Suspendability of Reconsider rules?

[Sean Hunt]

Is it in order to suspend the rule requiring that the maker of a motion to Reconsider have voted with the prevailing side?

[Dan Honemann]

Is it in order to suspend the rule requiring that the maker of a motion to Reconsider have voted with the prevailing side?

Yes, I think that the rule requiring that the maker of a motion to Reconsider have voted with the prevailing side is a suspendible rule.

[abcdave]

This might be more of a comment than a question ...

I just attended a national convention where we had a vote to amend our bylaws (needs a 2/3 vote)

The proposal was defeated (something like 59% for - to 31% against) Voting was by electronic "clicker" which is essentialy a secret ballot - so no one knows who was for and who was against. At this point, a motion is made (and seconded) to reconsider (needs a majority vote). This motion passed (59 - 31?).

Would it be possible for a majority of the delegates to essentially hold a meeting hostage by continually claiming that some point of information wasn't properly considered and voting to reconsider over and over again?

Me thinks I'm missing something here but I don't know what it is.

[Dan Honemann]

This might be more of a comment than a question ...

I just attended a national convention where we had a vote to amend our bylaws (needs a 2/3 vote)

The proposal was defeated (something like 59% for - to 31% against) Voting was by electronic "clicker" which is essentialy a secret ballot - so no one knows who was for and who was against. At this point, a motion is made (and seconded) to reconsider (needs a majority vote). This motion passed (59 - 31?).

Would it be possible for a majority of the delegates to essentially hold a meeting hostage by continually claiming that some point of information wasn't properly considered and voting to reconsider over and over again?

Me thinks I'm missing something here but I don't know what it is.

First of all, the motion to Reconsider must be made, in this case, by a member who voted against the proposed amendment. If he says he did, then you take his word for it.

Secondly, it is not "possible for a majority of the delegates to essentially hold a meeting hostage by continually claiming that some point of information wasn't properly considered and voting to reconsider over and over again", because "no question can be reconsidered twice unless it was materially amended during its first reconsideration." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 321, ll. 3-5).

[Tim Wynn]

Would it be possible for a majority of the delegates to essentially hold a meeting hostage by...

Any parliamentary form clearly used for the purpose of thwarting business should be ruled out of order by the chair. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 342-343.

However, the concept of a majority holding a meeting hostage is a little contradictory. Don't you think? Who would win control of the meeting back from the majority? The minority?

[Gary Novosielski]

Would it be possible for a majority of the delegates to essentially hold a meeting hostage by continually claiming that some point of information wasn't properly considered and voting to reconsider over and over again?

Me thinks I'm missing something here but I don't know what it is.

Maybe you're missing the fact that a majority of the delegates can pretty much have their way on most matters, and have no need to hold anything hostage. If they didn't like the way the meeting was going, they have nobody to blame but themselves.

It would probably be better, if their aim was is to derail the proceedings, to simply move to adjourn. That way they could at least go home and get some sleep.

[abcdave]

What I meant by "the majority holding the meeting hostage" (yes, that does sound contradictory) was this -

the amendment requires 2/3 to pass but the motion to reconsider requires a majority - so the amendment fails (60% for to 40% against) then the motion to reconsider passes (60% for to 40% against) - I erroneously thought this process could repeat itself. Of course, the honorable Mr. Honemann set me straight. (And sent me back to The Book for some much needed additional study!)

BTW - we were also told that once the motion to reconsider was passed - there could be no further amendments to the amendment.

I don't know if I'll ever understand all of this stuff - but I'll keep learning. And I certainly do appreciate the help I get from this site!

[Sean Hunt]

BTW - we were also told that once the motion to reconsider was passed - there could be no further amendments to the amendment.

This is not true. The easiest way to think of the motion to Reconsider is that it is a motion to undo a vote. If you reconsider a vote, you effectively go back to where you were immediately before the vote. This includes making any amendments that would have been in order just prior to when the vote was taken*, or referring the motion to a committee, or what-have-you.

* Any exhausted orders to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate or for the Previous Question no longer apply, though, so it may be that a member very strongly believing in a particular amendment that has yet to be suggested after the Previous Question was ordered should vote with the prevailing side and move to Reconsider so that she may make the case for a motion to Amend---although she would probably be well advised to do so quickly, given the situation.

[J. J.]

Any parliamentary form clearly used for the purpose of thwarting business should be ruled out of order by the chair. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 342-343.

At least as a practical matter, I wouldn't think that the majority could thwart business.