Regarding Objecting to the Consideration of a Motion to Rescind

[Abd]

I posted a question to the Advanced forum, based on a discussion there, and it was suggested that I ask questions here instead. I'd overlooked some aspects of the Rules, and that was corrected, but that then leads me to the next issue, that, in this case, the Rules, on this narrow point, make little sense to me.

When the Rules don't make sense to me, they are hard to remember, and I can't explain them to others, which is often necessary, since much of what I've done, as a parliamentarian, is to explain why adopting the Rules is highly advisable. The standard objection I encounter is that the Rules are arbitrary and that this gives an advantage to people who love rules and who will invoke them to pursue their personal agenda, contrary to the real sense of an organization.

So, here is the issue, and I'd appreciate some clarity on why the Rule is as it is.

The situation: a small number of members remain opposed to a prior action, and one of them Moves to Rescind the prior action. There is a second. It fails overwhelmingly, and then it's brought up again at each new meeting.

With a new Main Motion, Objection to Consideration of the Question is in order. It is not debatable and is put, by the chair, to vote immediately. A two-thirds vote sustains the Objection which only applies to that meeting, and a sustained Objection can even be Reconsidered at that meeting, so the Objection clearly respects the ongoing right of members to raise issues, while at the same time respecting the right of a supermajority to decline to debate them, meeting by meeting.

However, a motion to Rescind is an "Incidental Main Motion." And Objection to Consideration is out of order with respect to Incidental Main Motions, according to the Rules (which are explicit). Given that the motion to rescind can bring up an issue that was found to be disruptive, that almost all members don't want to debate this, and don't want to devote even the time to listen to an argument for the motion to Rescind, which has become repetitive, why is the motion considered out of order?

I'm looking for the underlying principles.

I'm aware there are alternatives, and one was suggested in the Advanced discussion, that a member moves the Objection anyway, knowing that it is out of order, and then, after the chair rules -- either way -- the ruling is appealed to the meeting, which can decide by majority vote to sustain or reverse the chair.

However, this is more disruptive than a simple Objection and vote, and can set a poor precedent. The Objection rules are quite protective of the minority, whereas the route through an improper -- but sustained -- motion is dangerous, and decides based only on a majority, it could then become a popular way for the majority to defeat even an almost-majority from opening up debate, undermining some basic principles behind the Rules, that protect minorities.

Objection to Consideration of the Question is actually what the members want to do, very simply. Anything else seems indirect, more based on technicalities, and is the kind of stuff turns people off on Robert's Rules.

Any guidance here?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Any guidance here?

Forget about what was said regarding purposely violating the rules, and just follow the rules as they are. After this discussion, I doubt that you will find this particular rule hard to remember, and you will have no trouble explaining it to others.

By the way, RONR states the reason: "in the case of an incidental main motion dealing with a subject previously entered into, the involvement has already begun and it is too late to object".

[Abd]

Thanks, Shmuel. No, I can't explain it. I know the rule, and that's what I'm left with as an explanation. "It's the rule."

Yes, I know that standard reason, which applies to not allowing the Objection after debate has begun. I can explain that one easily.

This is about incidental main motions, specifically, where there is no "already begun debate." (i.e., ongoing). Rather there is an effort to restart a closed debate.

There are other ways to proceed, but none of them are as direct and non-disruptive as the Objection.

What you cited would make sense where a debate has already begun, and is not completed. In this case, though, debate has been completed and closed, and it is a totally new meeting. Allowing the question to be raised thus starts a *new* debate.

The Objection would be out of order, obviously, if there is a live debate. And we understand why it is allowed to move to Rescind. But not why any new topic can be introduced into a meeting over the objection of two-thirds of those present. And it's a new topic for that meeting, and possibly even for many of those members.

Now, I found in the 10th edition, the language cited, re the disallowance of an Objection with respect to incidental main motions. And it is precisely this, as applied here, that doesn't make sense to me. The involvement did exist, in the past, but it was over. The Motion to Rescind asks the Assembly to reopen the issue, to become reinvolved.

As I said, I'm aware there are alternatives, but none as direct and simply honest and easy to understand as an Objection to the Consideration of the Question." The Question here is whether or not to Rescind, and, really, whether or not to enter into a debate over the motion to rescind.

We are talking about a situation where a supermajority wants to avoid that debate. They can do it, procedurally, but in ways that will do more damage to the rights of a minority than will Objection, which is very limited in scope and requires a supermajority. If the supermajority gets riled up enough, having to listen to this motion and the initial argument over and over and over, they may do something more extreme, and they'd have the right, under the rules. Supermajorities can do almost anything they please. If they are genuine supermajorities, they can toss any rule out the door, and throw the book after it, and any member who disagrees. Even an absolute majority can do that.

Yes, I'll remember it now, however, every piece of the rules that is arbitrary makes it harder for people to learn and trust them. That's my problem.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Thanks, Shmuel. No, I can't explain it. I know the rule, and that's what I'm left with as an explanation. "It's the rule."

Yes, I know that standard reason, which applies to not allowing the Objection after debate has begun. I can explain that one easily.

This is about incidental main motions, specifically, where there is no "already begun debate." (i.e., ongoing). Rather there is an effort to restart a closed debate.

The text that I quoted before is specifically in relation to applying an Objection to the Consideration of the Question to incidental main motions. It appears on p. 102 of the 11th edition (although it is not new to that edition).

Now, if you are serious about having an informed discussion about Robert's Rules of Order, your next step will be to obtain the current edition ASAP.

[Abd]

The text that I quoted before is specifically in relation to applying an Objection to the Consideration of the Question to incidental main motions. It appears on p. 102 of the 11th edition (although it is not new to that edition).

Given that the text is the same in the 10th, this is really moot. The question here is the *reason* for the rule. Possibly nobody knows, that can happen, or possibly people will make up reasons, just because, after all, there must be a reason, right? We can then be quite inventive. Or maybe someone here has considered this, or knows of a discussion, or the like, or comes up with a clear explanation de novo.

Now, if you are serious about having an informed discussion about Robert's Rules of Order, your next step will be to obtain the current edition ASAP.

I already formed that intention before I posted anything here, and stated it in one of my posts. It's probably not relevant here, though.

Does anyone else have any ideas about the intention of the Rules here?

Or, alternatively, is there an efficient process for disallowing debate on a topic not already pending, assuming a supermajority against allowing it?

I know of procedural ways to do it, but they are relatively arcane, roughly half as efficient as Objection, not safe for minorities, and people don't like arcane rules. They like rules that are simple, clear, and easy to understand, assuming that there is someone present who can explain them.

I can be that person with most of the Rules, but not this one, not yet.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The text that I quoted before is specifically in relation to applying an Objection to the Consideration of the Question to incidental main motions. It appears on p. 102 of the 11th edition (although it is not new to that edition).

Given that the text is the same in the 10th, this is really moot. The question here is the *reason* for the rule. Possibly nobody knows, that can happen, or possibly people will make up reasons, just because, after all, there must be a reason, right? We can then be quite inventive. Or maybe someone here has considered this, or knows of a discussion, or the like, or comes up with a clear explanation de novo.

I don't see how the fact that the text is the same in the 10th edition makes the point moot. The book specifically says that it is giving a reason for the rule: "The chief difference in the rules governing original and incidental main motions is that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question (26) can be applied only to original main and not to incidental main motions. The reason is that, in the case of an incidental main motion dealing with a subject previously entered into, the involvement has already begun and it is too late to object . . ."

[Chris Harrison]

The text that I quoted before is specifically in relation to applying an Objection to the Consideration of the Question to incidental main motions. It appears on p. 102 of the 11th edition (although it is not new to that edition).

I have read p. 102 but I am also perplexed why the rule exists. Why wouldn't the assembly who as a vast majority don't want to even deal with the motion to Rescind have the ability to say "We have had to deal with this every week for the last 6 months and we don't even want to go there again!" and nip it in the bud immediately? Can someone explain the rationale for this rule please?

[J. J.]

Rescind doesn't deal with a new question. It has been considered and adopted.

[Chris Harrison]

Rescind doesn't deal with a new question. It has been considered and adopted.

The original motion was considered and adopted and will continue to stay in force forever unless it becomes fully executed at some point or is altered in some way. It seems that the motion to Rescind would be a new question of whether to do away with something already in existence. Why couldn't the assembly say that they are happy with the adopted motion's state of existence and don't even want to consider the proposal of messing with its state of being?

[Guest Guest]

Any guidance here?

You might start with a Username (or whatever it's called) other than "Abd". That would allow others to properly address and refer to you as RONR suggests (e.g. Mr. Gerber, Mr. Stackpole, Mr. Honemann).

[David A Foulkes]

You might start with a Username (or whatever it's called) other than "Abd". That would allow others to properly address and refer to you as RONR suggests (e.g. Mr. Gerber, Mr. Stackpole, Mr. Honemann).

This from Mr. Guest? (he thinks to himself out loud)

[Guest Edgar]

This from Mr. Guest?

Yes, this from Mr. Edgar Guest.

[David A Foulkes]

Yes, this from Mr. Edgar Guest.

Ah, well then..... that makes a world of difference.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The original motion was considered and adopted and will continue to stay in force forever unless it becomes fully executed at some point or is altered in some way. It seems that the motion to Rescind would be a new question of whether to do away with something already in existence. Why couldn't the assembly say that they are happy with the adopted motion's state of existence and don't even want to consider the proposal of messing with its state of being?

Don't be surprised that Robert's Rules aren't always the same as Abd's rules or Chris's rules (or Shmuel's rules) would be. That doesn't make them irrational or even illogical.

[Josh Martin]

Does anyone else have any ideas about the intention of the Rules here.

The rationale is that the purpose of OTC is to prevent discussion of a topic when it is believed that even discussing it would be damaging to the assembly. The theory is that once the topic is under discussion, OTC cannot be logically or usefully applied as consideration of the question has already begun. Rescind is classified as an incidental motion because the question has already been discussed, and thus, OTC cannot be used. It is not, in this sense, considered to be a new question (an original main motion).

It seems that what you are really questioning/arguing is not the rationale behind the rule for OTC, but whether Rescind should be classified as an incidental main motion (or possibly whether the original/incidental distinction is even useful).

Or, alternatively, is there an efficient process for disallowing debate on a topic not already pending, assuming a supermajority against allowing it?

For an incidental main motion? Not really.

The original motion was considered and adopted and will continue to stay in force forever unless it becomes fully executed at some point or is altered in some way. It seems that the motion to Rescind would be a new question of whether to do away with something already in existence. Why couldn't the assembly say that they are happy with the adopted motion's state of existence and don't even want to consider the proposal of messing with its state of being?

Much like Abd, the real issue here seems to be a debate over whether the motion to Rescind should be considered a new question. Under RONR, it is not.

Personally, I am not as troubled by this dilemma as so many others are, as the suggested circumstances are so unusual that no one has yet to present a real-world example of this actually becoming an issue. If it truly does become a tremendous concern for an assembly, a special rule of order may be adopted to address it. Perhaps it could state that Rescind and ASPA shall be considered original main motions if they are applied to an action, motion, or rule of the assembly which was adopted by an original main motion. I realize this is a bit wordy, but I doubt the assembly wants to bother with OTC being applied to a motion to Rescind a scheduled Recess.

[Abd]

Thanks, Josh, for considering this.

The rationale is that the purpose of OTC is to prevent discussion of a topic when it is believed that even discussing it would be damaging to the assembly. The theory is that once the topic is under discussion, OTC cannot be logically or usefully applied as consideration of the question has already begun. Rescind is classified as an incidental motion because the question has already been discussed, and thus, OTC cannot be used. It is not, in this sense, considered to be a new question (an original main motion).

Yes, we have that much of the theory. The problem is that the function of the Motion to Rescind is to start a new debate, on what may be a very complex issue.

Bringing up an old question can be just as disruptive as bringing up an offensive new one. Hence the argument given in the Rules seems weak, as to the case presented.

It seems that what you are really questioning/arguing is not the rationale behind the rule for OTC, but whether Rescind should be classified as an incidental main motion (or possibly whether the original/incidental distinction is even useful).

This is perceptive. The term "incidental main motion" is an oxymoron, which could be part of the problem. The distinction "incidental" is certainly useful, but is here being applied beyond a session. I'm more concerned about substance, though. There are reasons to prohibit an Objection to the Consideration of the Question, but they don't seem to apply here (but RRONR obviously does apply them.)

[responding to a question about efficient process to avoid consideration of a question -- when that avoidance would be possible for a question which had not been raised before, at prior meetings:]

For an incidental main motion? Not really.

There may be a way other than Objection, which could be much better, in the end, but I'll leave that aside for now. For now I'm assuming that a supermajority totally wants to avoid reconsidering the issue, and wants to avoid allowing it to delay every meeting ongoing into the future, and that there isn't some more broadly pleasing alternative that would satisfy the minority as well. What can the supermajority do?

I don't believe that they are condemned by the Rules to hear the same speech over and over, every meeting. So what would a creative chair suggest? Or a creative parliamentarian, who knows the rules and how they can be used to foster deliberative process, serving the majority while protecting minorities?

Much like Abd, the real issue here seems to be a debate over whether the motion to Rescind should be considered a new question. Under RONR, it is not.

Yes. We got that. It could be the core of the problem, because in many ways, it is a new question, presenting an immediate problem. That the issue was raised before doesn't negate that it might be disruptive to raise it now, anew. I keep thinking, what if the debate before had been so disruptive that fights broke out and people were injured? The reason for disallowing Objection is that the debate has already started, the question is already being addressed, but that is really in the past. Must it be repeated?

There are ways to deal with this, but most of them seem more disruptive than Objection.

Now, this discussion has, for me, brought up a possibility that could transcend and be superior to Objection, that might actually resolve the underlying dispute, and that would be to refer the motion to rescind to a Committee, to study the reasons for the original action, and to hear, fully, the arguments of the minority as to why it should be rescinded, and to prepare a report that fully and fairly expresses those arguments. Procedurally, this would bar the matter from being discussed on the floor. It would confine the "disruption" to a committee. It would give the minority a shot at convincing the majority that they have made a mistake. In writing. Regardless of whether or not they succeed at that, it will have reduced the damage, and might convince the minority that, at least, they have been heard. The 20th century saw the development of consensus technology, it's known how to negotiate consensus in small groups, from initially strongly opposed positions, and some application of that technology might help.

Personally, I am not as troubled by this dilemma as so many others are, as the suggested circumstances are so unusual that no one has yet to present a real-world example of this actually becoming an issue. If it truly does become a tremendous concern for an assembly, a special rule of order may be adopted to address it. Perhaps it could state that Rescind and ASPA shall be considered original main motions if they are applied to an action, motion, or rule of the assembly which was adopted by an original main motion. I realize this is a bit wordy, but I doubt the assembly wants to bother with OTC being applied to a motion to Rescind a scheduled Recess.

Sounds good to me. It's pretty much what I've been thinking about the matter of incidental main motions, that some kinds shouldn't be subject to Objection to Consideration, but others might be. Yes, if this problem actually arises, a bylaw to discriminate between them could be written, and we have a motivated supermajority to accomplish that.

I had assumed that this was a real situation.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, we have that much of the theory. The problem is that the function of the Motion to Rescind is to start a new debate, on what may be a very complex issue.

Bringing up an old question can be just as disruptive as bringing up an offensive new one. Hence the argument given in the Rules seems weak, as to the case presented.

This is perceptive. The term "incidental main motion" is an oxymoron, which could be part of the problem. The distinction "incidental" is certainly useful, but is here being applied beyond a session. I'm more concerned about substance, though. There are reasons to prohibit an Objection to the Consideration of the Question, but they don't seem to apply here (but RRONR obviously does apply them.)

Okay, but your original question was about the rationale behind the rule. Do you understand this rationale now, even if you don't agree with it?

For now I'm assuming that a supermajority totally wants to avoid reconsidering the issue, and wants to avoid allowing it to delay every meeting ongoing into the future, and that there isn't some more broadly pleasing alternative that would satisfy the minority as well. What can the supermajority do?

I don't believe that they are condemned by the Rules to hear the same speech over and over, every meeting. So what would a creative chair suggest? Or a creative parliamentarian, who knows the rules and how they can be used to foster deliberative process, serving the majority while protecting minorities?

If members anticipate that such a motion will be made at the meeting (which they might, especially after the first two or three meetings of this), an incidental main motion to Limit Debate could be adopted, likely followed by the Previous Question so that this itself would not waste time. Since an IMM is debatable, the motion maker would have preference in recognition and could make the motion for the Previous Question himself. The motion could be worded such that, "Debate on any motion at this meeting to rescind Rule XYZ shall be limited to one speech of two minutes for each member." If the opponents of the rule don't take the hint, the assembly would only have to listen to their arguments for two minutes before proceeding to order the Previous Question. I was asked in the Advanced Discussion thread whether it was in order to use this motion to make the motion undebatable altogether or to limit it to some very short time (such as 15 seconds). My response is that yes, it is in order, but I believe it would be bad form to do so. It is better for the harmony of the assembly to permit the member some reasonable time (even if brief) to state his case.

This is, in my opinion, the best option if this is a "once in a blue moon" occasion. If this is becoming a regular problem, a special rule of order would be a wiser course of action.

Once the motion to Rescind is made and the motion maker is recognized (due to his preference in recognition), there is no proper method to cut off discussion until he yields the floor or his time has expired. Once this happens, members might use motions such as the Previous Question to avoid further discussion and/or Postpone Indefinitely to avoid a direct vote. It is even in order to move to Suspend the Rules to combine these two purposes into one motion. As you note later, there are also other options, such as referring the motion to a committee. The assembly has wide latitude to dispose of questions regardless of whether they are original or incidental main motions. The only tricky bit is disposing of them before the motion maker has an opportunity to speak (if he wishes to do so).

Yes. We got that. It could be the core of the problem, because in many ways, it is a new question, presenting an immediate problem. That the issue was raised before doesn't negate that it might be disruptive to raise it now, anew. I keep thinking, what if the debate before had been so disruptive that fights broke out and people were injured? The reason for disallowing Objection is that the debate has already started, the question is already being addressed, but that is really in the past. Must it be repeated?

If the debate becomes so disruptive that fights break out, the chair has the responsibility to declare the meeting adjourned to protect the assembly's safety. So this situation is a bit too hyperbolic to have bearing on this discussion. The chair's responsibility to enforce the rules of decorum and to protect the safety of the assembly applies to all motions.

For this to really be about whether OTC may be applied, we must assume that the motion to Rescind is in order, that the original motion was valid, that the rules of decorum are observed, and that the assembly does not break into fisticuffs. If these assumptions do not hold, then there are other, more appropriate methods to deal with them, and the issue of whether OTC applies is moot.

Procedurally, this would bar the matter from being discussed on the floor.

It would confine the "disruption" to a committee. It would give the minority a shot at convincing the majority that they have made a mistake. In writing. Regardless of whether or not they succeed at that, it will have reduced the damage, and might convince the minority that, at least, they have been heard. The 20th century saw the development of consensus technology, it's known how to negotiate consensus in small groups, from initially strongly opposed positions, and some application of that technology might help.

Well, eventually, yes, but the motion to Refer is itself debatable (although debate must be germane to the motion to Refer), and it cannot interrupt a member who has the floor, so the motion maker (at least) would still be able to speak to the motion. The power of OTC is that it prevents a motion from being discussed at all, since it may be made when a member has the floor but before he has begun to speak. since the maker of a debatable motion has the right to preference in recognition, this factor is crucial.

The motion to Refer is still an excellent strategy for dealing with a disruptive motion, but it is not a substitute for OTC.

Sounds good to me. It's pretty much what I've been thinking about the matter of incidental main motions, that some kinds shouldn't be subject to Objection to Consideration, but others might be. Yes, if this problem actually arises, a bylaw to discriminate between them could be written, and we have a motivated supermajority to accomplish that

Well, you could put it in the Bylaws if you want, but a special rule of order would be sufficient. As you suggest, making some types of incidental main motions subject to OTC is another route to the objective.

I had assumed that this was a real situation.

No. The situation raised by Chris H. on the Advanced Discussion thread was hypothetical, and while it was the first time this hypothetical scenario was discussed in such detail, it was not the first time it's been brought up. Very frequently when posters ask about renewing a motion and we tell them it may be renewed at the very next session, often the very next question they ask is what to do if members bring this up every monthly meeting for all eternity, but I've never seen anyone present an actual instance of this happening. Based on the forum and my personal experience, members usually will bring it up again once or twice and then let it simmer for a while, likely because there are often negative social and political consequences for such behavior. I grant that in legislative assemblies or large, contentious conventions there is a much greater inclination toward parliamentary stunts, but such assemblies usually have their own customized rules to deal with such matters.

[Abd]

Thanks, Josh, for your detailed and thoughtful answer.

I can't say that I understand the rationale behind the rule that OTC cannot be raised with a motion to Rescind, under the conditions described. I do know the words of the rationale, so I could say them, but I'd not be believing what I said. I could say, "According to Robert's Rules...." but I might be less than convincing, since I'm not myself convinced.

Thanks, again, for trying. It's appreciated.

[Trina]

I also like to try to understand the reasons behind the rules. In some cases, although a rule may not appear to fit a particular circumstance perfectly, it may still be the best choice to fit all possible circumstances (that activate the rule) fairly well.

I guess what I would do next is imagine what would follow if the rule were different (in this case, what if Objection to Consideration of the Question could be properly applied to a motion to Rescind), and see if undesirable consequences grow out of that imagined change. I haven't taken the time yet to think it out in this specific case; just pointing out a logical next step in exploring the underpinnings of a rule.

[Abd]

I also like to try to understand the reasons behind the rules. In some cases, although a rule may not appear to fit a particular circumstance perfectly, it may still be the best choice to fit all possible circumstances (that activate the rule) fairly well.

That's right. There might be a general situation that a rule normally fits. It is possible that the rule does not address all possible situations well. But we can't have a rule book that is too heavy to carry, i.e., we cannot have a rule to perfectly cover every possible situation. Further, the more rules we have, the more likely it is that rules will conflict. We must keep it fairly simple, or else we end up with serious interpretive difficulties.

I guess what I would do next is imagine what would follow if the rule were different (in this case, what if Objection to Consideration of the Question could be properly applied to a motion to Rescind), and see if undesirable consequences grow out of that imagined change. I haven't taken the time yet to think it out in this specific case; just pointing out a logical next step in exploring the underpinnings of a rule.

That's part of what interested me about the question. What would be the harm?

That's a question, not an assertion of no harm.

The Objection already requires a two-thirds vote -- and that is for obvious reasons. Most of the alternatives I've seen proposed to deal with the hypothetical problem incorporate less protection of minorities.

I think we did come up with one possible solution to the problem that is not like this, and that may address the actual issue more deeply. Why is some member repeatedly raising a motion to rescind? There could be many possible reasons, and it might profit the organization to actually find out, instead of assuming that the member -- who is not alone, even though in the minority -- is simply being stubborn. Thus the idea to refer this to a committee, which could solve the disruptive debate problem, short term, or, at least, confine the damage to some members who voluntarily take it on, and which might truly resolve the controversy, long-term, if done well.

This problem, by the way, may have been raised hypothetically, but I think the concern is based on some level of real experience. Maybe not just like this, and maybe the organization dealt with the problem in some other way.

For example, it's happened that people have been expelled from organizations for behavior like that. Upset a two-thirds majority of members, by blatantly failing to consider what they want, meeting after meeting, expulsion would not be a surprising outcome, since that's the vote it takes to expel.

[Steven Britton]

I have read p. 102 but I am also perplexed why the rule exists. Why wouldn't the assembly who as a vast majority don't want to even deal with the motion to Rescind have the ability to say "We have had to deal with this every week for the last 6 months and we don't even want to go there again!" and nip it in the bud immediately? Can someone explain the rationale for this rule please?

The best explaination that I am aware of is found in Parliamentary Law, by Henry M. Robert, on pg. 9.

"An Incidental Main Motionis a main motion that is incidental to or relates to the business of the assembly, or to its past or future action."

Also in the first paragraph on page 9 of PL, it states: "The only reason for this division of main motions is that it is in order to object to consideration of an original main motion, while it is not in order to object to the consideration of an incidental main motion.

Clearly, the motion to rescind only relates to some prior action of the assembly.

However, is your situation's context, actually an example of a person abusing the assembly by using a renewal of the motion to rescind as a ploy to obstruct the assembly's business?

You might wish to look at page 342-343 of RONR to decide.

[Josh Martin]

What would be the harm?

It would take a very carefully worded rule (such as the example I provided), but if done properly, the only effect would be that it would somewhat lessen the rights of members to make motions to Rescind (and presumably to Amend Something Previously Adopted as well) and somewhat increase the rights of the assembly to dispose of such motions. This is certainly something to consider in the context of whether a society should adopt a special rule on the subject, but it somewhat misses the reason behind the rule. A poorly-worded rule could have all sorts of odd effects.

For a parallel case, see Official Interpretation 2006-20, which explains why it is not in order to Suspend the Rules to permit the application of Objection to Consideration of the Question after consideration has begun. A key sentence from that interpretation is "It is simply not possible to prevent debate which has already taken place. As a consequence, a motion to suspend the rules which interfere with the late objection would also be out of order. Rules may be suspended, but facts cannot." From the perspective of RONR, a motion to Rescind is not a new question, but is raising again a question which the assembly has already considered. This distinction is not arbitrary, and it is key to an understanding of the characteristics of the class of Motions That Bring a Question Again Before the Assembly (discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 74-79).

You'll notice that in OI 2006-20 the authors do not make a value judgment as to whether OTC would be desirable in a particular instance. It is simply a fact that the assembly cannot prevent discussion which has already occurred, and therefore OTC cannot be applied, as its purpose is to prevent any discussion of a question. It seems to me that the same reasoning applies here. Going beyond that (from a perspective of why the rule is the way it is in RONR) is overthinking the issue. It's also worth remembering that parliamentary law is a body of work that has evolved over centuries, so asking "Why didn't the authors just come up with a different name for it?" is also barking up the wrong tree.

With that said, the assembly is certainly free to establish its own rules on this if it pleases, and in that case, the "What would be the harm?" question is helpful.

I think we did come up with one possible solution to the problem that is not like this, and that may address the actual issue more deeply. Why is some member repeatedly raising a motion to rescind? There could be many possible reasons, and it might profit the organization to actually find out, instead of assuming that the member -- who is not alone, even though in the minority -- is simply being stubborn. Thus the idea to refer this to a committee, which could solve the disruptive debate problem, short term, or, at least, confine the damage to some members who voluntarily take it on, and which might truly resolve the controversy, long-term, if done well.

This is sound advice. It is always best to assume good faith. So long as the member is not simply being stubborn and the assembly is not using this as a way to "bury" the motion, this should effectively dispose of the motion until the committee's deliberations are concluded. (If the member is being stubborn or the assembly is trying to bury the motion, there's always Discharge a Committee.) I think we may have got a bit stuck in our thought patterns as in Chris H.'s original hypothetical scenario, the member was simply being stubborn. While Refer to a Committee still requires some time to process (since it is debatable and cannot interrupt a speaker, so there will likely also be some debate on the main motion), it could pay off in the long run.

This problem, by the way, may have been raised hypothetically, but I think the concern is based on some level of real experience. Maybe not just like this, and maybe the organization dealt with the problem in some other way.

Absolutely. In a real scenario, however, it is most likely (as you suggest) that the member is not simply being stubborn, which significantly expands the effective options available to the assembly and may obviate the need for OTC.

For example, it's happened that people have been expelled from organizations for behavior like that. Upset a two-thirds majority of members, by blatantly failing to consider what they want, meeting after meeting, expulsion would not be a surprising outcome, since that's the vote it takes to expel.

And this is a strategy to follow if the member is simply being stubborn.

However, is your situation's context, actually an example of a person abusing the assembly by using a renewal of the motion to rescind as a ploy to obstruct the assembly's business?

You might wish to look at page 342-343 of RONR to decide.

This is certainly valid information to bring to the discussion, but to avoid any confusion, let us be clear that this is only applicable if the member's intent truly is "to obstruct the assembly's business," and it is only wise to rule the motion out of order or ignore it if this intent is obvious. Renewing the same motion to Rescind at separate sessions (even at every session) is not dilatory if the member is acting in good faith (albeit perhaps not in good judgment).

[Abd]

Thanks for that thorough reply, Josh.

I'm a bit concerned about process which involves mind-reading, i.e. determining the actual intention of a member. "Acting in good faith" is really mind-reading. Assuming this good faith is fundamentally important, but if there is long repetition of a behavior that is functionally disruptive, if the displeasure of the assembly is reasonably clear, I don't agree that it should be necessary to find "bad faith." The person might mean well and still be highly disruptive. In my view, assemblies have the right to protect themselves. They generally should avoid anything that looks like punishment, and where punishment is involved, intent becomes an issue. Again, I may be pushing the river, but "dilatory" might better be understood as "dilatory in effect."

As to the parliamentary question presented here, considering a motion to rescind as merely being the same topic as before, with, I suppose, the idea that this is merely extended consideration, seems to prevent the assembly from ruling a matter closed, with a decision that renewing the debate is harmful. (*Only* as to an immediate motion, not permanently, only for one session.) There is a question in a motion to rescind which is a new one, one that could possibly cause new damage. That the assembly failed to OTC the first time a question was raised does not mean that new conditions could not make raising it *now additionally harmful.*

However, you have been very clear in establishing that it would be a change to the rules to consider OTC as applying to a motion to Rescind. Given that it is unlikely that the problem presented cannot be dealt with by other measures that are within the rules, and that the problem is not urgent, as presented (it only became a problem because of long repetition of the motion to rescind, in the imaginary scenario), I'd not think it wise to make a special rule to handle something, to remove what is generally a necessary protection for minority opinion.

[Josh Martin]

I'm a bit concerned about process which involves mind-reading, i.e. determining the actual intention of a member. "Acting in good faith" is really mind-reading. Assuming this good faith is fundamentally important, but if there is long repetition of a behavior that is functionally disruptive, if the displeasure of the assembly is reasonably clear, I don't agree that it should be necessary to find "bad faith." The person might mean well and still be highly disruptive. In my view, assemblies have the right to protect themselves. They generally should avoid anything that looks like punishment, and where punishment is involved, intent becomes an issue. Again, I may be pushing the river, but "dilatory" might better be understood as "dilatory in effect."

RONR doesn't think highly of mind-reading either, which is why it is generally best to assume that members are acting in good faith. As for what constitutes a dilatory motion, this is clearly defines as a motion which "seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the parliamentary situation." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342, lines 13-15) Read on to the examples and I think you'll agree that consistently renewing a motion to Rescind at separate sessions, while it could certainly be irritating, isn't quite in the same league as the tactics presented.

Whether the member will be subjected to disciplinary action is another question entirely, as whether the member's behavior constitutes grounds for discipline is up to the discretion of the assembly.

As to the parliamentary question presented here, considering a motion to rescind as merely being the same topic as before, with, I suppose, the idea that this is merely extended consideration, seems to prevent the assembly from ruling a matter closed, with a decision that renewing the debate is harmful. (*Only* as to an immediate motion, not permanently, only for one session.) There is a question in a motion to rescind which is a new one, one that could possibly cause new damage. That the assembly failed to OTC the first time a question was raised does not mean that new conditions could not make raising it *now additionally harmful.*

The rules for the motion to Rescind actually make it harder to reverse the assembly's decision, as the motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with prior notice for its adoption. If the motion to Rescind was truly a new question, why would such requirements apply?

[Abd]

RONR doesn't think highly of mind-reading either, which is why it is generally best to assume that members are acting in good faith. As for what constitutes a dilatory motion, this is clearly defines as a motion which "seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the parliamentary situation." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342, lines 13-15) Read on to the examples and I think you'll agree that consistently renewing a motion to Rescind at separate sessions, while it could certainly be irritating, isn't quite in the same league as the tactics presented.

Whether the member will be subjected to disciplinary action is another question entirely, as whether the member's behavior constitutes grounds for discipline is up to the discretion of the assembly.

I'm continuing this discussion because I find it valuable to, wherever possible, understand the principles underneath the Rules. Among other things, when it can be done, it makes them easier to remember! And a chair finding himself or herself in a situation where they don't remember the rule (or it's a situation not covered) might nevertheless make a more appropriate ruling. That could be me!

So thanks for the indulgence, Josh!

The principle of not mind-reading is an important one. To my mind, the issue for "discipline" should be a pattern of behavior that is harmful to the organization, not with what criminal law would be "criminal intent." The "discipline" may merely be censure or formal objection to the behavior (backed by an appropriate majority), with stronger measures only if that is not adequate to protect the general membership and the organization.

The rules for the motion to Rescind actually make it harder to reverse the assembly's decision, as the motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with prior notice for its adoption. If the motion to Rescind was truly a new question, why would such requirements apply?

Because it is a motion which is partly new and partly old!

By the way, it was somewhat implied in the hypothetical raising of this question that a supermajority opposed the motion to Rescind. The kind of situation could arise, leading to sustained dissatisfaction, if the motion to Rescind was getting a *majority*, but was failing two-thirds. In that case, a helpful chair might suggest a different motion! One that is a new question, really, and that is treated that way. It would be subject to OTC, requiring a two-thirds vote to sustain the objection.

The new question, skillfully presented, would fully consider why the organization passed the motion in the past, and would seek a wider consensus on *something new.*

A member who is outraged that the body made a Bad Decision in the past might be trying to undo it, instead of moving forward with what currently concerns the members. Fearing a repeat, the member might be moving Rescind in order to get the floor at each meeting for a bit. A skillful chair might be able to ask what the member really wants, and there are a number of options that could relieve some of this (hypothetical) member's pain!