Continuing breach, notice requirements, and erroneous voting results.

[Dan Honemann]

And of motion B?

 

I agree with those who say that motion B was adopted.

[Dan Honemann]

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?" 

 

If a rule was in place that "The club house shall be closed in the months of July and August", would you say that a motion that "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays" conflicts with it? I wouldn't. I don't think that these rules necessarily conflict with one another. 

 

But Sean Hunt has already complained about my introducing this sort of issue.

[J. J.]

 

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.

 

I agree with the first part (and on Motion  B ) but why would Motion D (a motion to ASPA, though not applied directly to Motion A)  be a breach of a continuing nature?

[Dan Honemann]

I agree with the first part (and on Motion  B ) but why would Motion D (a motion to ASPA, though not applied directly to Motion A)  be a breach of a continuing nature?

 

Motion D wasn't a motion to amend rule A, and it wasn't adopted by the vote required to amend that rule. As far as its relationship to rule A is concerned, the parliamentary situation is the same as if it had been presented as an original main motion that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays."

[J. J.]

Motion D wasn't a motion to amend rule A, and it wasn't adopted by the vote required to amend that rule. As far as its relationship to rule A is concerned, the parliamentary situation is the same as if it had been presented as an original main motion that "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays."

 

 

However, it was a motion to ASPA.  I see that as a difference.

[Dan Honemann]

However, it was a motion to ASPA.  I see that as a difference.

 

Let me put this as simply as I can (using different letters to avoid confusion):

 

No main motion is in order that conflicts with a rule previously adopted at any time and still in force.

 

Rules X and Y have previously been adopted, and are still in force. A motion to amend Rule X is not a motion that conflicts with Rule X. Instead, it proposes to amend Rule X, which is perfectly proper. However, if a motion to amend Rule X proposes to amend it in such a way as to conflict with Rule Y, then it is a motion that conflicts with Rule Y, and is not in order. 

 

Where reference is made to a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in RONR (11th ed.) on pages 111-112, it is obviously referring to a motion to amend the main motion previously adopted which interferes with the action proposed to be taken, and not some other previously adopted motion.

[J. J.]

First of all, I would agree with those who suggested that a timely point of order should have been made, but I would say that one ground should have been regarding the phrasing of the motion.

 

 

Where reference is made to a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted in RONR (11th ed.) on pages 111-112, it is obviously referring to a motion to amend the main motion previously adopted which interferes with the action proposed to be taken, and not some other previously adopted motion.

 

 

As to page 111, lines 23-26 just that R/ASPA must be used.  Sean's motion does use ASPA, though it is improperly framed, i.e. it did not specifically refer to Motion A, even though it will conflict with Motion A.  The standard characteristic of ASPA notes that it may be applied to "anything," that was adopted as a result of "one or more main motions (p. 305, ll. 28-31)," so it seems not to limited to the text of just one main motion.

 

So long as the mechanism of Amend Something Previously Adopted is used, I believe that the no matter how the badly the rest was handled, it would not subject to a point of order after the fact.

[Shmuel Gerber]

But Sean Hunt has already complained about my introducing this sort of issue.

 

I don't think you introduced a new issue, I think you introduced some clarity into the situation. I would guess that most people, even those who don't play chess, would not think that holidays are weekdays -- although technically they may take place during the week rather than on a weekend.

[Guest Guest]

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

...

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.

At least, I do see that #1 and #3 are not in conflict:  Club events can be held on weekdays that are holidays, by not taking place in the clubhouse, which will be closed.  This occurred to me from the outset but I pushed it aside from the horrors implicit in Sean's original post roping in OI's 17 and 18.

 

1. "The clubhouse shall be open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays." [Motion A -- If I got this right -- GcT]

...

3. "The clubhouse shall be closed on holidays." [Motion B -- if I got this right -- GcT]

 

A credible argument can be made that none of these rules conflicts with the others....

 

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 ....

The clubhouse can't be both open and closed at the same time:  it's the proposal that these two can coexist that creates the conflict.  If it's open on weekdays, period, then it's open, not closed, on holidays that occur on weekdays.  If something were to amend Rule 1 (Sean's Motion A, ... if I got this right) by adding "except on holidays," there would be no conflict; but, instead, B does not modify A, B conflicts with A.  That's how I see it, and since Mr. Honemann clearly sees it quite the reverse, that somehow the clubhouse can be open and closed at the same time (Guest_Edgar, is this Schrodinger's Clubhouse? ... I knew I shoulda gone to law school to take quantum physics)

 

[Post 25, To Mr. Honemann, replying to post 22:]

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?" 

Yes, that's my problem, unless we stipulate that July and August do not contain weekdays.

 

 

[Also to Mr. Honemann's post 27:]

I don't think you introduced a new issue, I think you introduced some clarity into the situation. I would guess that most people ... would not think that holidays are weekdays -- although technically they may take place during the week rather than on a weekend.

 

Shmuel, I don't see why the fact that holidays frequently occur on weekdays doesn't create a clear, undeniable conflict, which is why I'd really appreciate someone's straightening me out on this reasoning soonest, please, so that I can start trying to catch up again on the Official Interpretations and The Chulhu Mythos. Oh let's throw in Stalin, to keep Mr. Balch interested.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Dammit, that was me...

[J. J.]

Well, I have heard of "a month of Sundays." 

[Dan Honemann]

Shmuel, I don't see why the fact that holidays frequently occur on weekdays doesn't create a clear, undeniable conflict, which is why I'd really appreciate someone's straightening me out on this reasoning soonest, please, so that I can start trying to catch up again on the Official Interpretations and The Chulhu Mythos. Oh let's throw in Stalin, to keep Mr. Balch interested.

 

So a sign on the door reading "Open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays. Closed Saturdays, Sundays and holidays." no doubt leaves you hopelessly confused.

[Gary c Tesser]

So a sign on the door reading "Open from 9 am to 5 pm on weekdays. Closed Saturdays, Sundays and holidays." no doubt leaves you hopelessly confused.

 

A sign on the door makes the word "except" between the two sentences, connecting them, implicit -- the second sentence modifying the first.  The principle as in a book ... what was it?  A Tale of Two Cities?  --naah.  The Iliad?  -- probably not.  Treason, by Ann Coulter?  -- my favorite bedside reading, disregarding the print on the pages, but nope.  The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Heinlein? -- possibly my favorite book, as calculated by number of rereadings, but uh-uh.  Oh yeah-- it's in Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised!  Imagine That!  I was hopelessly confused for a while, but here it is, p. 568, line 33 - 569, line 11.  Darn, I knew it was in a respectable source.  And here I've been vainly paging through Treason by Ann Coulter back and forth all this time.  I, or Guest_Guest, or Nancy, or whoever, said it in post 34 ("If it's open on weekdays, period, then it's open, not closed, on holidays that occur on weekdays.  If something were to amend Rule 1 (Sean's Motion A, ... if I got this right) by adding "except on holidays," there would be no conflict; but, instead, B does not modify A, B conflicts with A."), and sarcasm-with-a-grin don't make it less so.  Oh and I better remember to mention Stalin, it's been a while.

[Gary c Tesser]

  That's how I see it, and since Mr. Honemann clearly sees it quite the reverse, that somehow the clubhouse can be open and closed at the same time (Guest_Edgar, is this Schrodinger's Clubhouse? ... I knew I shoulda gone to law school to take quantum physics)

 

Been nice if somebody'd gone ahead and finished this sentence, I wonder how it woulda come out.