Guest Jeff Stenzel Posted June 29, 2011 at 05:54 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 05:54 PM Hello,I need some help on topic that has come up as an issue in my veterans' organization.A potential member's name came up for a vote at a regular meeting. This person was rejected because of a criminal record. At the next meeting some of his friends show up, take another vote and vote him in.In my opinion this is in violation of that appears in Article I paragraph 5 b and c. Which would seem to indicate that someone in the majority of the first vote would have to change their mind or their needs to be notice sent out to the membership regarding a new vote and a 2/3 majority would be needed to rescind the original vote.None of these things happened. There was no notice to membership that another vote would be taken and there was not a 2/3 majority on the vote.It would seem that if it was not this way, then old business could continuously be brought up and voted on by whoever showed up with a one person majority.Please help with an explanation. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:08 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:08 PM In my opinion this is in violation of that appears in Article I paragraph 5 b and c. There are no Articles in Robert's Rules of Order 10th Ed. which is what we work from on this forum. Anyway, as far as RONR concerned a member can renew a motion each and every session until it is adopted (RONR pp. 325-331). Your rules of course may say otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:19 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:19 PM A potential member's name came up for a vote at a regular meeting. This person was rejected because of a criminal record. At the next meeting some of his friends show up, take another vote and vote him in.In my opinion this is in violation of that appears in Article I paragraph 5 b and c. Which would seem to indicate that someone in the majority of the first vote would have to change their mind or their needs to be notice sent out to the membership regarding a new vote and a 2/3 majority would be needed to rescind the original vote.None of these things happened. There was no notice to membership that another vote would be taken and there was not a 2/3 majority on the vote.It would seem that if it was not this way, then old business could continuously be brought up and voted on by whoever showed up with a one person majority.I'm not sure what document you're referring to, but RONR does not have Articles any more, and that number doesn't seem to match anything I can recognize. But you seem to be referring to a motion to Reconsider, which has that unusual requirement about someone who voted with the prevailing side being willing to reconsider. But that motion applies to reconsidering a vote within the same meeting. So it does not apply to the situation you describe.Also, the motion to Rescind does not apply, because the original motion was rejected, so there was nothing to rescind at this point. You don't rescind a vote, you rescind a motion that passed. And in this situation there was none. If there was, a motion to rescind would require a 2/3 vote with no notice, or a majority of the entire membership. But with previous notice, you can rescind with just a majority. Still, that does not apply here.So what you actually have is simply a motion being "renewed", or made again at a future meeting. And according to RONR there is nothing wrong with that. It's true that majorities can swing one way or another from meeting to meeting, but that is just the way of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jeff Stenzel Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:35 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:35 PM I'm not sure what document you're referring to, but RONR does not have Articles any more, and that number doesn't seem to match anything I can recognize. But you seem to be referring to a motion to Reconsider, which has that unusual requirement about someone who voted with the prevailing side being willing to reconsider. But that motion applies to reconsidering a vote within the same meeting. So it does not apply to the situation you describe.Also, the motion to Rescind does not apply, because the original motion was rejected, so there was nothing to rescind at this point. You don't rescind a vote, you rescind a motion that passed. And in this situation there was none. If there was, a motion to rescind would require a 2/3 vote with no notice, or a majority of the entire membership. But with previous notice, you can rescind with just a majority. Still, that does not apply here.So what you actually have is simply a motion being "renewed", or made again at a future meeting. And according to RONR there is nothing wrong with that. It's true that majorities can swing one way or another from meeting to meeting, but that is just the way of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 06:47 PM Also, the motion to Rescind does not apply, because the original motion was rejected, so there was nothing to rescind at this point. You don't rescind a vote, you rescind a motion that passed. And in this situation there was none.Giving it a bit more thought I suppose that the motion to Rescind might be in order based on how the original motion was phrased. If there was a motion to reject the person's application for membership and that motion was adopted I think that would be subject to Rescission as opposed to a defeated motion to accept the person's application in which case the correct motion would renewal. So Jeff, how was the motion regarding the prospective member's application worded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Trent Johnson Posted June 29, 2011 at 07:12 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 07:12 PM Giving it a bit more thought I suppose that the motion to Rescind might be in order based on how the original motion was phrased. If there was a motion to reject the person's application for membership and that motion was adopted I think that would be subject to Rescission as opposed to a defeated motion to accept the person's application in which case the correct motion would renewal. So Jeff, how was the motion regarding the prospective member's application worded?Are those zebras I hear?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted June 29, 2011 at 07:21 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 07:21 PM Are those zebras I hear?? Absolutely. But when you are in the zoo you are just as likely to see a zebra as a horse (probably more likely ) and after 5+ years of reading and posting on this forum (zoo) I have seen enough zebras that I gotta keep them in mind when I hear those hoof beats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 29, 2011 at 08:28 PM Report Share Posted June 29, 2011 at 08:28 PM Giving it a bit more thought I suppose that the motion to Rescind might be in order based on how the original motion was phrased. If there was a motion to reject the person's application for membership and that motion was adopted I think that would be subject to Rescission as opposed to a defeated motion to accept the person's application in which case the correct motion would renewal. So Jeff, how was the motion regarding the prospective member's application worded?Well, if it was a motion NOT to do something, then it was improper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.