Guest Jenny Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM A motion was made, second and after some debate was passed. Then the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. The Secretary asked if the motion could be withdrawn. A past Aulixiary President of the Department of Georgia and a Fifth District President agreed that it was ok. My question is can this be done in this manner? If not please reference where it can be found in Robert's Rules of Order. I have found the RONR Forum to be very helpful and by the book but a few of the members want to be shown in the book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM A motion was made, second and after some debate was passed. Then the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. The Secretary asked if the motion could be withdrawn. A past Aulixiary President of the Department of Georgia and a Fifth District President agreed that it was ok. My question is can this be done in this manner? If not please reference where it can be found in Robert's Rules of Order. I have found the RONR Forum to be very helpful and by the book but a few of the members want to be shown in the book.A maker can unilaterally withdraw his motion at any time prior to the chair stating the question, and after that only with permission of the assembly. BUT -- once voting has begun on the motion, even if amended, the opportunity to withdraw it is no longer available. (RONR 11th Ed. p. 297 ll. 8-10) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM But... because nobody raised a formal point of order at the time (even though they consulted with your various - misinformed - presidents) and then you all "went along" with the withdrawal, the motion is indeed withdrawn. So I trust whatever it proposed has NOT been acted on.What to do? If someone (else) likes what the motion proposed, he/she is free to move it (again) next meeting, under "New Business". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:26 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:26 PM No, it can not be done in that manner. The maker of a motion can only withdraw the motion on his own before it has been placed before the assembly by its being stated by the chair. Between that time and the time the assembly acts on it, the maker must request permission of the assembly to withdraw the motion, which is granted by majority vote. See RONR, 11th ed. p.295, for the section entitled "Request for Permission (or leave) to withdraw or modify a motion".Since in your case the motion was passed, it can only be negated by moving to rescind it (RONR, 11th ed., p 305) or, while still in the same session, to reconsider the vote in it (RONR, 11th ed. p.315). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:30 PM But... because nobody raised a formal point of order at the time (even though they consulted with your various - misinformed - presidents) and then you all "went along" with the withdrawal, the motion is indeed withdrawn. So I trust whatever it proposed has NOT been acted on....Do you think they essentially rescinded the motion, by unanimous consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:43 PM Do you think they essentially rescinded the motion, by unanimous consent?In effect, yes, or suspended the rule forbidding withdrawal after adoption, and withdrew it.'Course neither of these rationalizations was (presumably) conscious in the minds of the members at the time. They are just a way to "fit" the (improper) action into the rules, after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:45 PM Do you think they essentially rescinded the motion, by unanimous consent?I'd bet it was only by "unanimous consent" because everybody thought past Aulixiary President of the Department of Georgia and a Fifth District President knew what they were talking about. Several members seem to be questioning it now, and the Secretary seems to have questioned it then. But I guess it's YSYL in action again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:47 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:47 PM In effect, yes, or suspended the rule forbidding withdrawal after adoption, and withdrew it.'Course neither of these rationalizations was (presumably) conscious in the minds of the members at the time. They are just a way to "fit" the (improper) action into the rules, after the fact.OK, I was just trying to understand how you were so sure the motion had actually been withdrawn in the end. I guess, however it's painted, it is the 'everyone going along with it' (i.e. unanimous consent) that authorized the end result. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:54 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 10:54 PM OK, I was just trying to understand how you were so sure the motion had actually been withdrawn in the end. I guess, however it's painted, it is the 'everyone going along with it' (i.e. unanimous consent) that authorized the end result.Am I the only one seeing Mr. Elsman spinning in his . . . well, spinning? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted January 19, 2012 at 11:12 PM Report Share Posted January 19, 2012 at 11:12 PM A motion was made, second and after some debate was passed. Then the maker of the motion withdrew the motion. The Secretary asked if the motion could be withdrawn. A past Aulixiary President of the Department of Georgia and a Fifth District President agreed that it was ok....Am I the only one seeing Mr. Elsman spinning in his . . . well, spinning?I guess we don't know what exactly happened after the ill-informed Presidents (are these people members of the assembly??) gave their opinions. Maybe the matter was left hanging in mid-air, so to speak.Do you think that, if the chair said nothing about the final status of the motion, that a case could be made that the motion has not actually been withdrawn/rescinded/whatever?I also miss Mr. Elsman's emphatic comments on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.