Series of errors

[Guest rrJunkie]

This was all done in Board meetings.

First error

Our bylaws require "approval by at least least 5 members."

A vote was taken and the results were announced "4 yes, 3 no, motion carried."

No point of order raised.

Second error

After an intimidating question one of the "no" voters changed her vote to "yes."

No "unanimous consent" was requested nor was it given. (nor was any objection raised)

No point of order raised.

The "new results" were announced - "5 yes, 2 no, motion carried."

These errors were brought to the attention of the Board with the acknowledgement that since no points of order were raised the results could stand. However, assuming the errors were just errors, it might be proper for the Board to obtain the outcome that would have been obtained had the errors not occurred (i.e. the failure of the motion) by moving to rescind an action previously taken.

The Board agreed - sort of.

At the next board meeting, with two of the "no" voters not present and two additional voters who had not been present at the previous meeting, the board showed "good faith" by moving to rescind the action previously taken. However, they then immediately remade the exact same motion which had been erroneously carried and then rescinded. An action the Chairman had announced would be taken if the motion to rescind passed. The reintroduced motion was passed 7 - 0. So much for "good faith."

Can a Board (or any assembly) rescind something then turn around and re-pass the exact same thing in the same meeting? Except for wanting to show their "good faith" they could have just ignored the errors and let the prior results stand since Robert's Rules requires a "timely" point of order to correct an error.

I haven't been able to find a definitive answer in RONR 11.

[Chris Harrison]

Nothing in RONR would prevent the assembly from Rescinding a motion and then immediately re-adopting it. The fact that some members who didn't attend before attended this meeting and some members who did attend the prior meeting didn't attend this meeting causing a change in the outcome is just the nature of the beast.

[Tim Wynn]

This was all done in Board meetings.

First error

Our bylaws require "approval by at least least 5 members."

A vote was taken and the results were announced "4 yes, 3 no, motion carried."

No point of order raised.

Second error

After an intimidating question one of the "no" voters changed her vote to "yes."

No "unanimous consent" was requested nor was it given. (nor was any objection raised)

No point of order raised.

The "new results" were announced - "5 yes, 2 no, motion carried."

These errors were brought to the attention of the Board with the acknowledgement that since no points of order were raised the results could stand. However, assuming the errors were just errors, it might be proper for the Board to obtain the outcome that would have been obtained had the errors not occurred (i.e. the failure of the motion) by moving to rescind an action previously taken.

The Board agreed - sort of.

At the next board meeting, with two of the "no" voters not present and two additional voters who had not been present at the previous meeting, the board showed "good faith" by moving to rescind the action previously taken. However, they then immediately remade the exact same motion which had been erroneously carried and then rescinded. An action the Chairman had announced would be taken if the motion to rescind passed. The reintroduced motion was passed 7 - 0. So much for "good faith."

Can a Board (or any assembly) rescind something then turn around and re-pass the exact same thing in the same meeting? Except for wanting to show their "good faith" they could have just ignored the errors and let the prior results stand since Robert's Rules requires a "timely" point of order to correct an error.

I haven't been able to find a definitive answer in RONR 11.

It seems like you're chasing your tail. If the motion had been lost at the first session. It could have been renewed at the next session, anyway.

The very bizarre answer to your very bizarre question is that, the assembly cannot be asked to decide substantially the same question at the same session, which this appears to be, and an affirmative vote on Rescind cannot be reconsidered. So, the motion could not have been made, unless circumstances made it essentially a different question, which actually could be the case, since the circumstance was that the assembly was just jumping through unnecessary parliamentary hoops in order to eventually...

Oh, I give up. This is a case where fifteen wrongs make a right, and the motion is adopted. Y'all get what you deserve.

[Gary Novosielski]

This was all done in Board meetings.

First error

Our bylaws require "approval by at least least 5 members."

A vote was taken and the results were announced "4 yes, 3 no, motion carried."

No point of order raised.

Second error

After an intimidating question one of the "no" voters changed her vote to "yes."

No "unanimous consent" was requested nor was it given. (nor was any objection raised)

No point of order raised.

The "new results" were announced - "5 yes, 2 no, motion carried."

These errors were brought to the attention of the Board with the acknowledgement that since no points of order were raised the results could stand. However, assuming the errors were just errors, it might be proper for the Board to obtain the outcome that would have been obtained had the errors not occurred (i.e. the failure of the motion) by moving to rescind an action previously taken.

The Board agreed - sort of.

At the next board meeting, with two of the "no" voters not present and two additional voters who had not been present at the previous meeting, the board showed "good faith" by moving to rescind the action previously taken. However, they then immediately remade the exact same motion which had been erroneously carried and then rescinded. An action the Chairman had announced would be taken if the motion to rescind passed. The reintroduced motion was passed 7 - 0. So much for "good faith."

Can a Board (or any assembly) rescind something then turn around and re-pass the exact same thing in the same meeting? Except for wanting to show their "good faith" they could have just ignored the errors and let the prior results stand since Robert's Rules requires a "timely" point of order to correct an error.

I haven't been able to find a definitive answer in RONR 11.

Well, the proper way of removing of the "error" if we presume there was one (which as you noted, makes no real difference without a timely point of order) would be either to Ratify the prior action if there's a remaining question on its validity, or to vote down the motion to Rescind it.

There is no point (and it is improper) to Rescind it and then promptly move it again in the same form just rescinded. Simply voting No on the motion to rescind would have shown an equal amount of good faith in that the matter had received due and deliberate consideration and it would have shown a substantially larger amount of knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

So now you are right back where you started. The motion has passed a second time, it was arguably passed just as improperly the second time as it was the first, and yet it stands because no timely point of order was ever sustained against it. Congratulations, I guess.

[Guest rrJunkie]

There is no point (and it is improper) to Rescind it and then promptly move it again in the same form just rescinded. Simply voting No on the motion to rescind would have shown an equal amount of good faith in that the matter had received due and deliberate consideration and it would have shown a substantially larger amount of knowledge of parliamentary procedure.

So now you are right back where you started. The motion has passed a second time, it was arguably passed just as improperly the second time as it was the first, and yet it stands because no timely point of order was ever sustained against it. Congratulations, I guess.

Is there anything in RONR to indicate it was improperly passed the second time? It seems improper but I can't find a RONR reference to point to. It was, in this case, IMHO, somewhat hypocritical.

[Sean Hunt]

Is there anything in RONR to indicate it was improperly passed the second time? It seems improper but I can't find a RONR reference to point to. It was, in this case, IMHO, somewhat hypocritical.

It was in violation of the rule that the assembly cannot consider the same question twice in one session. Once the decision has been made to Rescind a motion, reintroducing the motion that was just decided upon would be presenting substantially the same question to the assembly and hence would be out of order.

[Gary Novosielski]

Is there anything in RONR to indicate it was improperly passed the second time? It seems improper but I can't find a RONR reference to point to. It was, in this case, IMHO, somewhat hypocritical.

Yes, but once again, no timely point of order was raised when the motion was re-adopted.

So, you do not have a continuing breach, you are back where you were, and the motion stands (again, or still--not that it matters).

[Guest rrJunkie]

I fully understand that the rescinded then re-adopted motion could be allowed to stand, even as it was first (because of errors) adopted because of no "timely" Point of Order.

And I understand the general feeling that "it just don't sound right to me."

And the motion to rescind was handled properly. At least up to the point of re-adopting the rescinded motion. (Note - Not reconsidering the motion to rescind, although the result was the same as if that had been done.)

However, the re-adopted (renewed) motion was not made earlier in this session (which would have classified as "reconsidered"). It was the rescinded motion which had been adopted in a previous meeting. Technically, I suppose, that motion was not acted on in this session until it was brought up for re-adoption after having been the object of the motion to rescinded. It seems a bit murky and in a way I am arguing against myself.

However, to preclude this "rescind and re-adopt" trick from happening in the future I am looking for a specific RONR reference, page and line number, to point to as the reason to raise a Point of Order if our somewhat out of control Board tries this again. Can either Sean or Gary, or anyone else for that matter, furnish such a specific reference?

[Trina]

I fully understand that the rescinded then re-adopted motion could be allowed to stand, even as it was first (because of errors) adopted because of no "timely" Point of Order.

And I understand the general feeling that "it just don't sound right to me."

And the motion to rescind was handled properly. At least up to the point of re-adopting the rescinded motion. (Note - Not reconsidering the motion to rescind, although the result was the same as if that had been done.)

By the way, reconsidering an affirmative vote on a motion to rescind is also not allowed, as Mr. Wynn mentioned above (see RONR 11th ed. p. 307 ll. 13-14).

However, the re-adopted (renewed) motion was not made earlier in this session (which would have classified as "reconsidered"). It was the rescinded motion which had been adopted in a previous meeting. Technically, I suppose, that motion was not acted on in this session until it was brought up for re-adoption after having been the object of the motion to rescinded. It seems a bit murky and in a way I am arguing against myself.

However, to preclude this "rescind and re-adopt" trick from happening in the future I am looking for a specific RONR reference, page and line number, to point to as the reason to raise a Point of Order if our somewhat out of control Board tries this again. Can either Sean or Gary, or anyone else for that matter, furnish such a specific reference?

It's my impression that the previous posters understood this, and replied accordingly. 'A main motion... cannot be renewed at the same session unless there is a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this becomes technically a different motion.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 338 ll.5-9)

Was the motion, when made again, substantially different than the motion that had just been rescinded, earlier in the same meeting?

If the first motion is a 'motion to rescind X', and the second motion is a 'motion to adopt X' then you would effectively have the same outcome as if you had reconsidered the affirmative vote on the motion to rescind, and such reconsideration isn't permitted. Maybe that's a slightly different way to look at it.

[Tim Wynn]

I fully understand that the rescinded then re-adopted motion could be allowed to stand, even as it was first (because of errors) adopted because of no "timely" Point of Order.

And I understand the general feeling that "it just don't sound right to me."

And the motion to rescind was handled properly. At least up to the point of re-adopting the rescinded motion. (Note - Not reconsidering the motion to rescind, although the result was the same as if that had been done.)

However, the re-adopted (renewed) motion was not made earlier in this session (which would have classified as "reconsidered"). It was the rescinded motion which had been adopted in a previous meeting. Technically, I suppose, that motion was not acted on in this session until it was brought up for re-adoption after having been the object of the motion to rescinded. It seems a bit murky and in a way I am arguing against myself.

However, to preclude this "rescind and re-adopt" trick from happening in the future I am looking for a specific RONR reference, page and line number, to point to as the reason to raise a Point of Order if our somewhat out of control Board tries this again. Can either Sean or Gary, or anyone else for that matter, furnish such a specific reference?

I'm all for being prepared, but why would you want to have a citation ready to combat an assembly that wants to waste time adopting two conflicting motions to accomplish nothing. I think common sense is your best weapon, and if it fails... maybe try witchcraft.

[BryanSullo]

I'm all for being prepared, but why would you want to have a citation ready to combat an assembly that wants to waste time adopting two conflicting motions to accomplish nothing. I think common sense is your best weapon, and if it fails... maybe try witchcraft.

To those who are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, RONR is essentially a book of spells, so you may not be that far off.

[Tim Wynn]

To those who are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, RONR is essentially a book of spells, so you may not be that far off.

Well, Burke's Harry Potter fans will appreciate that.

[Guest rrJunkie]

By the way, reconsidering an affirmative vote on a motion to rescind is also not allowed, as Mr. Wynn mentioned above (see RONR 11th ed. p. 307 ll. 13-14).

It's my impression that the previous posters understood this, and replied accordingly. 'A main motion... cannot be renewed at the same session unless there is a change in wording or circumstances sufficient to present substantially a new question, in which case this becomes technically a different motion.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 338 ll.5-9)

Was the motion, when made again, substantially different than the motion that had just been rescinded, earlier in the same meeting?

If the first motion is a 'motion to rescind X', and the second motion is a 'motion to adopt X' then you would effectively have the same outcome as if you had reconsidered the affirmative vote on the motion to rescind, and such reconsideration isn't permitted. Maybe that's a slightly different way to look at it.

I'm all for being prepared, but why would you want to have a citation ready to combat an assembly that wants to waste time adopting two conflicting motions to accomplish nothing. I think common sense is your best weapon, and if it fails... maybe try witchcraft.

Trina hits the nail on the head with her "motion to rescind X" example. "X" was adopted at a previous meeting. Unfortunately, our Board would argue that "effectively have the same outcome as if you had reconsidered the affirmative vote on the motion to rescind" is not the same as actually reconsidering an affirmative vote to reconsider. They would have to agree that actually reconsidering is forbidden.

Also unfortunately, Tim, common sense is not one of the strong points of our Board. Whatever they need to do to get around the rules to get their desired results is their SOP. One needs constant vigilance and applicable Robert's Rules cites at one's fingertips at all times. Do you have a spare magic wand or voodoo doll?

[Chris Harrison]

I suppose I am the lone wolf out here and must disagree with everyone that a motion can't be immediately readopted after it had been Rescinded. I understand that the vote to Rescind cannot be Reconsidered but my general understanding of why a decision can't be Reconsidered is that there is some other method of getting the job done besides using Reconsider. So if the reason that an affirmative vote to Rescind can't be Reconsidered isn't because the original motion can be made right away then what is the reason? I find it hard to imagine that RONR would say that the assembly's hands are tied until the next session if they decide to Rescind an adopted motion and then think better of it.

[Guest rrJunkie]

I suppose I am the lone wolf out here and must disagree with everyone that a motion can't be immediately readopted after it had been Rescinded. I understand that the vote to Rescind cannot be Reconsidered but my general understanding of why a decision can't be Reconsidered is that there is some other method of getting the job done besides using Reconsider. So if the reason that an affirmative vote to Rescind can't be Reconsidered isn't because the original motion can be made right away then what is the reason? I find it hard to imagine that RONR would say that the assembly's hands are tied until the next session if they decide to Rescind an adopted motion and then think better of it.

Well, that brings up the opposite side of the coin. If it is OK to re-adopt a motion just rescinded, why not allow the motion to rescind to be reconsidered? What is the purpose of not allowing a reconsideration of a motion to rescind if it is not to disallow the re-adoption of the rescinded motion?

[Trina]

Well, that brings up the opposite side of the coin. If it is OK to re-adopt a motion just rescinded, why not allow the motion to rescind to be reconsidered? What is the purpose of not allowing a reconsideration of a motion to rescind if it is not to disallow the re-adoption of the rescinded motion?

I think the rules aren't leading to sensible results because the motives of the assembly were not the normal ones -- i.e. debating the merits of the motion, and making a decision. There was all this other stuff -- about patching up past errors, and possibly salving the hurt feelings of some of the members -- creeping into the process. There is rarely a need to retroactively patch up errors in parliamentary procedure -- most points of order must be timely. Who knows... perhaps these other considerations did make it appear a 'substantially different question' in the eyes of the assembly.

If following the rules doesn't carry weight with the members, perhaps efficiency will. Note that 'debate can go into the merits of the question which it is proposed to rescind or amend.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 306 ll. 6-7). Following such debate, the sensible (and efficient) thing to do would have been to vote down the motion to rescind... As Mr. Novosielski already suggested in post #4, I see.

[Guest rrJunkie]

I think the rules aren't leading to sensible results because the motives of the assembly were not the normal ones -- i.e. debating the merits of the motion, and making a decision. There was all this other stuff -- about patching up past errors, and possibly salving the hurt feelings of some of the members -- creeping into the process. There is rarely a need to retroactively patch up errors in parliamentary procedure -- most points of order must be timely. Who knows... perhaps these other considerations did make it appear a 'substantially different question' in the eyes of the assembly.

If following the rules doesn't carry weight with the members, perhaps efficiency will. Note that 'debate can go into the merits of the question which it is proposed to rescind or amend.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 306 ll. 6-7). Following such debate, the sensible (and efficient) thing to do would have been to vote down the motion to rescind... As Mr. Novosielski already suggested in post #4, I see.

Unfortunately most members of the organization at large have no idea what Robert's Rules are. Nor do they have all the details of our bylaws at their fingertips. In fact, that could be said of the Board, as well. I am probably one of the more knowledgeable. I missed the original 5 vote requirement to approve the original motion. Most motions are approved by a majority of those present and voting. This was a special case requiring a majority of the entire (nine member) Board. And I am not on the Board so I can only remind the Board what the RONR says anyway. It is up to someone on the Board to raise a Point of Order.

I have never come across this "rescind/re-adopt" problem. I would guess the reason there is not something specific on it in the RONR is that the authors never considered that anyone would be so unintelligent as to try something like that.

It is not reasonable to expect a "timely" Point to be raised in all such unusual cases by a group of admitted amateurs. However, someone assumed the Board, being honorable folks, would correct the problem if it was pointed out to them even after the fact, by use of a rescind motion. When that didn't happen I got involved to research the rules.

It is probably true that a search of sensible rules will not turn up answers to all unsensible situations. It is also true that some members of our Board have an agenda which favors the adoption of the motion in question even if that takes questionable tactics to achieve. It comes down to "no specific rule - they will not be swayed by reason." That's why I am looking for a very specific rule. Bottom line - the only real way to fix this situation is political. Our next Annual Meeting and elections aren't until next August. We elect only three directors each year (three year term). We made a little headway this year. There's always hope for next.

[Josh Martin]

If it is OK to re-adopt a motion just rescinded, why not allow the motion to rescind to be reconsidered? What is the purpose of not allowing a reconsideration of a motion to rescind if it is not to disallow the re-adoption of the rescinded motion?

Because RONR generally tries to avoid having extraneous procedures to accomplish something. It is generally true that if a motion can be renewed, the motion to Reconsider is not in order as it would be easier to just renew the motion.

It comes down to "no specific rule - they will not be swayed by reason." That's why I am looking for a very specific rule.

I am not aware of a rule on this topic more specific than the rule on pg. 338, lines 5-9. I'm somewhat swayed by Chris H.'s points anyway.

But even if such a rule existed, I don't think it would help with this problem. You say that the new motion was adopted by a vote of 7-0. Even if there was an explicit rule prohibiting a motion from being introduced after it was rescinded, such a rule could be suspended by a 2/3 vote, which the supporters of the motion clearly had.

[Gary Novosielski]

I think that the reason an affirmative vote on the motion to rescind is not allowed is the same reason that moving the same motion after rescission is not allowed--to prevent (essentially) the same question from coming before the assembly within the same session.

[Tim Wynn]

I think that the reason an affirmative motion to rescind is not allowed is the same reason that moving the same motion after rescission is not allowed--to prevent (essentially) the same question from coming before the assembly within the same session.

Don't you mean affirmative "vote,"... or perhaps "adopted" motion?

[DrEntropy]

I suppose I am the lone wolf out here and must disagree with everyone that a motion can't be immediately readopted after it had been Rescinded. I understand that the vote to Rescind cannot be Reconsidered but my general understanding of why a decision can't be Reconsidered is that there is some other method of getting the job done besides using Reconsider. So if the reason that an affirmative vote to Rescind can't be Reconsidered isn't because the original motion can be made right away then what is the reason? I find it hard to imagine that RONR would say that the assembly's hands are tied until the next session if they decide to Rescind an adopted motion and then think better of it.

I agree with this member. However, and IMHO, if the assembly "thinks better of it" (perhaps due to new information being brought to its attention) then the circumstances have changed enough that making the motion again is a new question, even though the text is the same. So it should be in order to move it again, right?

[Gary Novosielski]

Don't you mean affirmative "vote,"... or perhaps "adopted" motion?

I sure do!

[Tim Wynn]

I agree with this member. However, and IMHO, if the assembly "thinks better of it" (perhaps due to new information being brought to its attention) then the circumstances have changed enough that making the motion again is a new question, even though the text is the same. So it should be in order to move it again, right?

I fear "thinking better of it" is not enough, per se, to make it a different question.

[Trina]

This thread has been bothering me -- specifically as to why the original poster so clearly thinks something unfair happened here. Messed up parliamentary procedure, for sure... but it does seem as though the will of the assembly eventually came through the muddle in the end (7-0 vote).

One question that hasn't been asked so far (I don't remember seeing it, anyway) is if there was a notice requirement for the motion in question. Since there was an unusually high vote margin required on the particular question, I wonder if there may have been a notice requirement also. If so, there might actually be a significant problem with the second meeting, and the fact that two of the 'no' voters from the first meeting didn't show up at the second meeting might actually be relevant information (perhaps they would have come if they had known the same motion would be before the assembly again).

[Guest rrJunkie]

There is a good deal of background politics to this which I didn't include and won't bore you with.

No specific notice requirement in the bylaws.

The required high vote margin (majority of entire 9 member board) was instituted many years ago to prevent a majority of a minimum quorum (3 out of 5 - only one-third of the entire board) from approving certain types of unpopular measures. This apparently happened at one time.

We are a mobile group. One of the original "no" voters was on the road and presumably not reachable for a conference call (allowed by the bylaws). I say "presumably" because of said political background. I don't know the circumstances of the other absence. The previously ("incorrectly") switched vote remained switched. The two previously absent members were also on the road but did participate by conference call. (Political motivation to make extra effort to contact them maybe?)

At any rate, there seems to be two arguable sides to the question depending on how different sections of the RONR are interpreted. Lacking an "official" interpretation we probably aren't going to get much further here. It becomes an internal political problem of our group which we hope can be "corrected" at our next Annual Meeting. In the mean time, it's going to be a long year.

Thanks for all your insightful comments.