Motion to NOT take an action

[abcdave]

Can a motion be made to not take an action?

Two examples -

1. Our organization is having an event this year that we have tried before with limited success - a motion was made (and passed) that "if we don't get at least 50 people to show up, we will never do this again."

2. A motion was made (and passed) that we "not advertise this year" (the way we always have in the past)

Each time, a board member raised a point of information asking if it was possible to make a motion to not take an action - as opposed to simply not making any motion to take the action. Our parliamentarian said this was proper but couldn't cite anything specific in RONR.

[George Mervosh]

Both should be phrased as motions to amend or rescind what was adopted (RONR, p. 293ff) and can be phrased in a positive manner. A motion not do something is generally out of order RONR, p. 100.

[Guest F.R.Pond]

1. Our organization is having an event this year that we have tried before with limited success - a motion was made (and passed) that "if we don't get at least 50 people to show up, we will never do this again."

Keep in mind that a motion to "...never do this again" is not eternally binding, meaning that should your organization get 25 people to show up, any member is within their rights to make a motion to have the event again. Any such motion is not out of order simply because it was agreed upon to "never do this again."

[hmtcastle]

any member is within their rights to make a motion to have the event again.

Though such a motion would have to be made as a motion to rescind or amend the "never again" motion.

[Trina]

...

a motion was made (and passed) that "if we don't get at least 50 people to show up, we will never do this again."

...

This goes beyond a motion not to do something -- the 'never again' makes it an attempt to bind the hands of the assembly in the future, which is not proper (one could do something like this in the bylaws, perhaps, but not with a plain vanilla motion). Darned if I can find a page citation at the moment, though ...

ETA:

Though such a motion would have to be made as a motion to rescind or amend the "never again" motion.

Maybe a 'never again' motion is OK, so long as the people passing it realize that 'never again' really means 'not until our ban on the event is rescinded'?? That doesn't quite have the punch of 'NEVER AGAIN'

[hmtcastle]

This goes beyond a motion not to do something -- the 'never again' makes it an attempt to bind the hands of the assembly in the future, which is not proper (one could do something like this in the bylaws, perhaps, but not with a plain vanilla motion). Darned if I can find a page citation at the moment, though ...

Since it can be amended or rescinded, I'm not sure that the "never again" motion binds the hands anymore than a "paint the clubhouse every year" motion does.

(The phrase "tie the hands" appears on p. 85.)

[Guest F.R.Pond]

Keep in mind that a motion to "...never do this again" is not eternally binding, meaning that should your organization get 25 people to show up, any member is within their rights to make a motion to have the event again. Any such motion is not out of order simply because it was agreed upon to "never do this again."

Though such a motion would have to be made as a motion to rescind or amend the "never again" motion.

While I certainly concur that a "never again" motion may be rescinded or amended, given the above scenario, would any future motion to have the event again be out of order (unless rescinded or amended)? If so, I stand corrected.

[J. J.]

Can a motion be made to not take an action?

Two examples -

1. Our organization is having an event this year that we have tried before with limited success - a motion was made (and passed) that "if we don't get at least 50 people to show up, we will never do this again."

While the wording is awkward, a special rule could be adopted that, "The assembly shall not entertain a motion of authorize _______ unless at least 50 people attend the function in 2010." It would be a special rule, and require either a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership. Even such a rule could be suspended.

If it lacked the vote needed to adopt a special rule, it would not prevent a motion to have the event from being entertained. As HWMountastle notes, there is the "hand tying" effect.

[Gary c Tesser]

While the wording is awkward, a special rule could be adopted that, "The assembly shall not entertain a motion of authorize _______ unless at least 50 people attend the function in 2010." It would be a special rule, and require either a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership. Even such a rule could be suspended.

If it lacked the vote needed to adopt a special rule, it would not prevent a motion to have the event from being entertained. As HWMountastle notes, there is the "hand tying" effect.

I thought I understood this when we hashed it out in '03 or '04 or so, but maybe not. The assembly can properly adopt a motion that no computer equipment shall be purchased for 90 days -- don't we agree that this is so? And it's superfluous -- window-dressing -- to rephrase this substantive order as a procedural one, such as by tacking "- The assembly shall not entertain a motion -" onto the front.

(Though now I'm confused as to how this 90-day restriction would not run afoul of the "tie the hands" principle. But I have the feeling that rescinding by a majority after previous notice waves away this concern -- but I forget where that is. Someone help me out on this wrinkle too, please?)

(And finally, as to J. J's statement, isn't it so that if the chair declared the special-rule motion adopted (of course assuming that previous notice requirements were satisfied), and no point of order were made at the time, then the rule would be adopted, notwithstanding its failure to achieve the proper threshold?)

[hmtcastle]

As HWMountastle notes, there is the "hand tying" effect.

Though my position is that there is no "hand-tying" effect since the motion can be rescinded. In fact, I think what RONR is saying when it says that one session can't tie the hands of a future session is not that it shouldn't but that it, quite literally, can't.

[Josh Martin]

Each time, a board member raised a point of information asking if it was possible to make a motion to not take an action - as opposed to simply not making any motion to take the action.

It is not proper to make a motion when the same effect could be accomplished by the assembly doing nothing. Such a motion would be appropriate if it serves some purpose, however - such as ordering a subordinate board not to take some action, or expressing an opinion as to why no action should be taken. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 9) It is, however, too late to raise a Point of Order now. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 19-20)

The assembly can properly adopt a motion that no computer equipment shall be purchased for 90 days -- don't we agree that this is so?

Of course. Such a motion would be a standing rule. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 18, lines 2-8)

(Though now I'm confused as to how this 90-day restriction would not run afoul of the "tie the hands" principle. But I have the feeling that rescinding by a majority after previous notice waves away this concern -- but I forget where that is. Someone help me out on this wrinkle too, please?)

I believe you are looking for RONR, 10th ed., pg. 85, lines 22-27.

(And finally, as to J. J's statement, isn't it so that if the chair declared the special-rule motion adopted (of course assuming that previous notice requirements were satisfied), and no point of order were made at the time, then the rule would be adopted, notwithstanding its failure to achieve the proper threshold?)

Of course. (Official Interpretation 2006-18) I believe J. J. was speaking of a situation in which previous notice requirements were not satisfied.

[Rob Elsman]

Both should be phrased as motions to amend or rescind what was adopted (RONR, p. 293ff) and can be phrased in a positive manner. A motion not do something is generally out of order RONR, p. 100.

I disagree with Mr. Mervosh about this. One would look in vain in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 99, 100, for the justification in parliamentary law for ruling a motion not to do something out of order--generally or otherwise--nor is such a main motion an improper main motion under the rules of pp. 106-108.

[Gary c Tesser]

It is not proper to make a motion when the same effect could be accomplished by the assembly doing nothing. Such a motion would be appropriate if it serves some purpose, however - such as ordering a subordinate board not to take some action, or expressing an opinion as to why no action should be taken. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 99, line 33 - pg. 100, line 9) It is, however, too late to raise a Point of Order now. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 19-20)

Of course. Such a motion would be a standing rule. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 18, lines 2-8)

I believe you are looking for RONR, 10th ed., pg. 85, lines 22-27.

Of course. (Official Interpretation 2006-18) I believe J. J. was speaking of a situation in which previous notice requirements were not satisfied.

Thanks, Josh. Great Steaming Cobnuts, I got to get out of this habit of stopping reading at the end of the sentence that precedes the one I need.

[J. J.]

Though my position is that there is no "hand-tying" effect since the motion can be rescinded. In fact, I think what RONR is saying when it says that one session can't tie the hands of a future session is not that it shouldn't but that it, quite literally, can't.

It would have to be a "hand-tying" situation, because it prevents a motion from being introduced, i.e. "We won't permit a motion to be made to hold the even unless ... ."

The do not need a motion not to do something.

[hmtcastle]

It would have to be a "hand-tying" situation, because it prevents a motion from being introduced, i.e. "We won't permit a motion to be made to hold the even unless ... ."

Why not just rescind the "we won't permit" motion?

[J. J.]

Why not just rescind the "we won't permit" motion?

You could, but if properly adopted, it would take a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership.

Hand tying comes in when you say, "No motion can be introduced to consider the subject." You'd also need, two motions, one to remove the rule and one to hold the event (though the rule could be suspended).

[hmtcastle]

Hand tying comes in when you say, "No motion can be introduced to consider the subject." You'd also need, two motions, one to remove the rule and one to hold the event (though the rule could be suspended).

So you're saying that the tied hands can be untied; it's just not as easy as if the hands weren't tied at all.

[J. J.]

So you're saying that the tied hands can be untied; it's just not as easy as if the hands weren't tied at all.

I think that any motion that prohibits a procedural act, normally allowed, is a rule in the nature of a rule of order. If the motion says, we will not consider a subject in the future, it is a rule of order and would need the requisite vote needed to adopt one.

[Josh Martin]

It would have to be a "hand-tying" situation, because it prevents a motion from being introduced, i.e. "We won't permit a motion to be made to hold the even unless ... ."

The do not need a motion not to do something.

J. J., I see no reason why the motion couldn't be worded as a standing rule, such as "The organization shall not hold (description of event)." The prohibition against the event could later be rescinded. Since the assembly could certainly adopt a standing rule that a certain event would be held every year, it seems to me that a standing rule prohibiting a certain event would also be in order. While a motion to not do something one time is pointless as the same effect can be accomplished by doing nothing, a motion determining that a certain event should not be held ever again seems to serve a useful purpose, by requiring a higher voting threshold (or previous notice) to overturn the motion - the same as if a motion was adopted to hold the event every year.

A special rule of order would certainly be more difficult to overturn, but I don't believe it's the only option available to the assembly.

[Trina]

So, rules that are not inherently in the nature of rules of order can be dressed up as rules of order?

'The organization shall not hold any fund-raisers requiring door-to-door sales by the membership' (not a rule of order, not suspendable).

'No motion shall be entertained to hold a fund-raiser requiring door-to-door sales by the membership' (rule of order? can be suspended).

I guess there are pros and cons, if the organization is actually consciously choosing between the two options.

On a related issue, can a standing rule whose application is outside the meeting context (as in the example above) contain provisions for its own suspension, the way a bylaw might? ('...if such a rule has its application outside of a meeting context, it cannot be suspended.' RONR p. 257 ll. 9-10) The citation is clear that normal standing rules can't be suspended, but I wonder if a standing rule can intentionally be made suspendable. There may be an obvious page citation somewhere else that I'm missing...

An organization might wish to have a standing rule as general policy, with occasional deviations being possible, without having to rescind and then re-adopt the rule every time. Psychologically, if you knock a hole in the wall (rescind) to leave the room, you have to remember later to fix the wall; whereas if you have a spring-loaded door (suspend), it returns to the desired status quo all by itself.

Making a standing rule type policy look like a rule of order just seems sort of ... ugly? not esthetically appealing? confusing? ... no, I can't find RONR page citations for that opinion either, so I'll roll eyes pre-emptively

[Josh Martin]

So, rules that are not inherently in the nature of rules of order can be dressed up as rules of order?

I'm not certain whether all standing rules could be "dressed up" as rules of order but the special rule of order J. J. suggested is valid.

On a related issue, can a standing rule whose application is outside the meeting context (as in the example above) contain provisions for its own suspension, the way a bylaw might?

I see no reason why not.

Making a standing rule type policy look like a rule of order just seems sort of ... ugly? not esthetically appealing? confusing? ... no, I can't find RONR page citations for that opinion either

I'm personally inclined to agree, although as you suggest, that's just a matter of personal preference.

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm not certain whether all standing rules could be "dressed up" as rules of order but the special rule of order J. J. suggested is valid.

I see no reason why not.

I'm personally inclined to agree, although as you suggest, that's just a matter of personal preference.

It certainly is confusing, and bad form at best. I suspect it is actually improper, although all I have so far is the "smell test."