Continuing breach, notice requirements, and erroneous voting results.

[Sean Hunt]

Suppose the following situations occur in an assembly with 100 members:

1. Motion A is adopted at some point in the past, reading "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays."
   
   Motion B is considered, with notice, at a later meeting, reading "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays." The vote is 10-7, and the chair announces the motion as being adopted. No point of order is raised at this meeting regarding the conflict between Motion B and Motion A.
    
2. At a third meeting, Motion B is rescinded (since the assembly is being kind to us parliamentarians), and Motion C is adopted, reading "No club events shall be held on holidays."
   
   At a fourth meeting, Motion D is considered, without notice, which is to amend Motion C by inserting "and the clubhouse shall be closed" after "held". The vote is 10-6, and the chair erroneously announces the motion as being adopted. No point of order is raised at this meeting regarding the conflict between Motion D and Motion A.

Between events 1 and 2, does Motion B constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted by a vote high enough to amend Motion A, however, notice was given of Motion B which means that if Motion B was itself a motion to ASPA, it would have been adopted. Is the notice given of Motion B sufficient to prevent a continuing breach?

 

After events 2, does Motion D constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted with the voting threshold required to amend Motion A. However, it was also not adopted with its own adoption threshold. Does this mean that a point of order against Motion D must be timely, or is the incorrect announcement insufficient to remedy the continuing breach, even though the process by which D was adopted would also have been enough to adopt a motion to amend motion A (since, indeed, D is also a motion to ASPA).

[Gary c Tesser]

... even though the process by which D was adopted would also have been enough to adopt a motion to amend motion A (since, indeed, D is also a motion to ASPA).

 

I suppose questions like this are why I'm barely an aspiring parliamentarian.  How do you figure there was anything legit about the adoption of D?

[George Mervosh]

I'm not sure if the assembly was so kind in rescinding B because I can't figure out of B was added onto the end of A or replaced it.  If it replaced A, C and D seem fine since there was no rule in place.  It's C's legitimacy that's in question to me leaving D hanging in mid-air.

 

Oh, and I think the answer to your first question is, no, since there's no reason to give notice of a motion other than one that rescinds or amends something previously adopted.

[Josh Martin]

 

At a third meeting, Motion B is rescinded (since the assembly is being kind to us parliamentarians)... 

 

I would have preferred a Point of Order.

 

Between events 1 and 2, does Motion B constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted by a vote high enough to amend Motion A, however, notice was given of Motion B which means that if Motion B was itself a motion to ASPA, it would have been adopted. Is the notice given of Motion B sufficient to prevent a continuing breach?

 

Yes, motion B constitutes a continuing breach, since it was not a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, it conflicted with a main motion previously adopted and still in effect, and it did not meet the threshold for adopting ASPA. See Official Interpretation 2006-17.

 

The fact that notice was given does not, in my opinion, lower the threshold for ASPA here, since the notice did not specify that it was amending Motion A (as I understand the facts). Therefore, the notice is not sufficient to prevent a continuing breach.

 

After events 2, does Motion D constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted with the voting threshold required to amend Motion A. However, it was also not adopted with its own adoption threshold. Does this mean that a point of order against Motion D must be timely, or is the incorrect announcement insufficient to remedy the continuing breach, even though the process by which D was adopted would also have been enough to adopt a motion to amend motion A (since, indeed, D is also a motion to ASPA).

 

The fact that the motion did not meet the required threshold for amending Motion C does not constitute a continuing breach, since it was a proper motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. See Official Interpretation 2006-18.

 

Whether it is a continuing breach due to its conflict with Motion A is a separate issue and is a more interesting question. Motion D does conflict with two motions previously adopted and still in effect, but it was properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, but the motion only referred to one of the motions it conflicts with (Motion C). RONR doesn't directly address this issue.

 

I think that Motion D is null and void due to its conflict with Motion A because Motion D was not properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted with respect to Motion A, and as previously noted, it was not adopted by the required threshold for ASPA.

 

I'm not sure if the assembly was so kind in rescinding B because I can't figure out of B was added onto the end of A or replaced it.  If it replaced A, C and D seem fine since there was no rule in place.  It's C's legitimacy that's in question to me leaving D hanging in mid-air.

 

Oh, and I think the answer to your first question is, no, since there's no reason to give notice of a motion other than one that rescinds or amends something previously adopted.

 

George, I can see how there might be reasonable differences of opinion regarding the validity of Motions B and D, but how do you see that there is any question regarding the legitimacy of Motion C?

[George Mervosh]

George, I can see how there might be reasonable differences of opinion regarding the validity of Motions B and D, but how do you see that there is any question regarding the legitimacy of Motion C?

 

I did say if B's recission left no rule in place C is fine.  If not, I'm not sure what the heck C is.  If there's still an A left, does C conflict with it?  Why do you say it's a proper motion to amend something previously adopted?  Sean doesn't say it was presented that way.  I'm not disagreeing with you on C because I'm unclear as to factual situation before C was adopted, and you seem clear as to what it is. 

 

I am interested in your interpretation of B.  Why give notice if not to rescind/amend?

[Josh Martin]

I did say if B's recission left no rule in place C is fine.  If not, I'm not sure what the heck C is.  If there's still an A left, does C conflict with it?  Why do you say it's a proper motion to amend something previously adopted?  Sean doesn't say it was presented that way.  I'm not disagreeing with you on C because I'm unclear as to factual situation before C was adopted, and you seem clear as to what it is. 

 

 

I'm saying that Motion D is properly made as ASPA, since Sean notes that it was made to amend Motion C. Motion C was made as a new main motion, which seems perfectly fine, as it doesn't seem to conflict with Motion A. A rule preventing club events from being held on holidays does not conflict with a rule prescribing the regular hours of operation for the clubhouse.

 

I believe that Motion B was intended to add to Motion A, not replace it, but I don't think it matters anyway since Motion B was not validly adopted.

[George Mervosh]

I'm saying that Motion D is properly made as ASPA, since Sean notes that it was made to amend Motion C. Motion C was made as a new main motion, which seems perfectly fine, as it doesn't seem to conflict with Motion A. A rule preventing club events from being held on holidays does not conflict with a rule prescribing the regular hours of operation for the clubhouse.

 

Ok, I read the facts differently, but ok.  Motion D is clearly fine if C is.

 

 

I believe that Motion B was intended to add to Motion A, not replace it, but I don't think it matters anyway since Motion B was not validly adopted.

 

Ok, now that I still have an issue with.  Giving notice of Motion B clearly seems to be done so that it is presented as a motion to amend something previously adopted.  There's just no other reason to give the notice, that I can think of.

[Josh Martin]

Ok, I read the facts differently, but ok.  Motion D is clearly fine if C is.

 

Even though the motion does not specify that it amends Motion A (which is the motion it really conflicts with)?

 

Ok, now that I still have an issue with.  Giving notice of Motion B clearly seems to be done so that it is presented as a motion to amend something previously adopted.  There's just no other reason to give the notice, that I can think of.

 

I have seen cases where members will give notice of a motion even though there is no parliamentary reason to do so. But hopefully Sean can clarify this.

[Sean Hunt]

Even though the motion does not specify that it amends Motion A (which is the motion it really conflicts with)?

 

 

I have seen cases where members will give notice of a motion even though there is no parliamentary reason to do so. But hopefully Sean can clarify this.

 

My intent was that it should be seen as a main motion that happened to have notice given, but not that the notice related in any way to Motion A. Perhaps the assembly has special rules requiring notice, or perhaps the motion was simply included in the call of the meeting---which is a reasonable thing to do for any motion, and would be enough to satisfy any requirement of notice.

 

I'm not sure if the assembly was so kind in rescinding B because I can't figure out of B was added onto the end of A or replaced it.  If it replaced A, C and D seem fine since there was no rule in place.  It's C's legitimacy that's in question to me leaving D hanging in mid-air.

 

Oh, and I think the answer to your first question is, no, since there's no reason to give notice of a motion other than one that rescinds or amends something previously adopted.

 

The point of rescinding B is just to remove it from the picture so that the second scenario can be considered separately. Feel free to pretend that B was never adopted. The intent is that the adoption of Motion C is uncontroversial.

[Josh Martin]

My intent was that it should be seen as a main motion that happened to have notice given, but not that the notice related in any way to Motion A. Perhaps the assembly has special rules requiring notice, or perhaps the motion was simply included in the call of the meeting---which is a reasonable thing to do for any motion, and would be enough to satisfy any requirement of notice.

 

I considered the possibility that the assembly had special rules relating to notice, but if that were the case, then one would presume that notice would have also been required and given for Motion D, so that would solve that problem.

 

So yes, I think for your scenario to work, previous notice of Motion B was given simply as a matter of courtesy.

[Bruce Lages]

 

Yes, motion B constitutes a continuing breach, since it was not a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, it conflicted with a main motion previously adopted and still in effect, and it did not meet the threshold for adopting ASPA. See Official Interpretation 2006-17.

 

The fact that notice was given does not, in my opinion, lower the threshold for ASPA here, since the notice did not specify that it was amending Motion A (as I understand the facts). Therefore, the notice is not sufficient to prevent a continuing breach.

 

 

Josh - this answer got me confused because it appeared to me that the second paragraph of the answer in OI 2006-17 contradicted your conclusion. But I see now that what you have done is added an additional condition onto 2006-17, viz.: that a motion must be specifically identified as ASPA in order for the previous notice voting threshold to be effective. I think it's worth pointing out that OI 2006-17 doesn't refer to this additional condition directly, but may do so indirectly, by making reference to only the non-previous notice voting thresholds of a 2/3 vote or a MEM vote.

[Gary c Tesser]

1.  I have now caught up, and my thanks to all who helped, with why (the OI's clarify it) motion D is OK.  

 

2.  [JM, post 4:]

"I think that Motion D is null and void due to its conflict with Motion A because Motion D was not properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted with respect to Motion A, and as previously noted, it was not adopted by the required threshold for ASPA."

 

I'm only looking at RONR, 11th Ed, p. 306, R/ASPA, SDC 7, that previous notice states "the complete substance of the proposed change," not keeping up with you highfalutin' PRPs and college graduates and RPGs and maybe lawyers by now for all the hell I know; but it seems to me that this stated requirement is only that the change be stated, which it was, not that the targeted material be specified, so that material is immaterial (heh); that if, during consideration of Motion D, it had been proposed to amend it to say that it was amending Motion A, not Motion C, then that change would have been within the scope of the notice, and therefore proper; so therefore the adoption of Motion D is unassailable.  Have at thee, college graduates.

 

3.  One of you college graduates or lawyers or RPGs please have pity on me and explain now what can be improper about the adoption of Motion B.  I'll donate another nickel.

[George Mervosh]

We have further clarified by now that Motion B was not made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, nor did the notice state as much. Therefore, Official Interpretation 2006-18 applies.

 

Yes, Mr. Hunt saves the day and the internet with his clarification. 

[Josh Martin]

2.  [JM, post 4:]

"I think that Motion D is null and void due to its conflict with Motion A because Motion D was not properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted with respect to Motion A, and as previously noted, it was not adopted by the required threshold for ASPA."

 

I'm only looking at RONR, 11th Ed, p. 306, R/ASPA, SDC 7, that previous notice states "the complete substance of the proposed change," not keeping up with you highfalutin' PRPs and college graduates and RPGs and maybe lawyers by now for all the hell I know; but it seems to me that this stated requirement is only that the change be stated, which it was, not that the targeted material be specified, so that material is immaterial (heh); that if, during consideration of Motion D, it had been proposed to amend it to say that it was amending Motion A, not Motion C, then that change would have been within the scope of the notice, and therefore proper; so therefore the adoption of Motion D is unassailable.  Have at thee, college graduates.

 

I'm actually not certain that it would be within the scope of notice to change which motion it was amending (and this isn't relevant, since notice wasn't given), but I think that motion may have nonetheless been in order. So I think you may be on to something.

 

3.  One of you college graduates or lawyers or RPGs please have pity on me and explain now what can be improper about the adoption of Motion B.  I'll donate another nickel.

 

Motion B was not made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, so Official Interpretation 2006-17 applies. The fact that notice was given doesn't change anything, since the notice didn't specify that Motion B was amending anything.

 

EDIT: Corrected which Official Interpretation to cite, per Sean Hunt's correction.

[Sean Hunt]

I'm not sure what OI 2006-18 has to do with Motion B, which was adopted with a majority vote. The chair's declaration of the vote wasn't wrong. What was wrong was that the chair did not rule the motion out of order immediately for conflicting with Motion A, and my question is whether the fact that notice was given of the motion,  although mentioning Motion A, is enough to prevent a continuing breach by lowering the voting threshold required to adopt an implicit amendment to Motion A.

[Josh Martin]

I'm not sure what OI 2006-18 has to do with Motion B, which was adopted with a majority vote. The chair's declaration of the vote wasn't wrong. What was wrong was that the chair did not rule the motion out of order immediately for conflicting with Motion A, and my question is whether the fact that notice was given of the motion,  although mentioning Motion A, is enough to prevent a continuing breach by lowering the voting threshold required to adopt an implicit amendment to Motion A.

 

Yes, that was my mistake. I meant OI 2006-17. It's easy to get them mixed up.

 

Are you missing a "not" in there? I thought the facts were that the notice did not mention Motion A. If the notice did mention Motion A, then the question may be more interesting.

[Sean Hunt]

Yes, that was my mistake. I meant OI 2006-17. It's easy to get them mixed up.

 

Are you missing a "not" in there? I thought the facts were that the notice did not mention Motion A. If the notice did mention Motion A, then the question may be more interesting.

 

Yes, sorry. I think that the motion is quite interesting enough as is, let's not make it worse.

[J. J.]

Suppose the following situations occur in an assembly with 100 members:

1. Motion A is adopted at some point in the past, reading "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays."

   Motion B is considered, with notice, at a later meeting, reading "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays." The vote is 10-7, and the chair announces the motion as being adopted. No point of order is raised at this meeting regarding the conflict between Motion B and Motion A.

    

2. At a third meeting, Motion B is rescinded (since the assembly is being kind to us parliamentarians), and Motion C is adopted, reading "No club events shall be held on holidays."

   At a fourth meeting, Motion D is considered, without notice, which is to amend Motion C by inserting "and the clubhouse shall be closed" after "held". The vote is 10-6, and the chair erroneously announces the motion as being adopted. No point of order is raised at this meeting regarding the conflict between Motion D and Motion A.

Between events 1 and 2, does Motion B constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted by a vote high enough to amend Motion A, however, notice was given of Motion B which means that if Motion B was itself a motion to ASPA, it would have been adopted. Is the notice given of Motion B sufficient to prevent a continuing breach?

 

After events 2, does Motion D constitute a continuing breach of Motion A? It was not adopted with the voting threshold required to amend Motion A. However, it was also not adopted with its own adoption threshold. Does this mean that a point of order against Motion D must be timely, or is the incorrect announcement insufficient to remedy the continuing breach, even though the process by which D was adopted would also have been enough to adopt a motion to amend motion A (since, indeed, D is also a motion to ASPA).

 

 

I will assume all meetings were quorate.

 

Motion B was adopted because notice was given.  A 10-7 vote, with notice, is sufficent to adopt a motion, "by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion (p. 251, ll. 13-15).  Perhaps the only error was the chair not treating it as motion to ASPA and suggesting that phrasing when notice was given.

 

Motion D does have the effect of conflicting with Motion A and is a continuing breach.  It is possible for an amendment to convert an otherwise in order motion into one that creates a continuing breach.  The same is true for ASPA.

[Sean Hunt]

Motion D does have the effect of conflicting with Motion A and is a continuing breach.  It is possible for an amendment to convert an otherwise in order motion into one that creates a continuing breach.  The same is true for ASPA.

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. Motion D was adopted as proposed; the issue at hand was that the chair incorrectly announced the result.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure I follow this reasoning. Motion D was adopted as proposed; the issue at hand was that the chair incorrectly announced the result.

 

 

I think for that to apply, it would have had to have specifically proposed as an amendment to the adopted Motion A.  I'm not clear, but was Motion D specifically a motion to ASPA?  If so, I'll change my answer.

[Sean Hunt]

I think for that to apply, it would have had to have specifically proposed as an amendment to the adopted Motion A.  I'm not clear, but was Motion D specifically a motion to ASPA?  If so, I'll change my answer.

 

It was specifically a motion to ASPA, but not to amend Motion A. The intent of the question is whether or not the incorrect declaration of the chair is sufficient to avoid a continuing breach, because one could argue that Motion D's voting threshold, had the motion been correctly adopted, would have been high enough to avoid creating a continuing breach, since it was a motion to ASPA offered without notice. Normally, an incorrect announcement made by the chair is not sufficient to create a continuing breach and must be caught immediately, leading to this odd scenario.

[Dan Honemann]

1. "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays."

 

2. "No club events shall be held on holidays."

 

3. "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays."

 

A credible argument can be made that none of these rules conflicts with the others, which makes dealing with these questions rather difficult. If an assembly has adopted a rule that "No club events shall be held on holidays", a motion to amend this adopted motion by inserting, or adding, a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays", although couched in terms of a motion to amend the previously adopted rule, is, in fact, no such thing. It makes no change at all in the existing rule, and the rules in Section 35 are inapplicable.

 

It also seems to me that, If an assembly has adopted a rule that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays", a motion that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" makes no change in this existing rule. On the other hand, if the existing rule is that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year", that would be a different matter. In such a case, a motion to create a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" will conflict with the existing rule.

 

So then, if we can substitute "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year" for A in post #1, I think that the chair's declaration that motion D was adopted was not only erroneous, but that a point of order to that effect can be raised at any time.

[Sean Hunt]

A credible argument can be made that none of these rules conflicts with the others, which makes dealing with these questions rather difficult. If an assembly has adopted a rule that "No club events shall be held on holidays", a motion to amend this adopted motion by inserting, or adding, a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays", although couched in terms of a motion to amend the previously adopted rule, is, in fact, no such thing. It makes no change at all in the existing rule, and the rules in Section 35 are inapplicable.

Fair enough. One thing I've learned on these forums is that it is difficult to construct a scenario such that parliamentarians will not go picking at some unrelated aspect of the scenario that has less-than-ideal construction. You're like chess players!

 

It also seems to me that, If an assembly has adopted a rule that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays", a motion that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" makes no change in this existing rule. On the other hand, if the existing rule is that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year", that would be a different matter. In such a case, a motion to create a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" will conflict with the existing rule.

 

So then, if we can substitute "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year" for A in post #1, I think that the chair's declaration that motion D was adopted was not only erroneous, but that a point of order to that effect can be raised at any time.

And of motion B?

[J. J.]

 

It was specifically a motion to ASPA, but not to amend Motion A. The intent of the question is whether or not the incorrect declaration of the chair is sufficient to avoid a continuing breach, because one could argue that Motion D's voting threshold, had the motion been correctly adopted, would have been high enough to avoid creating a continuing breach, since it was a motion to ASPA offered without notice. Normally, an incorrect announcement made by the chair is not sufficient to create a continuing breach and must be caught immediately, leading to this odd scenario.

 

I would say that it would expressly have to amend Motion A.  A "successful" ASPA would have the effect of superseding conflicting motions.  In this case ASPA, Motion D, is "successful," only because a timely point of order was needed.

[J. J.]

1. "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays."

 

2. "No club events shall be held on holidays."

 

3. "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays."

 

A credible argument can be made that none of these rules conflicts with the others, which makes dealing with these questions rather difficult. If an assembly has adopted a rule that "No club events shall be held on holidays", a motion to amend this adopted motion by inserting, or adding, a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays", although couched in terms of a motion to amend the previously adopted rule, is, in fact, no such thing. It makes no change at all in the existing rule, and the rules in Section 35 are inapplicable.

 

It also seems to me that, If an assembly has adopted a rule that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays", a motion that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" makes no change in this existing rule. On the other hand, if the existing rule is that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year", that would be a different matter. In such a case, a motion to create a rule that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays" will conflict with the existing rule.

 

So then, if we can substitute "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on every day of every year" for A in post #1, I think that the chair's declaration that motion D was adopted was not only erroneous, but that a point of order to that effect can be raised at any time.

 

 

So, a motion (Motion E) "That the club house shall be closed in the months of July and August," would not conflict with the adopted motion (Motion A) "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays?"