Back on the Agenda?

[Guest PaulieJo]

Local municipality. We follow Roberts Rules with a few exceptions. (One of which, I believe, is that we can reconsider items at the following meeting.)

Two committees and a main body. Committees meet separately (though at the same time) before the board meeting, then we have the full board meeting. Often items that are on a committee agenda are also on the full board agenda. We vote in committee, then vote as a board later in the day.

Last meeting, staff put an item on a committee agenda and full board agenda. It's a time-sensitive expenditure (if we don't spend the money we lose it) that the majority of the board does not support. Item defeated at committee, then later defeated by full board on divided vote.

Just got the agenda for our next meeting. Guess what's back? The same expenditure item! (Staff really wants to spend this money.)

I apologize for not knowing Robert's Rules better, but I had some parliamentary procedure questions that I don't feel comfortable asking staff. My questions are:

1) How can this be back on the agenda? I thought once an item was defeated, debate is suspended unless and until someone on the prevailing side makes a motion to reconsider. (Staff got to one of my colleagues who will make a motion to reconsider, which I understand. But is it OK for them to put that on the agenda? And they also have a new, more persuasive briefing prepared.)

2) The item is on the full board's agenda, but not the originating committee's agenda. Does this matter?

3) Can staff (or a group of my colleagues) keep posting this to the agenda in perpetuity until they get their way?

Feeling frustrated and manipulated.

[Transpower]

This is not reconsideration; it is the "renewal" of a defeated motion, not at the same meeting.  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 336-342.   You could raise an Objection to the Consideration of the motion to quickly defeat it again (if you have the votes).  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 267-270.

[Guest PaulieJo]

This is not reconsideration; it is the "renewal" of a defeated motion, not at the same meeting.

 

What if the item's on the agenda as "Reconsideration of..."? Does that mean that it's not legitimate because it's incorrect, and therefore out of order (or something)?

 

And can they put it back on the agenda indefinitely?

[Edgar Guest]

The motion to Reconsider has very specific limitations (as to who can make it when it can be made). The parliamentary meaning of the word is not the same as its meaning in everyday usage.

 

A defeated motion can be Renewed (i.e. made again as if it had never been made) by any member at each and every subsequent meeting (though there are parliamentary techniques that can limit this).

 

An adopted motion can often sometimes be Rescinded (or otherwise amended).

[Tom Coronite]

What if the item's on the agenda as "Reconsideration of..."? Does that mean that it's not legitimate because it's incorrect, and therefore out of order (or something)?

 

And can they put it back on the agenda indefinitely?

Poor nomenclature on the agenda wouldn't make the renewal of the motion at a meeting out of order.

The motion can be renewed at future meetings if it keeps getting defeated.

[Gary Novosielski]

Also bear in mind that the motion to Reconsider is not in order when another parliamentary device would achieve practically the same result.  

 

Specifically, it is not in order to Reconsider a motion that can be renewed.  And why would you want to?  Reconsider has restrictions on who may move it, while simply making the motion anew does not.

[Dan Honemann]

All of the responses which have been posted seem to assume that the OP’s belief that the rules of her board permit the making of motions to reconsider at its next meeting is incorrect. I don’t know why.

[Richard Brown]

All of the responses which have been posted seem to assume that the OP’s belief that the rules of her board permit the making of motions to reconsider at its next meeting is incorrect. I don’t know why.

I agree.  She said the rules of her board/governing body allow the motion to be moved at either the same meeting or at the next meeting.  My own city council has a similar rule.

[DrEntropy]

I agree.  She said the rules of her board/governing body allow the motion to be moved at either the same meeting or at the next meeting.  My own city council has a similar rule.

 

I wonder if they have a special rule for defeated motions?  Normally a defeated motion can be renewed at the next session (but not the same), while reconsideration has the nearly opposite restriction. Since the "next meeting" is (presumably) a new session, there is overlap with their special rule.  A defeated motion could be renewed or reconsidered, in which case renewing is probably easier.   One can imagine though extending the restriction on renewing a motion to avoid the overlap. 

[Edgar Guest]

All of the responses which have been posted seem to assume that the OP’s belief that the rules of her board permit the making of motions to reconsider at its next meeting is incorrect. I don’t know why.

 

Perhaps because we've only seen a paraphrase of the bylaw, not the actual text.

 

Perhaps because the parenthetical "I believe" suggests an element of doubt.

 

Perhaps because, as is sometimes the case, the word "reconsider" is being used in it's "everyday" sense. In other words, it's possible to "reconsider" a motion (i.e. take another stab at it) without making a Motion to Reconsider.

 

I'm not saying that's the case here, just that it's a possibility.

[Transpower]

It seems apparent to me that the two meetings are not in the same session.  The typical example of when reconsideration would be proper is at the meeting on the second day of a two-day convention or "session."  I don't see that here.  Therefore, reconsideration is out of order--unless the body has some rule to the contrary.

[Edgar Guest]

It seems apparent to me that the two meetings are not in the same session.

 

I'm not sure how that's relevant.

 

We follow Roberts Rules with a few exceptions. (One of which, I believe, is that we can reconsider items at the following meeting.)

Therefore, reconsideration is out of order--unless the body has some rule to the contrary.

 

It would appear that they might.

[Guest calbear77]

It seems apparent to me that the two meetings are not in the same session.  The typical example of when reconsideration would be proper is at the meeting on the second day of a two-day convention or "session."  I don't see that here.  Therefore, reconsideration is out of order--unless the body has some rule to the contrary.

 

Many public bodies define their business year as a single session (mimicking legislatures). 

[Guest calbear77]

It seems apparent to me that the two meetings are not in the same session.  The typical example of when reconsideration would be proper is at the meeting on the second day of a two-day convention or "session."  I don't see that here.  Therefore, reconsideration is out of order--unless the body has some rule to the contrary.

 

Many public bodies define their business year as a single session (mimicking legislatures). 

[Transpower]

Legislatures follow Mason's Rules, not Robert's Rules.

[Richard Brown]

Legislatures follow Mason's Rules, not Robert's Rules.

That might be true for state legislatures, but it is my experience and understanding that most local governing bodies.. city councils, school boards, etc... use RONR as their parliamentary authority.

[Transpower]

Yes, Richard, local bodies commonly use Robert's Rules, and I've helped a few of them.

[Guest paul]

This is not reconsideration; it is the "renewal" of a defeated motion, not at the same meeting.  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 336-342.   You could raise an Objection to the Consideration of the motion to quickly defeat it again (if you have the votes).  See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 267-270.

This is not reconsideration. The problem is that "staff" keeps bringing item back even though defeated. It is Board or Committee Members that can renew a motion in which case it would be OK. Maybe a Member requested it to be on the agenda OR they could have introduced it during the meeting. 

Some by-laws state that dealt with items cannot be re-introduced for a period of time. Roberts does not have this restriction. Paul 

[Gary Novosielski]

Some by-laws state that dealt with items cannot be re-introduced for a period of time. Roberts does not have this restriction.

Well, technically it does; the restriction is that it cannot be renewed during the same session. For most (but not all) societies, a session is the same as a meeting, but if that's not the case, then the period of time could be longer.

[Guest paul]

Well, technically it does; the restriction is that it cannot be renewed during the same session. For most (but not all) societies, a session is the same as a meeting, but if that's not the case, then the period of time could be longer.

I meant a specific amount of time like 3 months for a body that  meets monthly. Session and Meeting are the same for us. I assume Roberts restriction is for the same meeting for a group that meets regularly. Meaning the defeated motion could be brought again at the next meeting (session).

I thought the posters concern was that staff keeps bringing the same defeated motion to the next meeting. It may not be a voting member that keeps bringing it forward. Thanks, Paul 

[Gary Novosielski]

I guess it depends on what power "staff" has to set the agenda.  Unless the staff is also part of the membership, they can't truly renew the motion themselves, and the members are under no obligation to do so simply because someone put it on the draft agenda.

 

If the members don't want the staff to do this, they presumably have the authority to tell them to stop.