Dan Honemann Posted July 6, 2013 at 02:50 PM Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 at 02:50 PM Although I suspect no one much cares, I think it only fair to point out that, assuming the correct answer to J. J.'s original question 1 is "Yes" (and I remain convinced that it is), I think I managed to get the answer to question 2 all wrong. I am now convinced that the answer to question 2 is also "Yes". That is to say, as soon as the motion to Reconsider is made and seconded, consideration of the pending motion to Rescind is effectively terminated because “the effect of making a motion to Reconsider is the suspension of all action that depends on the result of the vote proposed to be reconsidered” (p. 321, ll. 10-12), and a motion to Rescind can only be applied to something which has continuing force and effect (p. 305, ll. 28-31). The motion proposed to be reconsidered no longer has continuing force and effect as a consequence of the suspending effect of the making of the motion to Reconsider. With the motion to Rescind no longer pending, the motion to Reconsider may then be taken up immediately, assuming that nothing else precludes doing so. I think the answer to question 3 is "No". By defeating the motion to Reconsider, the assembly has reaffirmed its original decision to adopt the main motion, which is tantamount to a decision to neither rescind nor amend it. These opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of any one or more of my colleagues on the authorship team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM The questions were: "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?" On 1 and 2, I would agree, perhaps even for more reasons than you have stated Dan. Based, however, on your answer for 2, I think the answer for 3 would be yes, though I would admit that "renew" might be the incorrect term. The motion to rescind became out of order once reconsider was made. If reconsider is defeated, rescind becomes in order. I would also feel that the rule about not deciding the same question twice would not apply, since Rescind is listed as an exception based on p. 336, ll. 9-12. I could see a situation where before those additional members showed up, an enterprising member in favor the motion moved to reconsider, specifically to reject the motion to reconsider at that point, and prevent those additional members from being able to reach the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM Well, since I reversed my answer to question 2 upon reconsideration, I'm perfectly willing to reconsider 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM Author Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 at 12:41 PM I changed the wording on the original question removing the term "renewed" and inserting, "properly made again." I think that if your answer to Question 2 is correct, and I think it is, we are not talking about a case where the motion to rescind is being renewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randyl Kent Plampin Posted July 7, 2013 at 09:40 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 at 09:40 PM Greetings: Of course I care. The gap between the postings suggests that the gentleman has put a lot of thought and effort into this matter. The gentleman's opinions have some weight and I wish very much to consider what he has to say. We know that the motion to Rescind cannot be moved once a motion to Reconsider has been made; "Takes precedence over nothing, and can therefore be moved only when no other motion is pending." RONR 11 p. 305 ll. 21-22, SDC 1. The motion to Reconsider, on the other hand, "With respect to making the motion, takes precedence over any other motion whatever and yields to nothing." RONR 11 p. 317 ll. 21-23, SDC 1. Consequently, once the motion to Reconsider a main motion is made the motion to Rescind must wait until the reconsideration is completed. The problem that I am having is with the possibility that these two motions may co-exist at the same time in the eventuality that Rescind is moved before Reconsider. It seems that either the motion to Reconsider is declared out of order (possibly due to the rule against the renewability of motions, after all both motions have the same practical effect; see RONR 11 p. 336 ll. 6-12) or Reconsider is admitted and the motion to Rescind is either out of order or ignored. If the motion to Reconsider were to be declared out of order then the possibility exists that the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes would also have to be declared out of order and that event would create, at least for me, an enormous headache. However, if the motion to Reconsider is given the role mentioned above, simplicity would be restored if we were to give it precedence over the motion to Rescind, which is not difficult given the two RONR quotes, and then just ignore the motion to Rescind, a la Postpone Indefinitely when committed. I doubt very seriously that a majority of presiding officers would reach the same conclusion as the gentleman given the complexity of the situation. After all, consider the elapsed time and the amount of discussion in order to reach this point. To this end let me suggest a practical solution that the authors insert a clarifying sentence to the effect that, "If the motion to Reconsider is moved while the motion to Rescind the same main motion is pending, the motion to Reconsider will take precedence and the motion to Rescind is thereafter ignored." Having said this, or something similar, the exact same situation is created when these two motions attempt to come together at the same time. In other words, if Reconsider is moved first then Rescind is automatically out of order as per the existing rule, if Rescind is moved first then Reconsider takes precedence and Rescind is ignored, as per the clarification. The resulting parliamentary situation is identical and no additional exceptions are created. Best regards,Randyl Kent Plampin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted July 7, 2013 at 09:47 PM Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 at 09:47 PM I changed the wording on the original question removing the term "renewed" and inserting, "properly made again." . You've got to be kidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 8, 2013 at 12:12 AM Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2013 at 12:12 AM You've got to be kidding. No. In both theory and practice, a motion might might be out of order at one point in a meeting but in order at a later point. In that case, it would not be a question of renewing the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted July 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM Report Share Posted July 11, 2013 at 04:20 AM But in this scenario, if I understand correctly, the motion to Rescind was pending and subsequently became out of order due to a motion to Reconsider (which for this discussion we assume was rejected.) It seems to me that a motion that is ruled out of order when first offered was never before the assembly and so is not being "renewed" if it is properly made later. But a motion that was already pending when it became out of order, can be correctly said to be "renewed" if moved again. Which is not to say that I think this is necessarily an important distinction, as long as we agree that it is in order to move it again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM Report Share Posted July 11, 2013 at 10:36 AM But in this scenario, if I understand correctly, the motion to Rescind was pending and subsequently became out of order due to a motion to Reconsider (which for this discussion we assume was rejected.) It seems to me that a motion that is ruled out of order when first offered was never before the assembly and so is not being "renewed" if it is properly made later. But a motion that was already pending when it became out of order, can be correctly said to be "renewed" if moved again. Which is not to say that I think this is necessarily an important distinction, as long as we agree that it is in order to move it again. Well, as I said in post #51, by defeating the motion to Reconsider the assembly has reaffirmed its original decision to adopt, as is, the main motion proposed to be reconsidered. This, in my opinion, is tantamount to rejection of a motion to rescind or amend it, and so I think the answer to question 3 is "No". On the other hand, I do not think that rejection of a motion to Rescind is tantamount to rejection of a motion to reconsider the vote by which the motion proposed to be rescinded was adopted. I am not aware of anything in RONR that specifically addresses these particular questions, and so I suppose they should be added to the agenda for the next Advanced Seminar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:30 PM Author Report Share Posted July 12, 2013 at 09:30 PM I think the problem that I have is related to this. You can have a situation where, immediately after the motion is adopted, a friend of the motion moves to Reconsider, which is defeated. Under the theory that rejecting Reconsider is tantamount to rejecting Rescind, Rescind could not be made during the meeting, even if there is a majority of the entire membership that wished now to reject the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ann Rempel Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:33 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 02:33 AM I think the problem that I have is related to this. You can have a situation where, immediately after the motion is adopted, a friend of the motion moves to Reconsider, which is defeated. Under the theory that rejecting Reconsider is tantamount to rejecting Rescind, Rescind could not be made during the meeting, even if there is a majority of the entire membership that wished now to reject the motion. Aw, but wouldn't suspend the rules enable the assembly to Rescind if enough members wanted to do that?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:51 AM Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 10:51 AM Aw, but wouldn't suspend the rules enable the assembly to Rescind if enough members wanted to do that?. Yes, and even if there are not enough votes to suspend the rules, a majority of the entire membership can do just about anything (procedurally) that it wants to do. In the situation J. J. describes, such a majority can adopt a special rule of order permitting an additional renewal of either the motion to Reconsider or the motion to Rescind, limiting the rule's applicability to the particular instance if it so desires. But I think I see what J. J. may be getting at. If a motion to Rescind is rejected, it cannot be renewed, but its rejection can be reconsidered. Since rejection of a motion to Reconsider cannot be reconsidered, perhaps that rejection should not be viewed, at least in all cases, as being tantamount to rejection of a motion to Rescind. So as I said in post #53, I'm perfectly willing to reconsider my response to question 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 at 03:26 PM Yes, and even if there are not enough votes to suspend the rules, a majority of the entire membership can do just about anything (procedurally) that it wants to do. In the situation J. J. describes, such a majority can adopt a special rule of order permitting an additional renewal of either the motion to Reconsider or the motion to Rescind, limiting the rule's applicability to the particular instance if it so desires. But I think I see what J. J. may be getting at. If a motion to Rescind is rejected, it cannot be renewed, but its rejection can be reconsidered. Since rejection of a motion to Reconsider cannot be reconsidered, perhaps that rejection should not be viewed, at least in all cases, as being tantamount to rejection of a motion to Rescind. So as I said in post #53, I'm perfectly willing to reconsider my response to question 3. I didn't want to look at the possibility of re-writing the rules for this. As for suspension, there is a majority of the entire membership (MEM), but not 2/3 to do this. Obviously, you could adopt a special rule to permit this. You have raised a second point regarding reconsideration of the motion to rescind, which I think is valid. I don't agree that rejecting Reconsider is the same as rejecting Rescind. I think one element of why that isn't the case. The converse would not be the case either; if the motion was first subject to rescission, which failed, I would not find it tantamount to rejecting a motion to reconsider the same motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted July 15, 2013 at 07:55 PM Report Share Posted July 15, 2013 at 07:55 PM At the risk of being rather irritating, I would perhaps propose an alternate scenario. The motion to Rescind was never finally disposed of, but rather "suspended" by the taking of some other action which, in this case, prevents the motion to Rescind from being considered. I think that this is perhaps analogous to a special order or question of privilege suspending consideration of a motion while they are pending. Since Rescind was in fact never disposed of, it remains in the "pending but suspended" limbo state, and if the motion to Reconsider is adopted, it implicitly destroys the motion to Rescind since the latter is now moot, and if it is defeated then the motion to Rescind will become pending again. So the answer is technically "no", but only because the motion is already pending, and cannot be made again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 16, 2013 at 12:00 AM Author Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 at 12:00 AM Please continue to be irritating, you might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM Report Share Posted July 16, 2013 at 11:41 AM Well, I agree that the view expressed in post #64 may be right, since we've been sailing along in uncharted waters for quite some time now. However, I think it illustrates why it is perhaps more accurate to regard the suspending effect of the making of the motion to Reconsider, when applied to an adopted main motion, as suspending the taking of any action to carry out the provisions of that motion, thereby depriving it of its continuing force and effect, and thus effectively terminating (not merely suspending) any further consideration of a motion to rescind it. But beware of shoals that may lie ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted July 19, 2013 at 03:50 AM Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 at 03:50 AM Hmm... that is certainly one way of looking at it. I think, however, the correct resolution here is "Whyyyyyyyyyy?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 19, 2013 at 09:55 AM Report Share Posted July 19, 2013 at 09:55 AM Hmm... that is certainly one way of looking at it. I think, however, the correct resolution here is "Whyyyyyyyyyy?" That's a resolution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.