Making a motion for no re-vote

[Guest Jonathan Graves]

I am involved with an organization in which new members are voted on.  Often times they will make a motion stating something like, "I move to not allow reconsideration on potential members at this meeting."  The idea is that someone can move to reconsider a potential member.  I'm curious at to whether or not the motion not to reconsider is out of order?  My fear is that if there was a genuine concern about debate or how a motion was handled that we could lose out on a great new member.  Thanks for your help on this.

[Steven Britton]

I am involved with an organization in which new members are voted on.  Often times they will make a motion stating something like, "I move to not allow reconsideration on potential members at this meeting."  The idea is that someone can move to reconsider a potential member.  I'm curious at to whether or not the motion not to reconsider is out of order?  My fear is that if there was a genuine concern about debate or how a motion was handled that we could lose out on a great new member.  Thanks for your help on this.

Generally, motions "not do something," are improperly worded.

According to the scenario you've described, if a reconsideration is in order, that is, it isn't otherwise prohibited, the proper motion is to move reconsider, then defeat it. After reconsidered is defeated, its renewal is prohibited, except if unanimous consent of the assembly is received.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Weird.

I am double-clutching at the concept (of not allowing reconsideration, when all you need to do is to vote down the motion To Reconsider).

 

Well, if nothing else, if such a special rule of order were adopted, then it would be suspendable (by a two-thirds vote).

So, you cannot outlaw "To Reconsider" on an absolute scale.

[George Mervosh]

I am involved with an organization in which new members are voted on.  Often times they will make a motion stating something like, "I move to not allow reconsideration on potential members at this meeting."  The idea is that someone can move to reconsider a potential member.  I'm curious at to whether or not the motion not to reconsider is out of order?  My fear is that if there was a genuine concern about debate or how a motion was handled that we could lose out on a great new member.  Thanks for your help on this.

 

Does he mean not reconsider ones you considered at the current meeting, or only ones that were denied membership at past meetings?

[Steven Britton]

Does he mean not reconsider ones you considered at the current meeting, or only ones that were denied membership at past meetings?

Good catch George - unlike last evening's Tiger's centerfielder. Did the person asking the question mean to use the term "reconsider," in its parliamentary context?

[Edgar Guest]

Did the person asking the question mean to use the term "reconsider" in its parliamentary context?

 

Almost no one uses the term "reconsider" in its parliamentary context.