Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

When is a motion to rescind in order?


Guest Paul S.

Recommended Posts

RONR states that a motion cannot be rescinded "after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo." This has led to a lot of debate in my church. Almost anything can be undone one way or another. Even hardened concrete can be jack hammered out. But the most contentious issue revolves around ongoing church activities. If a motion was made in 1954 to begin holding a late morning church service starting at 11:00 am, how would we get rid of that service? Would we make a motion to stop holding the service? Or would we make a motion to rescind the 1954 motion which added the service? There are members on both sides. The most recent issue has to do with printed Bible verses being given to congregants as they enter the church. A motion was made in 2008 to begin distribution of these handouts. The ushers have been distributing them for nearly four years. At our January, 2012 general membership meeting a member made a motion to stop printing and distributing the handouts. It passed, but with less than a 2/3 majority. Now some members--including high level officers--are saying that the motion was out of order because rather than say "stop the handouts" it should have said, "Rescind the 2008 motion which instituted the handouts." Furthermore, since the membership was not notified ahead of time that this motion to rescind would be made, it should have required a 2/3 vote, which it did not receive. Proponents of this position claim that the motion was out of order, should not have been allowed by the presiding officer, and that the vote taken on the motion can and should be disregarded. Therefore the handouts will continue. Others feel that the church leadership is using parliamentary machinations to undermine the will of the members. They say that the printing and distribution of the handouts for the past four years constitutes "something that the assembly cannot undo," and therefore a motion to rescind the 2008 motion would not have been in order even if it had been placed in the call-to-meeting letter which was sent to all members. They argue that a motion to rescind would only have been in order had it been made in 2008 prior to the start of the distribution. Now that actions are being taken every week to distribute the handouts, the only option for a member wishing to put an end to the handouts was to make a new motion asking that the handouts be stopped--which is what a member has done. New motions do not require a 2/3rds vote and therefore the fact that a simple majority passed the motion means that the ushers should stop giving the handouts. Sounds like a minor issue, but anyone who has been involved in church politics will tell you that there are no minor issues when it comes to conflicting theological perspectives. I would appreciate hearing what experienced parliamentarians have to say: If a motion is made to institute an on-going policy or practice, how is that on-going practice changed or discontinued in the future? Is a new motion made? Or is the original motion rescinded? If the answer is "rescinded," is there a time limit, such as "motions made within the past 20 years ago are rescinded, older ones require a new motion"? Or do we have to track down 100 year-old motions anytime we want to change a long-standing practice in the church? Thanks so much!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost anything can be undone one way or another. Even hardened concrete can be jack hammered out.

Well, it's true that almost anything can be reversed or changed, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can be undone. Let's assume that the assembly adopts a motion ordering the Treasurer to purchase a new computer for the Secretary. At a later meeting, if the Treasurer has not yet bought the computer, this motion could be rescinded. On the other hand, if the computer had already been purchased, you can't "unbuy" the computer. Depending on the circumstances, you might be able to return it, or sell it on eBay, or whatever, but the fact that the computer was purchased cannot be changed.

But the most contentious issue revolves around ongoing church activities. If a motion was made in 1954 to begin holding a late morning church service starting at 11:00 am, how would we get rid of that service? Would we make a motion to stop holding the service? Or would we make a motion to rescind the 1954 motion which added the service?

If it is desired to get rid of the service entirely, the motion may be rescinded. If it is desired to change the time for the service, the motion may be amended (these are really two forms of the same motion).

Part of the problem here is that "a motion cannot be rescinded 'after something has been done as a result of that vote that the assembly cannot undo'" is an incomplete statement of the applicable rule. The full text of the applicable rule is "The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are not in order under the following circumstances:... When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo. (The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended.)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 308, lines 13-15, 20-24)

That last sentence in parentheses is crucial in applying the rule to this situation. What this means, essentially, is that you are free to rescind or amend the motion and this will affect the services held in the future, but it will have no effect on the services which have already happened.

The most recent issue has to do with printed Bible verses being given to congregants as they enter the church. A motion was made in 2008 to begin distribution of these handouts. The ushers have been distributing them for nearly four years. At our January, 2012 general membership meeting a member made a motion to stop printing and distributing the handouts. It passed, but with less than a 2/3 majority. Now some members--including high level officers--are saying that the motion was out of order because rather than say "stop the handouts" it should have said, "Rescind the 2008 motion which instituted the handouts." Furthermore, since the membership was not notified ahead of time that this motion to rescind would be made, it should have required a 2/3 vote, which it did not receive. Proponents of this position claim that the motion was out of order, should not have been allowed by the presiding officer, and that the vote taken on the motion can and should be disregarded. Therefore the handouts will continue. Others feel that the church leadership is using parliamentary machinations to undermine the will of the members. They say that the printing and distribution of the handouts for the past four years constitutes "something that the assembly cannot undo," and therefore a motion to rescind the 2008 motion would not have been in order even if it had been placed in the call-to-meeting letter which was sent to all members. They argue that a motion to rescind would only have been in order had it been made in 2008 prior to the start of the distribution. Now that actions are being taken every week to distribute the handouts, the only option for a member wishing to put an end to the handouts was to make a new motion asking that the handouts be stopped--which is what a member has done. New motions do not require a 2/3rds vote and therefore the fact that a simple majority passed the motion means that the ushers should stop giving the handouts. Sounds like a minor issue, but anyone who has been involved in church politics will tell you that there are no minor issues when it comes to conflicting theological perspectives. I would appreciate hearing what experienced parliamentarians have to say: If a motion is made to institute an on-going policy or practice, how is that on-going practice changed or discontinued in the future? Is a new motion made? Or is the original motion rescinded?

The motion to Rescind is used to cancel or end a policy or practice which is still in force. In this instance, the members were correct that the motion to Rescind was the appropriate tool.

As for the other members who claim the motion cannot be rescinded and that a new motion is appropriate, the members are correct that nothing can be done to change the fact that the handouts have been passed out for the past four years, but the unexecuted part of the order can be rescinded. Thus, the motion can be rescinded in order to prevent handouts from being distributed in the future.

If the answer is "rescinded," is there a time limit, such as "motions made within the past 20 years ago are rescinded, older ones require a new motion"? Or do we have to track down 100 year-old motions anytime we want to change a long-standing practice in the church?

There is no set time limit on how long a motion may be in effect. It depends entirely on the motion. Some motions specify a time for their expiration or will be fully executed at some point due to their nature (such as purchasing something). Continuing rules and policies, on the other hand, remain in force indefinitely until rescinded, and for this reason it is generally advisable to have the Secretary maintain a record of such rules. It appears this has not been done and this will create some problems, but it would be highly advisable to start doing it.

It is not necessarily required, however, to "track down 100 year-old motions anytime we want to change a long-standing practice in the church," since rescinding or amending a motion or rule doesn't require an exact statement of the original motion. Going back to your 11 AM service example, let's assume that rule had been adopted in 1854 rather than 1954. The members may know that the church has a motion on the subject but be unable to locate the exact rule. It is perfectly in order to simply make a motion "To rescind the rule that a service be held at 11:00 AM." So long as the intent of the motion to Rescind is clear, it is not necessary to know the exact wording of the original motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not necessarily required, however, to "track down 100 year-old motions anytime we want to change a long-standing practice in the church," since rescinding or amending a motion or rule doesn't require an exact statement of the original motion.

Although it's not a bad idea to list all motions with a continuing effect in a document called "Policies" (or some such thing), with references to the dates of adoption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Once again Josh, thank you so much. We will ask the clerk to start compiling a list of motions which establish on-going procedures and policies. The bigger problem in this case is that our church has never followed the rule that previous motions be rescinded in order to change policies or procedures. For example, a few years ago we moved our Wednesday evening service from 8:00 pm to 7:30 pm. It had been at 8:00 pm for probably 100 years or more. No one said anything about rescinding or amending the rule or motion that the service be held at 8:00 pm. They just said, "I move that we change the start time to 7:30 pm." And it passed. We have had lots of motions like that. Then along came the motion to discontinue handouts. It passed in the normal way. No questions of parliamentary procedure were raised during the meeting. But after the fact, one of the Elders who was unhappy that the motion passed started doing research. He discovered, as you clarified, that the motion should have been worded as a rescind, even though the church has never done it that way--at least in the 25 years I have been there. Personally, I like the handouts and would like to see the motion to discontinue them invalidated. But I am sensitive to the many members who feel they are being mistreated. They feel as though the rules of the game were changed retroactively just because they had won. And they are probably right. Not a good way to run a church. But it wouldn't have happened if we had been following the right process all along. From now on we will, thanks to you! So thanks again!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are all these past changes of existing practice challengeable [is that a word?] under p. 251( b )? In other words, are they vulnerable to challenge because they were motions adopted in conflict with an existing motion still in force, but not adopted by the margin necessary to rescind?

I guess what I'm asking is, what are the documentation requirements for a 251( b ) violation? It seems that the burden of proof is to show that the newer (conflicting) motion was adopted by a sufficient margin to rescind the earlier motion. If the information about vote margin is not preserved (as it often isn't in a plain vanilla majority vote), then the newer motion could presumably be challenged.

What if the earlier practice is so old that one can't be certain that the source of the practice actually was a motion at all?

I'm uneasy with the possibility that all these past decisions to change existing practice (as described by the original poster) are open to challenge because they weren't made by a sufficient vote margin to rescind, and/or because the vote was not adequately documented to show a sufficient vote margin to rescind.

Perhaps what it comes down to (and a detail which hasn't yet been pointed out to the original poster) is that adopted motions -- like the one to stop distribution of the Bible verse handouts -- don't just fall by the wayside because some member reads RONR and discovers that the motion should properly have been a motion to rescind. Someone, at a meeting, has to raise a point of order about the violation, and the chair (and the assembly) then make a decision on the point of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Trina. You captured my concern as well. In the case of the Bible verse handout issue, the vote was done by written ballot so we have the exact count and know that it was less than 2/3. But last night my wife and I were talking about all the decisions the church has made in the past 20 years that really should have been motions to rescind or amend a motion previously adopted. Now that a member has raised this parliamentary error regarding the Bible verses, are people going to start challenging all of these earlier decisions, many of which do not have an exact count? It could be a wild ride. Thanks for raising the issues!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Trina. You captured my concern as well. In the case of the Bible verse handout issue, the vote was done by written ballot so we have the exact count and know that it was less than 2/3. But last night my wife and I were talking about all the decisions the church has made in the past 20 years that really should have been motions to rescind or amend a motion previously adopted. Now that a member has raised this parliamentary error regarding the Bible verses, are people going to start challenging all of these earlier decisions, many of which do not have an exact count? It could be a wild ride. Thanks for raising the issues!

You're letting yourself get all mixed up in problems that don't exist.

For example, a motion "to change the starting time of the Wednesday evening service from 8:00 pm to 7:30 pm." is a properly worded motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're letting yourself get all mixed up in problems that don't exist.

For example, a motion "to change the starting time of the Wednesday evening service from 8:00 pm to 7:30 pm." is a properly worded motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

I think the concern was more with the vote margins by which the newer (conflicting) motions were adopted, rather than with the exact wording of those motions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the concern was more with the vote margins by which the newer (conflicting) motions were adopted, rather than with the exact wording of those motions.

I don't. The first question to be decided is whether or not the motion is a "conflicting motion" or a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, and there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now that a member has raised this parliamentary error regarding the Bible verses, are people going to start challenging all of these earlier decisions, many of which do not have an exact count? It could be a wild ride.

Well, I rather doubt people will start challenging all the earlier decisions, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are challenged. As Mr. Honemann notes, the first thing to determine is whether the motion was properly made as a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted or whether it was simply a new motion which conflicted with the existing motion. Despite the assembly's confusion over this issue, some of them may well have been made properly. For instance, since the words "amend" and "change" mean essentially the same thing, a motion to "change" a previously adopted motion is perfectly proper. Likewise, now that I take a closer look at the motion regarding the handouts, the intent of "stop the handouts" seems fairly clear as well (if that is indeed what the motion said). The key is that the intent is clear - not that the precise parliamentary terms are used (although that certainly helps). For such motions as these, it's too late for members to complain about the vote count. See Official Interpretation 2006-18.

On the other hand, perhaps the motion said something like "Handouts shall not be distributed at meetings." This conflicts with the earlier motion and it makes no reference to changing (amending) or stopping/canceling (rescinding) that motion. In this case, this is a new motion which conflicts with a motion previously adopted by the assembly. In this case, the motion is null and void unless it can be clearly shown that the motion was adopted by the voting threshold required to rescind or amend the previous motion. See Official Interpretation 2006-17 for more information.

What if the earlier practice is so old that one can't be certain that the source of the practice actually was a motion at all?

Well, if there is no proof that the new motion is in conflict with an existing motion, then the motion stands.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't. The first question to be decided is whether or not the motion is a "conflicting motion" or a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, and there seems to be quite a bit of confusion about this.

Ah... this, along with Mr. Martin's subsequent post, throws light on a point that's been eluding me all day. I posted a reference to OI 2006-18 this morning, and then deleted the post about a minute later -- because 2006-18 does not apply to the situation in which the newer motion truly conflicts with an older motion which is still in effect.

For many of the motions mentioned by Paul S., the intent to change (amend) or end (rescind) a previous practice was probably quite clear, in which case there would be no grounds to challenge those motions after the fact (no matter what the vote count was when they were adopted).

Guest_Paul, hopefully the fog is clearing for you also :) ... and I apologize if I made that fog thicker with my earlier comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh, Trina, Dan--Yes, the fog is lifting. And your notes have been helpful with a number of outstanding complaints and issues that I had not even mentioned. A couple clarifications of my earlier comments: I am definitely concerned about the vote count of past motions. Our members are not very good about notifying the clerk in time to get their motions into the call-to-meeting letter. So instead they drop them like bombshells at the meeting. Because we have treated almost every one of these bombshells as though it was a new motion, they required only a simple majority to pass. Had we known that these should actually have been treated as motions to rescind or amend a previous motion, they would have required a 2/3 vote because prior notice was not given. As you may have guessed from my earlier comments, my church can be somewhat contentious. Jesus Christ himself could appear at the door applying for membership and 40% of the members would say, "I'm not letting him in until he buys some decent shoes!" OK, maybe that's an unfair exaggeration. But the point is we rarely achieve a 2/3 vote on any issue. So many of the motions that have been approved in the past few years which modified longstanding policies and procedures would not have passed had we required a 2/3 vote. I appreciate Josh’s reference to Official Interpretation 2006-18 stating that it is now too late for people to complain. I am going to have that printed on the inside cover of all the hymnals in the pew racks. Thanks again everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The key is that the intent is clear - not that the precise parliamentary terms are used (although that certainly helps).

Josh--I really appreciate your comment about “intent.” I am not currently the church parliamentarian. But I was a few years ago when I was forced to make a difficult ruling. At our April membership meeting a member made a motion to combine our 9:30 and 11:00 am services into a single 10:00 am service. (Of course, it wasn’t in the call-to-meeting letter.) It passed by majority vote. The combined service would start in five months, on September 1. But then, the call-to-meeting letter for our July meeting notified the membership that a motion would be made, “To retain our current schedule of two services at 9:30 and 11:00.” At the meeting, as soon as the motion was brought up, a member jumped to her feet and called for a point of order. She announced that she had consulted a lawyer about this motion. He told her that unless it used the word “rescind,” it was out of order. The maker of the motion would therefore have to withdraw the motion that was in the call-to-meeting letter and make a new motion using the word “rescind.” However, since the new “rescind” motion had not been in the call-to-meeting letter, it would require a 2/3 vote to pass. That’s what the lawyer had told her. This issue had come up before, and it was pretty clear just from looking around at who was in attendance, that a majority of the people at the meeting were from the “two services” camp. But they did not represent 2/3rds of the membership. So this parliamentary question (majority or 2/3rds vote) would basically decide whether the motion passed or failed. As parliamentarian I was asked to rule on this woman’s point-of-order. Technically, I knew she was right—in fact I had already called the woman who put the motion in the call-to-meeting letter and told her she should have simply rescinded the motion passed in April. So maybe the motion was out of order. On the other hand, her motion had been the talk of the church for three weeks, ever since it appeared in the call-to-meeting letter. Everyone knew that the intent of the motion was to reverse or rescind the motion to go to a single service. The July meeting was the most crowded membership meeting we had ever had, with many members who normally don’t come to meetings hiring babysitters or making special arrangements just so they could be there. Were their efforts to be present that night going to be wasted because of a parliamentary technicality? I ruled that although the wording of the motion was not correct, the intent was perfectly clear and that the motion as printed in the call-to-meeting letter qualified as prior notice that the membership would be considering rescinding the earlier motion. Therefore a simple majority would be required to pass the resolution--which they did. But the losing side was furious at me. Twenty three members withdrew from the church in protest—and have not returned—because of what they perceived to be an unfair and manipulative ruling by me. Even those who did not withdraw have harbored hard feelings towards me ever since that meeting. For several years I have wondered, “Did I err?” Did my mistake drive people away from our church? I have felt terrible about it. But your comment, Josh--“The key is that the intent is clear”-- makes me think that maybe I was alright—or at least not completely wrong. You are obviously a very smart guy who knows the rules well, so if you are willing to accept intent, I am too! Thanks for setting my mind at ease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But your comment, Josh--“The key is that the intent is clear”-- makes me think that maybe I was alright—or at least not completely wrong.

I don't think you give yourself enough credit. Based on the facts presented, it seems to me that you were entirely correct. The motion presented was clearly in the nature of a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (I'm not entirely sure which, but they're really two forms of the same motion, so the distinction is not important). Furthermore, all members were properly notified of the motion through the call to the meeting. The fact that the technical term "rescind" was not used is hardly sufficient to invalidate the action. While it is generally preferable to use the appropriate parliamentary technology, failure to do so is not sufficient to invalidate a motion or previous notice.

Some other wording in your post raises other concerns, however, as you mention that you were called to "rule" on the point of order. Strictly speaking, the Parliamentarian does not rule on questions of order, he advises the chair, who makes the actual ruling. If this is purely an error in terminology, just be more careful in the future, but if your assembly does have the Parliamentarian actually rule on questions of order (thereby supplanting the chair), this practice should be ceased immediately.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some other wording in your post raises other concerns, however, as you mention that you were called to "rule" on the point of order. Strictly speaking, the Parliamentarian does not rule on questions of order, he advises the chair, who makes the actual ruling. If this is purely an error in terminology, just be more careful in the future, but if your assembly does have the Parliamentarian actually rule on questions of order (thereby supplanting the chair), this practice should be ceased immediately.

I knew as soon as I hit the "Post" button that I should not have used the word "rule" in regards to the parliamentarian. Yes, in my church the chair always makes the final decision, unless someone appeals the decision of the chair, in which case the membership votes on the accuracy of the ruling. In the case I was discussing, the chair was very new to his post and leaned heavily on my advice. So I knew that whatever opinion I offered would become the "rule." The chair went along with my opinion that the intent was clear. A member appealed the decision of the chair. The chair's decision was upheld by a fairly substantial majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew as soon as I hit the "Post" button that I should not have used the word "rule" in regards to the parliamentarian. Yes, in my church the chair always makes the final decision, unless someone appeals the decision of the chair, in which case the membership votes on the accuracy of the ruling. In the case I was discussing, the chair was very new to his post and leaned heavily on my advice. So I knew that whatever opinion I offered would become the "rule." The chair went along with my opinion that the intent was clear. A member appealed the decision of the chair. The chair's decision was upheld by a fairly substantial majority.

It appears to me that you were absolutely right in advising the chair as you did a few years ago, and I know for a fact that you are absolutely right when you say that Josh is "a very smart guy who knows the rules well", so you're two for two so far. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I knew as soon as I hit the "Post" button that I should not have used the word "rule" in regards to the parliamentarian. Yes, in my church the chair always makes the final decision, unless someone appeals the decision of the chair, in which case the membership votes on the accuracy of the ruling. In the case I was discussing, the chair was very new to his post and leaned heavily on my advice. So I knew that whatever opinion I offered would become the "rule." The chair went along with my opinion that the intent was clear. A member appealed the decision of the chair. The chair's decision was upheld by a fairly substantial majority.

One wonders, in that case, why many members harbored hard feelings against you personally (as you mentioned in your earlier post). Oh well... the answer to that question won't be found in RONR.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh--I really appreciate your comment about “intent.” I am not currently the church parliamentarian. But I was a few years ago when I was forced to make a difficult ruling. At our April membership meeting a member made a motion to combine our 9:30 and 11:00 am services into a single 10:00 am service. (Of course, it wasn’t in the call-to-meeting letter.) It passed by majority vote. The combined service would start in five months, on September 1. But then, the call-to-meeting letter for our July meeting notified the membership that a motion would be made, “To retain our current schedule of two services at 9:30 and 11:00.” At the meeting, as soon as the motion was brought up, a member jumped to her feet and called for a point of order. She announced that she had consulted a lawyer about this motion. He told her that unless it used the word “rescind,” it was out of order. The maker of the motion would therefore have to withdraw the motion that was in the call-to-meeting letter and make a new motion using the word “rescind.” However, since the new “rescind” motion had not been in the call-to-meeting letter, it would require a 2/3 vote to pass. That’s what the lawyer had told her. This issue had come up before, and it was pretty clear just from looking around at who was in attendance, that a majority of the people at the meeting were from the “two services” camp. But they did not represent 2/3rds of the membership. So this parliamentary question (majority or 2/3rds vote) would basically decide whether the motion passed or failed. As parliamentarian I was asked to rule on this woman’s point-of-order. Technically, I knew she was right—in fact I had already called the woman who put the motion in the call-to-meeting letter and told her she should have simply rescinded the motion passed in April. So maybe the motion was out of order. On the other hand, her motion had been the talk of the church for three weeks, ever since it appeared in the call-to-meeting letter. Everyone knew that the intent of the motion was to reverse or rescind the motion to go to a single service. The July meeting was the most crowded membership meeting we had ever had, with many members who normally don’t come to meetings hiring babysitters or making special arrangements just so they could be there. Were their efforts to be present that night going to be wasted because of a parliamentary technicality? I ruled that although the wording of the motion was not correct, the intent was perfectly clear and that the motion as printed in the call-to-meeting letter qualified as prior notice that the membership would be considering rescinding the earlier motion. Therefore a simple majority would be required to pass the resolution--which they did. But the losing side was furious at me. Twenty three members withdrew from the church in protest—and have not returned—because of what they perceived to be an unfair and manipulative ruling by me. Even those who did not withdraw have harbored hard feelings towards me ever since that meeting. For several years I have wondered, “Did I err?” Did my mistake drive people away from our church? I have felt terrible about it. But your comment, Josh--“The key is that the intent is clear”-- makes me think that maybe I was alright—or at least not completely wrong. You are obviously a very smart guy who knows the rules well, so if you are willing to accept intent, I am too! Thanks for setting my mind at ease.

Just curious, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but are you requiring a motion to rescind to meet the threshold of 2/3 of the members voting for it, or simply a 2/3 vote (absent prior notice)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just curious, maybe I'm reading too much into it, but are you requiring a motion to rescind to meet the threshold of 2/3 of the members voting for it, or simply a 2/3 vote (absent prior notice)?

My bad--I meant to say 2/3 of those present. If we needed to get 2/3rds of the membership to vote on anything we would never have a quorem. Thanks for catching!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...