Reconsidering a main motion vs. Rescind

[Matt Schafer]

In the discussion about main motions, on page 111, line 24 through page 112, line 7, RONR says that a main motion that has been adopted can be rescinded or amended, or the vote on the motion can be reconsidered (if the applicable time limit has not expired). A motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is in order even before it is too late to reconsider.

In the discussion on the motion to Reconsider, page 319, lines 7-8 state that Reconsider cannot be applied to any motion when the same result can be achieved through another motion. So looking at this rule in isolation, since any adopted main motion can be rescinded or amended through a different motion, Reconsider wouldn't ever be in order for such a main motion.

We don't look at rules in isolation, however. My question is this: Why is this apparent contradiction not a problem? Is it because the rule for the main motion is more specific than the rule for Reconsider? Or is there some aspect of Reconsider that would not give the same result as Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted?

[Chris Harrison]

Since I guess I am the first one awake here I'll give it a shot.

I think the difference between the two is a matter of what the assembly is wanting to do with the adopted motion. A motion to Reconsider if adopted reopens the motion in question to further consideration (where it could be kept as is, defeated, amended, committed, etc) where an adopted motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted will undo/change that adopted motion with no other options being available..

[Tim Wynn]

In the discussion about main motions, on page 111, line 24 through page 112, line 7, RONR says that a main motion that has been adopted can be rescinded or amended, or the vote on the motion can be reconsidered (if the applicable time limit has not expired). A motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is in order even before it is too late to reconsider.

In the discussion on the motion to Reconsider, page 319, lines 7-8 state that Reconsider cannot be applied to any motion when the same result can be achieved through another motion. So looking at this rule in isolation, since any adopted main motion can be rescinded or amended through a different motion, Reconsider wouldn't ever be in order for such a main motion.

We don't look at rules in isolation, however. My question is this: Why is this apparent contradiction not a problem? Is it because the rule for the main motion is more specific than the rule for Reconsider? Or is there some aspect of Reconsider that would not give the same result as Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted?

This principle can be most clearly be seen in the cases where a specific motion reverses the effect of a previously adopted motion, such as the following:

Reopen Nominations (which is used instead of reconsidering the motion to Close Nominations)

Take from the Table (instead of Reconsidering Lay on the Table)

Take up the Reading and Approval of the Minutes after it has been dispensed with (instead of Reconsidering the motion to Dispense)

Lay on the Table (Instead of Reconsidering the motion to Take from the Table)

[Shmuel Gerber]

In the discussion on the motion to Reconsider, page 319, lines 7-8 state that Reconsider cannot be applied to any motion when the same result can be achieved through another motion. So looking at this rule in isolation, since any adopted main motion can be rescinded or amended through a different motion, Reconsider wouldn't ever be in order for such a main motion.

The exact wording is: "The motion to Reconsider: … Can be applied to the vote on any motion except: … when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion."

I think this is in the nature of a statement of principle, rather than a rule that can be applied on its own. After all, adoption of Reconsider usually only opens up some other motion for reconsideration, which is not a result that can be obtained by any other parliamentary motion. :-)

Each parliamentary motion has a specific rule as to whether, and under what circumstances, it can be reconsidered, and obviously the rule book's opinion as to whether a specific motion can be reconsidered is going to be more determinative than yours or mine.

As far as amending or rescinding an adopted motion at the same session, yes, the same result can often be had by means of reconsideration (and, as the book states, that is the preferable procedure, presumably because it requires only a majority vote). But the converse is not true. You can't accomplish the reconsideration of an adopted motion simply by rescinding or amending it.

Would you have the chairman ask, "For what purpose does the member move to Reconsider?", and then rule the motion out of order if it's for the purpose of amending the main motion or voting it down, but allow it if it's for the purpose of referral or postponement, or to temporarily suspend the main motion's effect while the assembly reconsiders the question? (Or, in other words ... what Chris H. said. )

[Guest Thomas J Balch PRP]

I’d add only this comment. Principle of Interpretation 3 states, “A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.” RONR (11th ed.),p. 589, ll. 17-18. Plainly, “[Reconsider] Can be applied to the vote on any motion except . . . when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion,” id. at p. 318, l. 17 & p. 319, ll. 7- 8, is less specific than the following:

“ If a main motion that interferes with a desired action has been adopted, a motion to reconsider (37) the vote on it can be made for a limited time during the same session; and if it is reconsidered, it can be voted down or amended as desired, in the reconsideration. Although reconsideration is the preferable procedure in such a case when possible, an adopted main motion, at any time before or after it is too late to reconsider it, can be changed by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, or it can be rescinded and the desired new motion can then be introduced.”

RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, l. 26 to p. 112, l. 7.

The specific rule unquestionably indicates that, during the applicable time limes to reconsider, both motions are in order as a means of rescinding or amending an adopted main motion.

Thomas J Balch PRP

CAUTION:

The answers to questions found in RONR Official Interpretations are the product of deliberation and refinement by all of the current authors; they undergo a process similar to that followed in preparing new editions. . . . Their formal, deliberate, and joint nature raises them in persuasiveness over opinions expressed orally or in writing by individual members of the authorship [like the one I offer above!].

RONR Off. Interp. 2006-1 (emphasis added).

[Guest Thomas J Balch PRP]

I’d add only this comment. Principle of Interpretation 3 states, “A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it.” RONR (11th ed.),p. 589, ll. 17-18. Plainly, “[Reconsider] Can be applied to the vote on any motion except . . . when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion,” id. at p. 318, l. 17 & p. 319, ll. 7- 8, is less specific than the following:

“ If a main motion that interferes with a desired action has been adopted, a motion to reconsider (37) the vote on it can be made for a limited time during the same session; and if it is reconsidered, it can be voted down or amended as desired, in the reconsideration. Although reconsideration is the preferable procedure in such a case when possible, an adopted main motion, at any time before or after it is too late to reconsider it, can be changed by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, or it can be rescinded and the desired new motion can then be introduced.”

RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, l. 26 to p. 112, l. 7.

The specific rule unquestionably indicates that, during the applicable time limes to reconsider, both motions are in order as a means of rescinding or amending an adopted main motion.

Thomas J Balch PRP

CAUTION:

The answers to questions found in RONR Official Interpretations are the product of deliberation and refinement by all of the current authors; they undergo a process similar to that followed in preparing new editions. . . . Their formal, deliberate, and joint nature raises them in persuasiveness over opinions expressed orally or in writing by individual members of the authorship [like the one I offer above!].

RONR Off. Interp. 2006-1 (emphasis added).

"time limes" should, of course, be "time limits"

[Sean Hunt]

Since we're on the subject, would it not usually be out of order to move to rescind a motion adopted in the same session since it would bring essentially the same question before the assembly again?

[Matt Schafer]

Since we're on the subject, would it not usually be out of order to move to rescind a motion adopted in the same session since it would bring essentially the same question before the assembly again?

No, because of the exact rule that we're discussing in this thread. Page 112, lines 3 through 7: "... [A]n adopted main motion, at any time before or after it is too late to reconsider it, ... can be rescinded. ..." Since a motion can only be reconsidered at the same session (the time limit is actually tighter than simply at the same session), and a motion can be rescinded before the time limit expires, then it is in order to move to rescind a motion during the same session at which it was adopted.

Also, the motions that bring a question again before the assembly (of which Rescind is one), are the exact tools an assembly uses. Page 75, lines 20 through 24 explain: "The motions that bring a question again before the assembly enable the assembly, without violating the above principles, to reopen a completed question during the same session, or to take up one that has been temporarily disposed of, or to change something previously adopted and still in force." One of the referenced principles is the one you are thinking of.

[Matt Schafer]

And my thanks to those who responded to my question. I suspected that it was because the rule regarding reconsideration and rescission in the discussion on the main motion is more specific than the rule in the discussion on Reconsider. But because Reconsider is a very complex motion, I was worried that there was some aspect that I didn't understand.

[Gary c Tesser]

... I was worried that there was some aspect that I didn't understand.

Rest assured, of course there is.

[Gary Novosielski]

Rest assured, of course there is.

Indeed. Reconsider is unquestionably in the top two most complex and difficult motions to fully comprehend, exceeded only by Amend, which has the additional liability of appearing to be comprehensible, from a distance.

[Tim Wynn]

Since we're on the subject, would it not usually be out of order to move to rescind a motion adopted in the same session since it would bring essentially the same question before the assembly again?

No, RONR (11th ed.), p. 336, ll. 6-12, covers this.