Changing a motion already approved at a previous meeting

[Scott Brasch]

At an all member meeting for our organization a motion was made and defeated 34-14 and now at our next all member meeting the membership wants to bring up the motion again and change it because they feel they left an important piece out. I want to give the membership the opportunity to have their say; however I believe I read in RONR that the motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it. Am I mistaken?

[George Mervosh]

Yes, you're mistaken. A defeated motion can be made again anew or in any proper form by any member present.....regardless of how or even if they voted on the previous one. RONR, p. 325ff

You're thinking of a motion to reconsider the vote, which does not apply at a subsequent session.

[Scott Brasch]

Awesome thank you!

[Chris Harrison]

Am I mistaken?

Yes. A motion to renew can be made by any member (RONR pp. 325-331).

[Tim Wynn]

Awesome thank you!

Never before have I seen someone so excited about being mistaken.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Yes. A motion to renew can be made by any member (RONR pp. 325-331).

I wouldn't call it "a motion to renew"; it's simply a motion being renewed.

[Scott Brasch]

It wasn’t that I was excited about being mistaken; it was that I was excited the membership can bring up their motion again.

I chair a NFP who has existed for 35 years with RONR as their parliamentary authority and until 2 years ago when I was elected it was rarely consulted and when I do quote or read from "the book" most folks believe I am making something up.

So most of my excitement is because this is an example where knowing RONR will help them and maybe for a brief instant they will cease beating me up over it.

Enough venting; thanks again!

[Guest Katherine Hepburn]

MAYBE they're not beating you up over Roberts Rules MAYBE it could be your condescending and arrogant attitude towards people. MAYBE you should really check yourself.

[Guest Pine Cone]

I think you were mistaken. The majority of attendees had left the meeting prior to any vote. There weren't enough in attendance to have a quorum. You decided to take an illegal vote. You subtracted the NO's from the original quorum number in attendance. You never took took a call to see if a quorum existed prior to the vote. In reality, the NO vote was the majority when the vote was called . In essence your outcome regarding this matter is null and void and absolutely can be brought up at your next meeting.

[Trina]

... until 2 years ago when I was elected it was rarely consulted and when I do quote or read from "the book" most folks believe I am making something up.

So most of my excitement is because this is an example where knowing RONR will help them and maybe for a brief instant they will cease beating me up over it....

I can sympathize with that feeling -- i.e. quoting or even referring to RONR doesn't win me any popularity points in the organizations I belong to, LOL. I'm not sure what Guest_Hepburn is sour about. Maybe trying to give an example of that 'beating up' process you mention

I assumed Hepburn was annoyed by the words posted on the forum by Mr. Brasch; the possibility of personal acquaintance didn't occur to me until later. Multiple posters carrying their disagreements onto the forum together doesn't really happen that often -- fortunately.

[Guest ARIZONA OR BUST]

Roberts rules of order and any other procedure are to be consulted when YOUR ORGANIZATION'S by-laws and rules fail to address a situation. For 34 yrs our organization was able to guild and keep good order because we conducted our business openly,and we dealt with our members REASONABLY. On the other hand certain types of individuals receive a title and become full of themselves.This type of individual is interested in TITLE ONLY and self service this in itself is a major violation no matter which rules you follow,and unfortunately is a map for disaster.A membership is much different to guide than workforce of employees or investors looking for profits.It is obvious that you are incapable of understanding the intricate needs of the organization.This is why your doomed to failure

[Josh Martin]

MAYBE they're not beating you up over Roberts Rules MAYBE it could be your condescending and arrogant attitude towards people. MAYBE you should really check yourself.

I don't see any evidence to suggest that Mr. Brasch has a "condescending and arrogant attitude" towards people, based upon the posts he has made on this forum. If you happen to know Mr. Brasch outside the context of the forum, please resolve your differences with him outside the forum as well, so that the discussions on the forum may focus on the application of parliamentary law as codified in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

I think you were mistaken. The majority of attendees had left the meeting prior to any vote. There weren't enough in attendance to have a quorum. You decided to take an illegal vote. You subtracted the NO's from the original quorum number in attendance. You never took took a call to see if a quorum existed prior to the vote. In reality, the NO vote was the majority when the vote was called . In essence your outcome regarding this matter is null and void and absolutely can be brought up at your next meeting.

I'm not sure where this information is coming from. I would note that, as a general rule, if a poster happens to have personal knowledge of a situation and his understanding of the facts differs from what is provided by the original poster, it is best to post this as a new topic, and the members of the forum can address those facts as presented. The reason for this is that we have no way of verifying any particular account of a given situation, so conflicts over the presented facts are unproductive and lead nowhere. Therefore, we answer on the assumption that the facts presented to us are accurate, even though we recognize that this may not be the case. Disputes over the facts of a case should be resolved by the organization.

In this particular instance, however, I would note that even if it were true that a quorum was not present at the original meeting, the procedure to follow at this point would be exactly the same. The appropriate course of action would still be for a member to make the motion anew at the next meeting (provided, of course, that there is a quorum present at that meeting), just as is the case when the motion is defeated. If a motion had been adopted without a quorum, that would be a more problematic issue.

Roberts rules of order and any other procedure are to be consulted when YOUR ORGANIZATION'S by-laws and rules fail to address a situation. For 34 yrs our organization was able to guild and keep good order because we conducted our business openly,and we dealt with our members REASONABLY. On the other hand certain types of individuals receive a title and become full of themselves.This type of individual is interested in TITLE ONLY and self service this in itself is a major violation no matter which rules you follow,and unfortunately is a map for disaster.A membership is much different to guide than workforce of employees or investors looking for profits.It is obvious that you are incapable of understanding the intricate needs of the organization.This is why your doomed to failure

I'm not sure if these accusations are levied against Mr. Brasch, and if they are, I don't see any evidence to substantiate them, based upon the posts he has made on this forum. If you happen to know Mr. Brasch outside the context of the forum, please resolve your differences with him outside the forum as well, so that the discussions on the forum may focus on the application of parliamentary law as codified in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised.

If the accusations are not levied against Mr. Brasch, then I have no idea what this post has to do with the original question.

[Trina]

In this particular instance, however, I would note that even if it were true that a quorum was not present at the original meeting, the procedure to follow at this point would be exactly the same. The appropriate course of action would still be for a member to make the motion anew at the next meeting (provided, of course, that there is a quorum present at that meeting), just as is the case when the motion is defeated. If a motion had been adopted without a quorum, that would be a more problematic issue.

Despite the description of facts in the original post, the title of the thread does suggest a motion that was adopted, as does (I think) the post by Pine Cone... assuming these later posters are indeed talking about the same events. I'm confused...

Note also these words in the OP:

>> I believe I read in RONR that the motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it <<

That also suggests that the motion passed (Mr. Brasch seemed to be thinking of the motion to reconsider, offered by someone on the prevailing side).

Perhaps Mr. Brasch can clarify.

[Josh Martin]

Despite the description of facts in the original post, the title of the thread does suggest a motion that was adopted, as does (I think) the post by Pine Cone... assuming these later posters are indeed talking about the same events. I'm confused...

Note also these words in the OP:

>> I believe I read in RONR that the motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it <<

That also suggests that the motion passed (Mr. Brasch seemed to be thinking of the motion to reconsider, offered by someone on the prevailing side).

Perhaps Mr. Brasch can clarify.

As usual, you have an eye for the details. Looking back, the original post does seem contradictory on certain points. If the motion was indeed, adopted rather than defeated, the appropriate course of action would be the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted, although it still does not matter how the member who makes this motion voted on the original motion. As noted, that characteristic is particular to the motion to Reconsider.

As for the possible quorum issues, a Point of Order could be raised to that effect at a later meeting if there is clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present at the time the vote was taken.

[Guest Lois]

I'm new to this, so please bear with me. My question has to do with a Motion that was made and passed by last year's Bd. of Directors, in that in addition to other official records, a (redacted) accounts receivable report would be posted on our secure member website for ease of Members viewing (especially since not all can attend monthly Board meetings, nor visit the Property Manager's office). (The redacted report was created and approved by the Assoc. Atty. after demands and threats of a lawsuit were leveled by one of our Members.) The new Board this year has said they don't have the time to post this report to the website. My question is, if a Motion has been previously approved/passed but if it will no longer will followed as part of previous policy per that past Motion, doesn't there have to be a Motion or notation made in the Minutes of some sort to note for the record that this previous Board policy will not be policy any longer?

Thank you very much.

[jstackpo]

Guest Lois:

Please start a new topic with your (new) question.

[Rob Elsman]

At an all member meeting for our organization a motion was made and defeated 34-14 and now at our next all member meeting the membership wants to bring up the motion again and change it because they feel they left an important piece out. I want to give the membership the opportunity to have their say; however I believe I read in RONR that the motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it. Am I mistaken?

A rejected main motion can be renewed at any later session by any member's making the appropriate motion, regardless how he voted the first time around. The renewed main motion can be in exactly the same form or a different form than the main motion previously rejected, and it is treated exactly as if the previously-rejected motion had never been made. See RONR (11th ed.), §38, pp. 336ff.

[Josh Martin]

My question is, if a Motion has been previously approved/passed but if it will no longer will followed as part of previous policy per that past Motion, doesn't there have to be a Motion or notation made in the Minutes of some sort to note for the record that this previous Board policy will not be policy any longer?

Yes. The appropriate motion is the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which requires a 2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board, in this case), or a majority vote with previous notice.

[Noelgroup]

Yikes - gunfight at the RONR corral! (or maybe it was the tippee in the poster's ID pic that made me think of cowboys and indians)

Listen to Josh Martin's very diplomatic advice and take it outside - and then get some parliamentarian training or support - it sounds like the whole organization would benefit. Especially as then members (such as Kate H and Pinecone - if they are not one and the same person) would have enough knowledge to raise a point of order or parliamentary inquiry if they don't agree with what's happening during a meeting e.g. members leaving the meeting before or during a vote.

(And just subtracting NO votes from a quorum total to get a vote count? Doesn't sound like good practice from a RONR point of view)

....and the title of the post definitely contradicts the post message - the motion was apparently defeated - therefore not 'already approved'?

And isn't it the membership that allows and indeed encourages all members to have their say, as their right - not because of any benevolence from the Chair?

Phew! That's enough and time for bed. Good Luck!

[Guest Guest]

Thank you very much for your reply, Mr. Martin.

[Scott Brasch]

Wow; just saw all the activity on my post.

I know nothing of subtracting votes to make a quorum; this is coming from way out in left field and as stated didn’t occur.

I was just trying to get some advice so that as chair I could make the right decision and not do something to violate RONR (which I try very hard to follow).

Now to the motion:

The motion was made and passed and now the member has asked if he can make the motion again. The member voted against the motion and I wanted to make sure he could infact make the motion again.

I hope I have clarified my original post and as always thank you!

[Tim Wynn]

Wow; just saw all the activity on my post.

I know nothing of subtracting votes to make a quorum; this is coming from way out in left field and as stated didn’t occur.

I was just trying to get some advice so that as chair I could make the right decision and not do something to violate RONR (which I try very hard to follow).

Now to the motion:

The motion was made and passed and now the member has asked if he can make the motion again. The member voted against the motion and I wanted to make sure he could infact make the motion again.

I hope I have clarified my original post and as always thank you!

I think the specifics of the two motions will be needed to provide a substantial answer. Any identifying details could be omitted or changed to protect the innocent.

[Scott Brasch]

There was only one motion:

To eliminate the scanning of identification when checking in guest at our orginazation.

The motion was defeated 34-14

The member who made the motion wants to make the motion again; but this time not eliminating the scanning of identification just eliminating that a member has to come up and escort their guest into the club.

So if I am reading the posts correctly: A new motion could be made. I understood it to be(a motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it.) and I stand corrected.

If you require additional details I can be emailed at scottbrasch@gmail.com.

[Tim Wynn]

There was only one motion:

To eliminate the scanning of identification when checking in guest at our orginazation.

The motion was defeated 34-14

The member who made the motion wants to make the motion again; but this time not eliminating the scanning of identification just eliminating that a member has to come up and escort their guest into the club.

So if I am reading the posts correctly: A new motion could be made. I understood it to be(a motion will need to be made by someone who voted to pass the motion and not by someone who opposed it.) and I stand corrected.

If you require additional details I can be emailed at scottbrasch@gmail.com.

In your post, #21, you stated that the motion "passed." Now, it seems that the motion was lost. A motion that was defeated can be renewed at a following session, provided that the motion would not otherwise be out of order. If that was your understanding, you have it right.

[Scott Brasch]

My bad sorry motion passed 34-14.