Parliamentary procedure

[Guest Tim]

We have a situation where a vote was taken on an issue.

 

The vote appears to have been legal based on our quorum and voting rules.

 

This is a large group and the quorum requirement is minimal, i.e. 51% of the members.

 

A group has taken issue with the vote and would like to at least seek a revote.

 

Under the rules as reiterated by the president of our group, since we have a legal vote it cannot be revisited.

 

If that is true, is there some way under the procedural rules that this issue can be restated in a new way etc. to get a new motion in play? 

 

I am assuming there would have to be some new issue as regards the matter that was not voted on in the original vote?

 

 

[George Mervosh]

 

Under the rules as reiterated by the president of our group, since we have a legal vote it cannot be revisited.

 

If that is true, is there some way under the procedural rules that this issue can be restated in a new way etc. to get a new motion in play? 

 

 

What rules is the President quoting?

 

"By means of the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted —which are two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules—the assembly can change an action previously taken or ordered."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff

 

 

I am assuming there would have to be some new issue as regards the matter that was not voted on in the original vote?

 

No, that's not correct.  Members can simply change their mind and think it was a bad idea and want the motion amended, or rescinded.

[Guest Tim]

Thank you for the response.

 

The president, who initiated the vote, was implying that Robert's Rules of Order would prevent revisiting this issue.

 

 

[Transpower]

To amend or rescind a motion previously adopted takes a 2/3 vote, unless notice is given (which then would take a simple majority), or a majority of the entire membership.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . which then would take a simple majority . . .

 

All across the country the hairs on the backs of parliamentarian's necks are standing up.

[Dan Honemann]

To amend or rescind a motion previously adopted takes a 2/3 vote, unless notice is given (which then would take a simple majority), or a majority of the entire membership.

 

... assuming, of course, that whatever it is that is sought to be rescinded or amended is not a provision in the bylaws or constitution, or a special rule of order.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

We have a situation where a vote was taken on an issue.

The vote appears to have been legal based on our quorum and voting rules.

This is a large group and the quorum requirement is minimal, i.e. 51% of the members.

A group has taken issue with the vote and would like to at least seek a revote.

Under the rules as reiterated by the president of our group, since we have a legal vote it cannot be revisited.

If that is true, is there some way under the procedural rules that this issue can be restated in a new way etc. to get a new motion in play? 

I am assuming there would have to be some new issue as regards the matter that was not voted on in the original vote?

Tim,

What end-result do you (collectively) seek?

(a.) to edit the adopted motion slightly, to fine tune it, or to limit it or enhance it?

(b.) to repeal/abolish that which was adopted.

 

There need not be a "new issue".

(So your president was wrong.)

You are free to repeal most ordinary acts of a society. Anytime.

 

You are free to amend an ordinary policy or resolution, using Amend Something Previously Adopted.

You are fee to rescind an ordinary policy or resolution using Rescind.

(The motion is one in the same, with only the scope of the striking out being the line drawn.)

 

(If the adoption motion was not ordinary, e.g., a bylaws amendment, or an election, then that is a different case.)

[J. J.]

... assuming, of course, that whatever it is that is sought to be rescinded or amended is not a provision in the bylaws or constitution, or a special rule of order.

 

 

Or that it something that cannot be undone.