Clarification on rescinding a motion

[Guest Marie]

In 2010, at our annual membership meeting, the following motion was passed:

Motion to the Membership: the Specialty Policy is to be changed so that no judge can judge regular conformation classes at a Specialty more than once in 20 years.

Motion Made by: Member A

Seconded: Member B

Resolution: No member objected to suspending debate and taking a vote. Therefore, the President called for a vote. The motion was passed by a majority of the members present without any member voting no.

At the 2012 annual membership meeting, the following motion was presented and passed:

Member #1 made a motion to repeal the restriction on the number of times someone may judge the Specialty; Member #2 seconded. Discussion ensued. The current policy is that a person may not judge the Specialty more than once in any twenty-year period. Members supported lifting the 20-year restriction but pointed out that the AKC does have a prohibition on judges repeating an assignment from year-to-year. Member #3 proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to state that a person may not judge the specialty in consecutive years; Member #4 seconded. President asked for a show of hands – the motion, as amended, passed unanimously

I'm unclear as to whether procedure was followed in the rescinding of the 2010 motion. We have a membership of roughly 200 members and only 20-30 (a quorum) show up any given year, making the passing of and rescinding of motions quite easy depending on who is present.

Was protoccol followed in the rescinding of the 2010 motion?

Thank you!

[jstackpo]

It's OK... Looks like you sort of shifted your ground in the middle of things from a "repeal" ("rescind" is RONR's term) to "amend something previously adopted"...

You didn't do things quite properly, but since no point of order was raised at the time, the final motion to amend the 2010 motion by striking out "more than once in 20 years" and inserting "in consecutive years" was adopted and the version with "in consecutive years" is your (new) current policy.

[Gary c Tesser]

Assuming they all understood everything they were voting on. I'd like to see how they respond to the reading of the minutes. But maybe not.

[Trina]

...

Member #1 made a motion to repeal the restriction on the number of times someone may judge the Specialty; Member #2 seconded. Discussion ensued. The current policy is that a person may not judge the Specialty more than once in any twenty-year period. Members supported lifting the 20-year restriction but pointed out that the AKC does have a prohibition on judges repeating an assignment from year-to-year. Member #3 proposed a friendly amendment to the motion to state that a person may not judge the specialty in consecutive years; Member #4 seconded. President asked for a show of hands – the motion, as amended, passed unanimously

...

It sounds as though you missed one voting step -- after the amendment to the motion was proposed, there should (after debate) have been a vote on the amendment. If the amendment was adopted, then you'd go back to debating the motion in its new form (with the consecutive year wording). If the amendment was not adopted, you'd go back to debating the motion as it was before Member #3 spoke up. At the end of that debate, a vote on the motion (in its current form before the assembly) takes place. It sounds as though you may have collapsed two voting steps into one. If some members thought they were just voting on Member #3's amendment, and then the whole motion was suddenly declared adopted, they may have been surprised and/or confused.

However, if no point of order was raised at the time, what's done is done.