Motion for similar action at next meeting

[Guest Mitch]

If a motion made at a meeting (1) held every two weeks is voted down. It seems a similar motion with a slight variance can not be put forth at the same meeting. The original motion may not be put forth again until after the close of the next meeting (2nd)which the next opportunity would be two weeks after(3rd meeting). Question: May a similar motion be put forth at the 2nd meeting or does it need to wait until the third as would the original motion that was voted down?

Thanks

[jstackpo]

I fear your initial assumption is not correct.

If a motion is defeated at one meeting/session, it CAN be made - even in identical form and words - at the next meeting, and the next, and the next... This is called renewing the motion.

Exception: if your series of biweekly meetings are actually all one "session" (like the US Congress) then the renewal has to wait until the next session begins.

"Slight variation" may be a way of trying again with almost the same motion in the same session, but don't count on it. It may be ruled out of order.

[Guest Mitch]

Thanks for the response. The meetings are each a session and not one long one in a series. The following is from #38 in the online version which seemed to indicate the same motion could not be brought up until after the end of the next (2nd) meeting. maybe I'm looking at the wrong section or an outdated version. 'In assemblies having regular sessions as often at least as quarterly, a main motion cannot be renewed until after the close of the next regular session, if it was postponed to that next session; or laid on the table; or adopted, or rejected, or postponed indefinitely, and the motion to reconsider was made and not acted on at the previous session.' Thanks again

[jstackpo]

Your reference to "#38" and "on-line version" tells me that you are looking at the 1915 edition of Robert's Rules. The 10th (2010) and soon - this September - the 11th Edition is where to look. See the links to "The Right Book" on the main page of this webpage.

[Guest Mitch]

Perfect- Thanks again

[Dan Honemann]

Perfect- Thanks again

And in any event, what you quote from the 1915 Edition does not say what you seem to think it says.

[Gary Novosielski]

maybe I'm looking at the wrong section or an outdated version.

Yep. Outdated version. So old that the copyright has run out, which is why you can find it on line to begin with.

But that text you quoted would not prevent it anyway, because the motion was not postponed to the following session; it was simply rejected, and the motion to reconsider was presumably never made at the prior session and then not acted upon.

[tctheatc]

Mitch seems to have stopped reading the quoted text after the 2nd comma?

[Gary Novosielski]

Mitch seems to have stopped reading the quoted text after the 2nd comma?

Well, it's a mix of commas and semicolons, and not too easy to parse. But it works out like this:

'In assemblies having regular sessions as often at least as quarterly, a main motion cannot be renewed until after the close of the next regular session, if

1. it was postponed to that next session; or
   
2. laid on the table; or
   
3. adopted, rejected, or postponed indefinitely, and the motion to reconsider was made and not acted on at the previous session.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, it's a mix of commas and semicolons, and not too easy to parse. But it works out like this:

'In assemblies having regular sessions as often at least as quarterly, a main motion cannot be renewed until after the close of the next regular session, if

1. it was postponed to that next session; or
   
2. laid on the table; or
   
3. adopted, rejected, or postponed indefinitely, and the motion to reconsider was made and not acted on at the previous session.

Beautiful work, Gary. You should be on the editing staff. I might have chosen bullets rather than a numbered list, but yours was clearly the correct choice. You make parsing look so easy. Bravo.

[Guest Mitch]

Beautiful work, Gary. You should be on the editing staff. I might have chosen bullets rather than a numbered list, but yours was clearly the correct choice. You make parsing look so easy. Bravo.

Like having a legend to a map. Thanks again -