Revisit or rescind a passed motion.

[Guest Andreas Georgiadis]

1.) Once a motion has been passed by two thirds vote can that motion be revisited or rescinded, and must the member making a new motion to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion had to have been present voting in the original motion previously passed? 2.) If the person does not have to have been present in the original vote of that previously passed motion must the member requesting to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion have to have a second to their new motion to revisit or rescind that previously passed motion, and if there is no second to their new motion to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion does their new motion to revisit or rescind simply die on the floor?

[Larry Cisar]

1.) Once a motion has been passed by two thirds vote can that motion be revisited or rescinded, and must the member making a new motion to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion had to have been present voting in the original motion previously passed? 2.) If the person does not have to have been present in the original vote of that previously passed motion must the member requesting to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion have to have a second to their new motion to revisit or rescind that previously passed motion, and if there is no second to their new motion to revisit or rescind the previously passed motion does their new motion to revisit or rescind simply die on the floor?

The motion to Rescind a previous action can be moved by any member. It takes a two-thirds vote without notice, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. The motion needs a second although if debate begins without a second, the second becomes irrelevant.

[Dan Honemann]

The motion to Rescind a previous action can be moved by any member. It takes a two-thirds vote without notice, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. The motion needs a second although if debate begins without a second, the second becomes irrelevant.

but

1.) Once a motion has been passed by two thirds vote ...

This fact would appear to be entirely irrelevant to the questions asked unless the motion which was adopted actually required a two-thirds vote for its adoption. If so, then it may be a motion which cannot be rescinded at all, or if it can be rescinded, the motion to rescind it may require previous notice and a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) for its adoption.

So it might help if Andreas Georgiadis could provide a bit more information in this regard.

(And by the way, if by referring to a motion to "revisit", Andreas Georgiadis means to refer to a motion to Reconsider [there being no such thing as a motion to revisit], then we have a whole new ball game.)

[Guest Andreas Georgiadis]

The motion to Rescind a previous action can be moved by any member. It takes a two-thirds vote without notice, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership. The motion needs a second although if debate begins without a second, the second becomes irrelevant.

Where in Roberts Rule of Order does it say this? The new motion to rescind never got a second and died. Thanks, Andreas Georgiadis

[Guest Andreas Georgiadis]

but

This fact would appear to be entirely irrelevant to the questions asked unless the motion which was adopted actually required a two-thirds vote for its adoption. If so, then it may be a motion which cannot be rescinded at all, or if it can be rescinded, the motion to rescind it may require previous notice and a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) for its adoption.

So it might help if Andreas Georgiadis could provide a bit more information in this regard.

(And by the way, if by referring to a motion to "revisit", Andreas Georgiadis means to refer to a motion to Reconsider [there being no such thing as a motion to revisit], then we have a whole new ball game.)

By two thirds vote I meant it passed unanimously except for one vote against it. The main issue is the member wanted to rescind the passed motion or get more information (i.e. revisit the moton asking for all the total cost of sending me to our national convention in August 2010) a month later at our next meeting.

The actual motion was made by a member of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 1414 in Panama City, FL at our monthly meeting and seconded and received a unanimous vote for the motion in April 2010. Then in our May meeting was made another motion (the same one) and voted on again passing unanimously except one vote against. Now, at our June meeting yesterday a different member other than the opposing member at the May meeting attended the June meeting and brought up the revisit or rescind issue on the motion. From what I can find in RROO I simply see that you must immediatley bring up a Point of Order at that same meeting or else it is a moot point because at a later meeting you are untimely. The motion was to send me, a Day Shift Maintenance Steward, to our National Convention this year (pays my salary for that week, and all travel, per diem, hotel, etc. expenses for the convention attendance). One of our APWU national Business Agents says that a person that did not attend the two previous meetings does not have the right to address the passed motion at all. But, whatever your answer is - where in RROO is it stated in order to present to our members?

[Trina]

Where in Roberts Rule of Order does it say this? The new motion to rescind never got a second and died. Thanks, Andreas Georgiadis

The motion to rescind, or amend something previously adopted is described on pp. 293-299 of RONR.

Regarding the importance of getting a second:

'After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded.' (RONR p. 35 ll. 29-32)

This doesn't mean that a second isn't required for a motion to reconsider (it is); however, if the assembly forges ahead without the second for some reason, no lasting harm is done.

Please answer Mr. Honemann's questions... ah, I see you did, while I was typing...

[Trina]

By two thirds vote I meant it passed unanimously except for one vote against it. The main issue is the member wanted to rescind the passed motion or get more information (i.e. revisit the moton asking for all the total cost of sending me to our national convention in August 2010) a month later at our next meeting.

The actual motion was made by a member of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) Local 1414 in Panama City, FL at our monthly meeting and seconded and received a unanimous vote for the motion in April 2010. Then in our May meeting was made another motion (the same one) and voted on again passing unanimously except one vote against. Now, at our June meeting yesterday a different member other than the opposing member at the May meeting attended the June meeting and brought up the revisit or rescind issue on the motion. From what I can find in RROO I simply see that you must immediatley bring up a Point of Order at that same meeting or else it is a moot point because at a later meeting you are untimely. The motion was to send me, a Day Shift Maintenance Steward, to our National Convention this year (pays my salary for that week, and all travel, per diem, hotel, etc. expenses for the convention attendance). One of our APWU national Business Agents says that a person that did not attend the two previous meetings does not have the right to address the passed motion at all. But, whatever your answer is - where in RROO is it stated in order to present to our members?

This business of voting again on the same motion (which had already passed at the April meeting) was improper, unless the motion passed in April was first rescinded, and it doesn't sound like that happened. However, no particular harm done, since it just passed again. If the motion has not been fully executed, any member can still move to rescind it, whether or not that member attended any of the previous meetings. I'm not sure which point of order you are thinking of; however, most points of order do need to be timely. Also, as Mr. Honemann noted, there is no motion to 'revisit'.

[Gary c Tesser]

This business of voting again on the same motion (which had already passed at the April meeting) was improper, unless the motion passed in April was first rescinded, and it doesn't sound like that happened. However, no particular harm done, since it just passed again. If the motion has not been fully executed, any member can still move to rescind it, whether or not that member attended any of the previous meetings. I'm not sure which point of order you are thinking of; however, most points of order do need to be timely. Also, as Mr. Honemann noted, there is no motion to 'revisit'.

I propose that people who are writing in conventional English to express basic ideas, without getting into exactly which motion to use properly, be encouraged -- not discouraged -- to use non-technical terms, as Guest_Andreas Georgiadis_* has, in saying 'revisit.' The Authorship Team seems to recognize this principle, as, in RONR - IB, it heads its discussion of reversing an action with "-What do we do when we have changed our minds?-" (I would quote it exactly, instead of using those quasi-quotes, if I had a copy around, but I gave away my last copy to the co-op's new president, in the hope that she can read something in any but the Cyrillic alphabet; and I have not been back to the estimable used-dictionary salesman to get another stack of -IB's yet.) So it is good that "revisit" is a normal word, easily understood, and not burdened with any specific requirements that a technical word, like "reconsider," would have.

[Dan Honemann]

I propose that people who are writing in conventional English to express basic ideas, without getting into exactly which motion to use properly, be encouraged -- not discouraged -- to use non-technical terms, as Guest_Andreas Georgiadis_* has, in saying 'revisit.' The Authorship Team seems to recognize this principle, as, in RONR - IB, it heads its discussion of reversing an action with "-What do we do when we have changed our minds?-" (I would quote it exactly, instead of using those quasi-quotes, if I had a copy around, but I gave away my last copy to the co-op's new president, in the hope that she can read something in any but the Cyrillic alphabet; and I have not been back to the estimable used-dictionary salesman to get another stack of -IB's yet.) So it is good that "revisit" is a normal word, easily understood, and not burdened with any specific requirements that a technical word, like "reconsider," would have.

Yeah, yeah, but if someone talks about a motion to "revisit" (as here), it becomes necessary to find out what in the world of parliamentary law he is talking about.

[David A Foulkes]

Yeah, yeah, but if someone talks about a motion to "revisit" (as here), it becomes necessary to find out what in the world of parliamentary law he is talking about.

Somewhere there's an "Authentic Rules of Roberts Orders Recently Updated - Unabridged" which includes the motions to Revisit (reconsider), Take Back (rescind), Fix The Damn Thing Finally (ASPA), Worry About It Later (lay on the table), Shut The Hell Up (limit debate), Don't Even Get Me Started (object to consideration of the question), Go For A Beer (postpone definitely), Go For A Beefeaters (adjourn), Go For A Few Beefeaters (adjourn sine die) and so much more.

[Dan Honemann]

Somewhere there's an "Authentic Rules of Roberts Orders Recently Updated - Unabridged" which includes the motions to Revisit (reconsider), Take Back (rescind), Fix The Damn Thing Finally (ASPA), Worry About It Later (lay on the table), Shut The Hell Up (limit debate), Don't Even Get Me Started (object to consideration of the question), Go For A Beer (postpone definitely), Go For A Beefeaters (adjourn), Go For A Few Beefeaters (adjourn sine die) and so much more.

[Trina]

I propose that people who are writing in conventional English to express basic ideas, without getting into exactly which motion to use properly, be encouraged -- not discouraged -- to use non-technical terms, as Guest_Andreas Georgiadis_* has, in saying 'revisit.' The Authorship Team seems to recognize this principle, as, in RONR - IB, it heads its discussion of reversing an action with "-What do we do when we have changed our minds?-" (I would quote it exactly, instead of using those quasi-quotes, if I had a copy around, but I gave away my last copy to the co-op's new president, in the hope that she can read something in any but the Cyrillic alphabet; and I have not been back to the estimable used-dictionary salesman to get another stack of -IB's yet.) So it is good that "revisit" is a normal word, easily understood, and not burdened with any specific requirements that a technical word, like "reconsider," would have.

I like 'revisit' also; however, it seems that what is meant by it in this thread is "let's debate and vote on the same motion again that we already passed at the last meeting" -- that does no great harm if the motion is just passed again; however, if the 'revisited' motion is voted down the second or third time it is dredged up, a plain old majority vote wouldn't actually be enough to vote it down (and people may not realize that).

Maybe I'm 'going over to the dark side', if I'm actually discouraging posters who use non-technical terms; that wasn't my intent

[Gary c Tesser]

Somewhere there's an "Authentic Rules of Roberts Orders Recently Updated - Unabridged" which includes the motions to Revisit (reconsider), Take Back (rescind), Fix The Damn Thing Finally (ASPA), Worry About It Later (lay on the table), Shut The Hell Up (limit debate), Don't Even Get Me Started (object to consideration of the question), Go For A Beer (postpone definitely), Go For A Beefeaters (adjourn), Go For A Few Beefeaters (adjourn sine die) and so much more.

Bravo!

[Josh Martin]

Somewhere there's an "Authentic Rules of Roberts Orders Recently Updated - Unabridged" which includes the motions to Revisit (reconsider), Take Back (rescind), Fix The Damn Thing Finally (ASPA), Worry About It Later (lay on the table), Shut The Hell Up (limit debate), Don't Even Get Me Started (object to consideration of the question), Go For A Beer (postpone definitely), Go For A Beefeaters (adjourn), Go For A Few Beefeaters (adjourn sine die) and so much more.

I think "Go for a Beer" would be more appropriate for the motion to Recess. Postpone Definitely could be "Worry About it a Lot Later."

[David A Foulkes]

I think "Go for a Beer" would be more appropriate for the motion to Recess. Postpone Definitely could be "Worry About it a Lot Later."

The Chair hears a motion to Fix The Damn Thing Finally. Is there a second?

[hmtcastle]

Is there a second?

In Foulkesian terminology, a second is offered by rising and saying, "I'll drink to that!".

[David A Foulkes]

In Foulkesian terminology, a second is offered by rising and saying, "I'll drink to that!".

Well done, sir!

[Gary c Tesser]

Yeah, yeah, but if someone talks about a motion to "revisit" (as here), it becomes necessary to find out what in the world of parliamentary law he is talking about.

Yes indeed. My point is that it's more efficient, and clearer, to proceed from a general English word and find out, rather than start from a question about "reconsidering" a month later, or from a question about rescinding, which the poster assures us he already knows must be moved by someone on the prevailing side or with an excused absence -- requiring backing up a few steps to clear out the misinformation.

[Ann Rempel]

I think "Go for a Beer" would be more appropriate for the motion to Recess. Postpone Definitely could be "Worry About it a Lot Later."

Go for a Beer should be considered a multi-purpose motion and would require more than 8 SDCs. It could also be division of the assembly and after three beers, it might be dishun of the qweshun. But who would be counting. I like this rule. Good one for the 11th edition.

[Dan Honemann]

Go for a Beer should be considered a multi-purpose motion and would require more than 8 SDCs. It could also be division of the assembly and after three beers, it might be dishun of the qweshun. But who would be counting. I like this rule. Good one for the 11th edition.

Ann!

[Gary c Tesser]

Go for a Beer should be considered a multi-purpose motion and would require more than 8 SDCs. It could also be division of the assembly and after three beers, it might be dishun of the qweshun. But who would be counting. I like this rule. Good one for the 11th edition.

I am in awe.

[George Mervosh]

Go for a Beer should be considered a multi-purpose motion and would require more than 8 SDCs. It could also be division of the assembly and after three beers, it might be dishun of the qweshun. But who would be counting. I like this rule. Good one for the 11th edition.

I am in awe.

That's why she's up for President of the 2FP.......

[Ann Rempel]

That's why she's up for President of the 2FP.......

And if elected, I will serve ... so long as it's ice cold.

[Gary c Tesser]

And if elected, I will serve ... so long as it's ice cold.

I am in awe again. Stop it, Ann, you're married to someone else. You too, George.