokers (who lost 55 to 15) will bring it up again this month to go non-smoking just during mealtime. This has been on the agenda in various forms since August . The chair is asking me how we move forward since the 2/3 majority has decided to go non-smoking on the 31st. Thus my question can a member move that we set the conversation aside for some period of time?

A motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted requires for passage (a) a 2/3 vote, (b) a majority vote if previous notice was given at the prior meeting or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a majority vote of the entire membership, any of which will suffice.

If the smokers lost 55 to 15, there seems little chance that such a motion would carry.  If it is moved, a motion for the Previous Question i.e, cutting off debate, which requires a 2/3 vote, should easily pass, bringing the motion to an immediate vote and presumably immediate defeat.

In other words, it's usually much easier to simply and swifty defeat an unpopular motion than it is to invent complicated ways of preventing it from being brought up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps a bylaw amendment stating something to the effect that "the question of smoking shall not be entertained except at the annual meeting" might be an option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps a bylaw amendment stating something to the effect that "the question of smoking shall not be entertained except at the annual meeting" might be an option.

Yeah, or maybe strike "except at the annual meeting."

But of course then we'll have the constant motions to amend the bylaws to allow the question of smoking.  Democracy and free speech. What a tedious drag.  Time for a change, think I.  But who can step up, ask I :  who?  (Or better, for college graduates, whom?)

Edited by Gary c Tesser
caustic withering sardonic irony added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

What if a special rule of order was adopted "to never bring something up again"?

 

11 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

If adopted, wouldn't it be subject to a motion to rescind, or amend, afterwards?  

But debate, to be germane, would (somehow, trickily I think) be restricted to whether the rule should be rescinded, disallowing discussion of allowing smoking.  (I think that's true, in theory, but can't imagine how it would work in practice.  Great Steaming Cobnuts, I'm never gonna pass that Registered Parliamentarian test.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Dottie said:

Well george that's kind of what I thought after trying to wade through this book. I am very new at this and find myself not liking Robert very much..thanks to his wisdom, you either always have a way out or no way out!

I don't know what you mean by "thanks to his wisdom, you either always have a way out or no way out", but in any event, I don't think you have really given enough thought to what it is that you want to accomplish. My guess is that just about all of the members of your club, if they think much about it, will agree that it would be a very bad idea to adopt any rule which could not thereafter be rescinded or amended at all, no matter what. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/17/2016 at 10:44 AM, Dottie said:

We have moved and chosen a date to go non-smoking in our club. This has gone back and forth from attempting to rescind it, to finally amending it and choosing the date. In order for this to not be brought up at every meeting here out, is it appropriate to move that it not be brought up again for two years?

 

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I don't know what you mean by "thanks to his wisdom, you either always have a way out or no way out", but in any event, I don't think you have really given enough thought to what it is that you want to accomplish. My guess is that just about all of the members of your club, if they think much about it, will agree that it would be a very bad idea to adopt any rule which could not thereafter be rescinded or amended at all, no matter what. 

I think it's fairly plain that Dottie would like to move the adoption of a rule that no motion regarding the club's smoking policy shall be in order for the next two years. Whether such a rule is appropriate from a political/sociological perspective is open to debate, but why does anyone think it is inappropriate in terms of parliamentary procedure?

Although such a rule is very narrow in scope, it would operate much the same way as any other rule of order. It wouldn't prevent the club from changing a substantive decision if it really wanted to, but it would provide greater stability than if there were no rule, in this case requiring some action to be taken by the assembly itself before the subject could even be introduced. That is, before a motion to rescind or amend the smoking policy could be made, a two-thirds vote on a motion to Suspend the Rules would be required. Or the rule of order itself would have to be rescinded, which would also require a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice require previous notice and a two-thirds vote, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

And Gary Tesser is correct about the debate on a motion to rescind the rule:

15 hours ago, Gary c Tesser said:

But debate, to be germane, would (somehow, trickily I think) be restricted to whether the rule should be rescinded, disallowing discussion of allowing smoking.

But, going back to the political question, of course Gary Novosielski might also be right:

On 11/17/2016 at 3:30 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

it's usually much easier to simply and [swiftly] defeat an unpopular motion than it is to invent complicated ways of preventing it from being brought up.

 

Edited by Shmuel Gerber

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Or the rule of order itself would have to be rescinded, which would also require a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Why wouldn't rescinding this rule require a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Why wouldn't rescinding this rule require a two-thirds vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership?

Because my brain must have been in AutoComplete mode when I typed that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we are all just talking past each other.

We all know (I hope) what it takes to rescind or amend a standing rule prohibiting smoking, and what it takes to rescind or amend or suspend a special rule of order that no motion regarding the club's smoking policy shall be in order for the next two years, and what it takes to rescind or amend a bylaw provision of either kind (or suspend it if it's in the nature of a rule of order).

But I get the impression that none of this is what Dottie is looking for. I think she wants a rule which cannot be rescinded or amended or suspended at all, no matter what. It's possible to adopt one, of course, but I doubt that it's a good idea, or that many other members of her club want to do so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

  Only 75 emoticons maximum are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

Loading...