Scope of subordination of a motion to Rescind

[Sean Hunt]

Scenario:

For some reason, the clubhouse has no locks. The Executive Board adopts a resolution that "No member shall leave the clubhouse unattended between the hours of midnight and 8 am." At a general meeting some time later, a long discussion leads to a motion to rescind that resolution, which is adopted, along with a directive that the Executive Board contemplate the installation of locks.

At the next general meeting, the Executive Board reports that locks are too expensive, and that the Executive Board would like to reinstate the rule about leaving the clubhouse unattended. No motion is made on this point, however. (Note: I don't expect this to affect the parliamentary situation; it's just added to make the story more coherent)

Is it in order for the Executive Board to move the adoption of the original resolution again, since the motion to rescind was carried out at the general meeting and is no longer in effect? If not, can the Executive Board change the resolution by replacing 8 am with either 7 am or 9 am and adopting that? What if, instead, the membership had amended the motion in such a way that didn't affect the rest of this question?

[Josh Martin]

Is it in order for the Executive Board to move the adoption of the original resolution again, since the motion to rescind was carried out at the general meeting and is no longer in effect?

No. Such a motion is in conflict with the action taken by the assembly. It is similar to a case in which an assembly rejects a motion or postpones it indefinitely. Although there is no motion adopted on the subject, the board's proposed action clearly conflicts with the will of the assembly.

If not, can the Executive Board change the resolution by replacing 8 am with either 7 am or 9 am and adopting that?

No. If the assembly rescinded the resolution rather than amending it, it seems clear that the assembly has decided not to have such a policy.

What if, instead, the membership had amended the motion in such a way that didn't affect the rest of this question?

The rule is that the board's action may not conflict with an action by the assembly. If the membership amended the motion, for instance, to change the hours, then the board could not change those hours. On the other hand, if the motion is amended in some other manner which does not involve the hours, the board could amend the hours.

[Gary c Tesser]

It seems to me that the effect of the original board resolution was to require any hapless member who found himself alone in the clubhouse overnight, to stay there. The will of the membership assembly, as expressed in its repeal of the resolution, is to let the impromptu Overnight Attendant off the hook.

So the board is free to institute any procedures or requirements that do not conflict with what the membership has established as effectively a specific non-requirement. Clearly, then, the board, still concerned with the security of club property, is free to allow, and perhaps to require, any member who finds himself in the clubhouse with another member from midnight to 8 AM to handcuff the other member to a convenient stanchion or ostrich or other solid object in the clubhouse, preferably accessible to the facilities. The board may also require or allow the club wolves or crocodiles or orchids to run around loose on the club grounds all night, except that the board cannot require any of the wolves or crocodiles or orchids to stay in the clubhouse if they are members. (I think this is what Mr Martin was groping for, until he lost his train of thought.)

(Incidentally, I'm not as sure as Josh Martin is, if I understand his position correctly, that re-instituting the nighttime attendance requirement, but with different hours specified, cannot be substantially different enough to be allowable.)

(Note: I don't expect this to affect the parliamentary situation; it's just added to make the story more coherent)

A commendable aspiration. I have it too sometimes.

[Josh Martin]

(Incidentally, I'm not as sure as Josh Martin is, if I understand his position correctly, that re-instituting the nighttime attendance requirement, but with different hours specified, cannot be substantially different enough to be allowable.)

That is a fair point. It is possible the hours could be changed to such an extent that the new resolution would be a substantially different question, although I don't think that the examples provided meet that threshold.