Adopt, Rescind and Reconsider

[J. J.]

The meeting begins with a quorum, but less than a majority of the membership.

A main motion is adopted by a bare majority.

Later in the meeting, more members show up, a majority of the entire membership. All the recently arrived members all opposed the adopted motion. None of the members that voted in the affirmative will move to reconsider. One of the recently arrived members moves to rescind. There are enough votes for it to be adopted.

Rescind becomes pending. A member who voted in favor of the motion properly moves to reconsider, as per p. 317, ll. 23-4.

1. Is the motion to reconsider in order?

2. If so, does the motion to rescind become out of order?

3. If so, and the motion to reconsider is defeated, may rescind be renewed  properly made again in the same session?

[Bruce Lages]

I would guess that:

1. The making of the motion to reconsider is definitely in order, based on p. 317, ll. 21-23, but the actual consideration would not be in order at the same time, based on. p. 78, l.33 - p. 79, l.5.

2. Based on 1. above, I don't think the motion to rescind becomes out of order, and even if reconsider is adopted, again becomes the pending motion after the vote on reconsider.

3. Not applicable, if 1. and 2. above are correct.

[Bruce Lages]

Well, I think I need to revise that answer 2. somewhat. I said that the motion to rescind would be pending even if the motion to reconsider were adopted, but in re-reading the p. 78-79 reference it seems clear that the motion to reconsider can only be made when any other motion is pending, but would not be taken up at that time if another motion is pending ("but its consideration has only the rank of the motion to be reconsidered" [p. 79, ll. 2-4] -which in this case is a main motion). I think the rest of point 2 above still stands, in that the motion to rescind is still the pending motion after the motion to reconsider has been made.

[alanh49]

Well, I think I need to revise that answer 2. somewhat. I said that the motion to rescind would be pending even if the motion to reconsider were adopted, but in re-reading the p. 78-79 reference it seems clear that the motion to reconsider can only be made when any other motion is pending, but would not be taken up at that time if another motion is pending ("but its consideration has only the rank of the motion to be reconsidered" [p. 79, ll. 2-4] -which in this case is a main motion). I think the rest of point 2 above still stands, in that the motion to rescind is still the pending motion after the motion to reconsider has been made.

And if the motion to rescind is adopted the motion to reconsider becomes moot. On the other hand if the motion to rescind is voted down the motion to reconsider can then be called up.

[J. J.]

The motion to reconsider is made, but is not called up (and can't be if rescind is pending).

[J. J.]

Well, I think I need to revise that answer 2. somewhat. I said that the motion to rescind would be pending even if the motion to reconsider were adopted, but in re-reading the p. 78-79 reference it seems clear that the motion to reconsider can only be made when any other motion is pending, but would not be taken up at that time if another motion is pending ("but its consideration has only the rank of the motion to be reconsidered" [p. 79, ll. 2-4] -which in this case is a main motion). I think the rest of point 2 above still stands, in that the motion to rescind is still the pending motion after the motion to reconsider has been made.

You might want to look at p. 308, ll. 17-19.

If the motion to reconsider was made, and not called up prior to the motion to rescind being made, rescind would be out of order.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The meeting begins with a quorum, but less than a majority of the membership.

A main motion is adopted by a bare majority.

Later in the meeting, more members show up, a majority of the entire membership. All the recently arrived members all opposed the adopted motion. None of the members that voted in the affirmative will move to reconsider. One of the recently arrived members moves to rescind. There are enough votes for it to be adopted.

Rescind becomes pending. A member who voted in favor of the motion properly moves to reconsider, as per p. 317, ll. 23-4.

1. Is the motion to reconsider in order?

2. If so, does the motion to rescind become out of order?

3. If so, and the motion to reconsider is defeated, may rescind be renewed in the same session?

This is an interesting question(s). I may be missing some more obvious reason, but based on the principles governing SDC 2( b ) of the motion to Reconsider, and the rules on page 321, line 30 to page 322, line 12, I think the motion to Reconsider would not be in order.

[Dan Honemann]

You might want to look at p. 308, ll. 17-19.

If the motion to reconsider was made, and not called up prior to the motion to rescind being made, rescind would be out of order.

Yes, but what is said on page 308 has no applicability at all in the scenario you have outlined.

[J. J.]

This is an interesting question(s). I may be missing some more obvious reason, but based on the principles governing SDC 2( b ) of the motion to Reconsider, and the rules on page 321, line 30 to page 322, line 12, I think the motion to Reconsider would not be in order.

That does make sense.

I would take it that, if Rescind was defeated, Reconsider would be in order?

[J. J.]

Yes, but what is said on page 308 has no applicability at all in the scenario you have outlined.

Agreed, but I would have had a definite answer in that case; Rescind would have been out of order.

[Dan Honemann]

Agreed, but I would have had a definite answer in that case; Rescind would have been out of order.

So what? This still has absolutely nothing to do with the question you asked.

[J. J.]

So what? This still has absolutely nothing to do with the question you asked.

It might have provided some reference points to the answers, though I think Shmuel may have nailed it.

A motion to reconsider Motion X, made previously and not called up would act to block a motion to rescind Motion X, e.g. make a motion to rescind Motion X out of order, until reconsideration is disposed of. A motion to rescind Motion X would block a motion to reconsider Motion X, until rescind was disposed of, under this premise.

[Dan Honemann]

A motion to reconsider Motion X, made previously and not called up would act to block a motion to rescind Motion X, e.g. make a motion to rescind Motion X out of order, until reconsideration is disposed of. A motion to rescind Motion X would block a motion to reconsider Motion X, until rescind was disposed of, under this premise.

This reasoning makes no sense at all, since the one situation bears little, if any, relationship to the other. The time limits on making a motion to Reconsider have got to be taken into consideration.

[J. J.]

This reasoning makes no sense at all, since the one situation bears little, if any, relationship to the other. The time limits on making a motion to Reconsider have got to be taken into consideration.

Actually, it does.

I knew that, if for some reason, someone wanted to block Rescind, Reconsider could be used. I thought one possibility would be that Rescind could end up blocking Reconsider, which has a time limit. It is an interesting relationship.

[Bruce Lages]

This is an interesting question(s). I may be missing some more obvious reason, but based on the principles governing SDC 2( b ) of the motion to Reconsider, and the rules on page 321, line 30 to page 322, line 12, I think the motion to Reconsider would not be in order.

I guess I don't see how SDC 2( b ) relates to J.J.'s scenario. since it discusses reconsideration not being applicable to a negative vote on motions which would be out of order at the time reconsider is made, and there isn't a negative vote in this scenario. The reference to p. 321-322 also doesn't seem to fit since it discusses action that may preclude making of the motion to reconsider the vote on a previously rejected motion, and there is no previously rejected motion . What am I missing?

Shmuel's post did. however, make me think about SDC 2(g), which indicates that reconsider can not be applied "when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion." Since the main motion in J.J.'s scenario was adopted, the presumed purpose of reconsider would be to now defeat that motion - but the same result could certainly be obtained by rescinding it. The technical questions that come to mind are 1) whether rescind, which in this situation would require (minimally) a majority the entire membership, is considered to be 'practically the same result' as reconsider, which could defeat the motion with just a majority vote; and 2) do the words "can be applied to the vote on any motion except... " in SDC 2 mean that reconsider can not be made in the excepted cases, or can not be considered in those cases?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I guess I don't see how SDC 2( b ) relates to J.J.'s scenario. since it discusses reconsideration not being applicable to a negative vote on motions which would be out of order at the time reconsider is made, and there isn't a negative vote in this scenario. The reference to p. 321-322 also doesn't seem to fit since it discusses action that may preclude making of the motion to reconsider the vote on a previously rejected motion, and there is no previously rejected motion . What am I missing?

The rules that I referred to do not specifically apply to the situation, but I am suggesting that it would make sense to apply the principles underlying those rules in a slightly broader way.

But before we get to that, there is a more basic question: Is it in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has already been rescinded? I had been assuming that the answer is no.

[Dan Honemann]

The rules that I referred to do not specifically apply to the situation, but I am suggesting that it would make sense to apply the principles underlying those rules in a slightly broader way.

But before we get to that, there is a more basic question: Is it in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has already been rescinded? I had been assuming that the answer is no.

And such an assumption is correct, it is obviously not in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has been rescinded. Yes, provided that it is not dilatory.

However, it is in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has not been rescinded, but if a member is precluded from moving to reconsider simply because a motion to rescind has been made and is pending, then if the motion to rescind is eventually rejected it may well be too late to move to reconsider the vote on the main motion.

[Sean Hunt]

And such an assumption is correct, it is obviously not in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has been rescinded.

However, it is in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has not been rescinded, but if a member is precluded from moving to reconsider simply because a motion to rescind has been made and is pending, then if the motion to rescind is eventually rejected it may well be too late to move to reconsider the vote on the main motion.

But if we admit the motion to Reconsider while Rescind is pending, Rescind is postponed to the next meeting, and then the motion is reconsidered and defeated, what happens to the motion to Rescind? Should it just be deemed moot when it comes up at the next meeting and discarded?

[J. J.]

But if we admit the motion to Reconsider while Rescind is pending, Rescind is postponed to the next meeting, and then the motion is reconsidered and defeated, what happens to the motion to Rescind? Should it just be deemed moot when it comes up at the next meeting and discarded?

That was not specifically what I was looking at in the original scenario, but I was seeing that application.

A function of making a motion to Reconsider an adopted main motion would be to prevent a motion Rescind from being introduced, until Reconsider was called up. Presumably, that would be a function of Reconsider an Enter as well.

No, since some of you are no doubt thinking about this, no, I don't have a solid idea of how this works.

[Shmuel Gerber]

And such an assumption is correct, it is obviously not in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has been rescinded.

However, it is in order to reconsider the vote on a motion that has not been rescinded, but if a member is precluded from moving to reconsider simply because a motion to rescind has been made and is pending, then if the motion to rescind is eventually rejected it may well be too late to move to reconsider the vote on the main motion.

That's true, but the same is true in the situation described on pages 321-322. While the motion to spend the money on athletic equipment is pending, a motion to Reconsider the earlier vote that rejected spending the same money on library books cannot be made -- even though by the time the motion for the athletic equipment has been voted on, even if it is rejected it might still be too late to make the motion to Reconsider.

The broader principle that could apply to both situations is that if there is a pending motion [in J.J.'s case, the motion to Rescind] whose adoption would prevent the adoption of a motion to Reconsider (because the motion to be reconsidered [i.e., the original main motion] could no longer be adopted), then such a motion to Reconsider cannot even be made. Does RONR actually say so? Admittedly, it does not.

[Dan Honemann]

That's true, but the same is true in the situation described on pages 321-322. While the motion to spend the money on athletic equipment is pending, a motion to Reconsider the earlier vote that rejected spending the same money on library books cannot be made -- even though by the time the motion for the athletic equipment has been voted on, even if it is rejected it might still be too late to make the motion to Reconsider.

Doesn't what is said on pages 321-22 apply to cases where the motion to spend money on athletic equipment has been adopted?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Doesn't what is said on pages 321-22 apply to cases where the motion to spend money on athletic equipment has been adopted?

Yes, but I meant that if you start off with the same situation described there, but analyze what the rule would be while the motion to spend the money on the athletic equipment is still pending, clearly the motion to Reconsider would not be in order, because of part (iii) of paragraph ( b ) in SDC 2.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, but I meant that if you start off with the same situation described there, but analyze what the rule would be while the motion to spend the money on the athletic equipment is still pending, clearly the motion to Reconsider would not be in order, because of part (iii) of paragraph ( b ) in SDC 2.

Okay, I agree.

Now all we have to do is is get around the fact that ( b ) on page 318 precludes only motions to reconsider negative votes in the situations described.

I know you realize this, and I gather that you are merely suggesting that the same principle may be applicable here. You may be entirely correct. I'm just not yet convinced.

[J. J.]

They would be another possibility.

The answer may be:

1. Yes.

2. No.

Yes the motion to reconsider is in order, but, no, rescind is not out of order. If the motion to rescind is adopted, there is nothing left to reconsider; if the motion to rescind is defeated, the member may call up reconsider. Is that possible?

[Dan Honemann]

They would be another possibility.

The answer may be:

1. Yes.

2. No.

Yes the motion to reconsider is in order, but, no, rescind is not out of order. If the motion to rescind is adopted, there is nothing left to reconsider; if the motion to rescind is defeated, the member may call up reconsider. Is that possible?

Yes, this seems to be the conclusion reached by Alan H way back in post #4.