Reconsideration of a formerly committed main motin

[Guest Paul Stuart]

    A main motion, namely budget approval, required approval of several sub-groups represented by those voting in the assembly.  This represents a sort of automatic committ to a "committee of the whole" since this procedure is outlined in the bylaws for such things as budgets. The representatives must vote according to their group despite their personal belief.  The representatives having collected their group's opinion thus voted to approve the budget (main motion) at the subsequent assembly.

    At this assembly there was a motion to reconsider that main motion, the budget, which motion to reconsider passed.  Several of the representatives unilaterally changed their votes contrary to their sub-group's intent and the original main motion, budget approval, was revoked with a following consideration of an amendment to the budget which then was acceptable and the new budget passed.  This despite appropriate protest including a motion to committ the reconsideration back to the group (which is not really allowable).  Appealing the decision of the Chair was not attempted due to the atmosphere and time.

    It appears to me that not only ethically, but by rule, that the motion to reconsider at that assembly would be out of order.  It seems to me that the motion to reconsider and/or the amendment would have to go back to "the committee of the whole" ie the sub-groups for reconsideration.  Yet I do not find a definitive statement to that effect in Robert's Rules.

    I appreciate any comments.

[Gary c Tesser]

Um.

1.  I don't see how this is any kind of "Committee of the Whole" matter.  Mr Stuart, how do you figure this?

 

2.  Whyever do you think that a motion to reconsider might be out of order, by rule or ethically?  What might be the problem with it? (Oh, because it's "outlined in the bylaws"?  Oh, well, if it is, then sure, end of story.  Unless we want to ask what "outlined" means.  Which I certainly do.  And I got a problem with "indicated" too, for that matter, since you asked, and even since you didn't.)

 

3.  O now, is the problem that the members of the assembly do not have any choice as to how they vote (because they vote as instructed)?  (In which case, a reconsideration would be "dilatory", a waste of time, unless we want to yammer about maybe people showing up in the meantime to vote the other way, that's part of your point?)

[Gary c Tesser]

(continued ...)

 

-- In which case, it seems to me, sure, reconsidering, while parliamentarially pointless, would technically not be out of order.  But nor would be recommitting the question to the committee of the whole (if that's what you finally determine that, really, it's what you did.  I hope not.  But nobody listens to me.). 

[Dan Honemann]

Putting aside the rather misleading reference to a "committee of the whole", if this is a situation in which all delegations have been given binding instructions to vote as a unit in accordance with whatever decision is reached during a caucus of their respective delegations (see RONR, 11th ed., p. 605, l. 33 to p. 606, l. 30), and they have done so, it may well be that no motion to Reconsider is in order unless previously authorized by a later caucus of one of the delegations, but since no appeal was taken from the decision of the Chair, perhaps I don't have to think about this anymore. 

[Timothy]

As Mr. Honemann pointed out, if the delegates have been given detailed instructions on how to vote on the motion, a motion to Reconsider does nothing because the delegates must vote the same way when it comes up again.

 

But suppose the instructions to the delegates are incomplete. Depending on what those instructions are, the delegates might have a great deal of latitude. They might, for example, be able to vote as they choose as long as at least some amount is allocated for Project X. So new information might allow them to change their vote without going against the instructions they were given.

[Gary Novosielski]

Putting aside the rather misleading reference to a "committee of the whole", if this is a situation in which all delegations have been given binding instructions to vote as a unit in accordance with whatever decision is reached during a caucus of their respective delegations (see RONR, 11th ed., p. 605, l. 33 to p. 606, l. 30), and they have done so, it may well be that no motion to Reconsider is in order unless previously authorized by a later caucus of one of the delegations, but since no appeal was taken from the decision of the Chair, perhaps I don't have to think about this anymore. 

 

I wonder whether an assembly of delegates who all have binding instructions can be considered a deliberative assembly in the first place.  Nothing that is said in debate can possibly influence the outcome.   I am not even sure how amendments could be handled in this context, unless the instructions to the delegates were incredibly complex.

 

I was involved in a situation similar to this once, but in that case, the rules of the delegate assembly did not bind anyone to anything while the rules of the represented organizations did.  So a delegate could depart from the "binding" instructions, perhaps incurring discipline on his return home, but no rule against his disobedience was enforceable at the delegate assembly.  I think that's probably the more typical case.

[Timothy]

Based on what it says on pg. 606, it seems to me that if there is an amendment, the delegates are free to vote how they wish (though they may have to vote as a unit) and once the amendment is adopted, they are free to vote as they wish on the main motion, unless the sending body anticipated that the amendment would come up and gave them instructions concerning it. Of course, the bylaws may say otherwise.

[Dan Honemann]

I wonder whether an assembly of delegates who all have binding instructions can be considered a deliberative assembly in the first place.  Nothing that is said in debate can possibly influence the outcome.   I am not even sure how amendments could be handled in this context, unless the instructions to the delegates were incredibly complex.

 

Oh, I think it is a deliberative assembly if either (a) instructions are given by a society to its delegation concerning only a few of the motions to be decided at the convention, or ( if some of a delegation's instructions are formulated during that delegation's caucuses while the convention is in progress, which seems to be the case here (although I'm not sure that any of this matters much).

[Guest Paul Stuart]

     Since a committee of the whole is a device in which a legislative body or other deliberative assembly is considered one large committee, I was under the impression that this committee would be all the groups who send representatives to the assembly.  I can see where my assumption is somewhat out of the normal definition.

    In the assembly I am referring to, they use a simplified version of Robert's Rules due to the fact that many years ago it was decided that experts in the Rules could manipulate the assembly due to the general ignorance of the Rules and the need to become educated to the details.  This was the more crucial because the representatives rotated every 6 months and it would be overwhelming to bring them up to speed and then a new crop of reps would come in.  The simplified version is within the bylaws.  However, the caveat is made therein that in all cases not covered in the bylaws that reference to RONR shall be used.

     This methodology works most of the time but I am aware that using a simplified version produces even more holes in the process since the lack of definition also produces means for abusers to get their way.

    I am also aware that a motion that comes back from a committ to the groups that are represented should be voted on without consideration since the groups have decided and the reps are supposed to vote accordingly according to the bylaws no matter what their personal leanings or later persuasions are.  I have argued this point in the past and in some cases the Chair agreed and the vote was called for.

   With regard to the budget it has been the past practice of the assembly to move to change a line item in the budget due to a small change such as postage increased $11 and these small changes could be temporary or forever until next years budget.  However, in this case the whole budget for a year needed to be approved or not and it is distinctly in the bylaws that the groups must approve or not.

   By past practice, amendments to motions referred to the groups have been acted on.  Allowing these has admittedly been loose but mostly dependent on the perceived importance of the referred motion as for example, when the motion was referred to the groups not so much for the detail but for the measurement of sentiment.  In the case of changing the bylaws, this would be a more serious matter and any detail would have to be approved or not by the groups as per the bylaws.

    Yes, not in all cases do the motions have to be referred back to the groups - only those specifically stated as such in the bylaws and those acted on by the motion to committ and those "tabled."  (Yes I know this is not exactly what "table" means.)

   If the instructions to the delegates from the groups are incomplete then the delegate would have to abstain, that is, if the group did not say yay or nay.

  In this case I did move that the motion to reconsider be committed to the groups and that motion failed.  Seeing the mood of the assembly I did not bother to appeal the decision of the Chair in allowing the motion to reconsider the budget.  The mood was one which the majority just wanted to dispense with the bother.  The part that was disturbing to me and others was that there necessarily were several representatives that unilaterally changed their group's will.  The inherent problem here, of course, is that the representatives are lax in their duties and the groups are somewhat perfunctory in their decisions leaving the reps to feel that they can do what they want to do and there will be no consequences to changing the vote of their groups.

     I did go to the following Administrative Committee meeting with my arguments and concerns and was ultimately met with a "What's your problem?" response.  It is difficult to argue rules when the rules are not complete.  That is why I based my approach on the ethics of the matter.  Their agenda seemed to be expediency of moving on.  To honestly consider my point would mean that they would have to go to some bother and effort not to speak of embarassment.  My point, which they appeared to not hear, was that if you break the ethical foundation in one time or way, that you will then leave the door open to further vice not to speak of what I believe is a kind of karmic pay back when you ignore spiritual or ethical matters.  The purer democracy is the more clumsy it is but on the other hand the more distant it is from power grabbing controllers.    

 

 I thank you all for taking the time to reply to this post.  From your responses I can see that the laxity in our organization is much different from the seriousness of yours - and that is the crux of the matter. 

[Guest Nancy N.]

    ....such as postage increased $11 and

 

Jeez, Paul!  What country are you in??!?

 

  ... The purer democracy is the more clumsy it is but on the other hand the more distant it is from power grabbing controllers.    

 

 I thank you all for taking the time to reply to this post.  From your responses I can see that the laxity in our organization is much different from the seriousness of yours - and that is the crux of the matter. 

 

Yeah, the fewer people that are involved in the decisions that concern them, the more efficiently things will be run.  That's why Stalin was so popular.

 

On behalf of the group and ourselves, you're welcome.

 

I'm not quite sure that that is the crux, nor that our organization is all that serious, nor that we have one.

 

(Oh, there's the Two Fisted Parliamentarians Club, or the Beaker People Libation Front, but you really want to call those serious?  At least, outside of a bar?  And where else would you find us?)