Rescind an approved motion

[Guest Dick in Long Neck]

A motion was approved a meeting number 1 requiring an officer to complete a certain assignment within 10 days. The officer refused to complete the assignment. At meeting number 2, which is held more that 10 days letter, the membership voted to rescind  the motion approved at meeting number 1. The question is has the officer  failed to fulfill  his assigned duties for failure to complete the assignment within 10 days?

[jstackpo]

I'm not so sure it was proper to rescind the motion at all, more than ten days later.  See p. 308 .  It is over, and your officer simply didn't do as requested.

 

You could rescind whatever consequences there were of failure, if they haven't taken place yet.

[Josh Martin]

A motion was approved a meeting number 1 requiring an officer to complete a certain assignment within 10 days. The officer refused to complete the assignment. At meeting number 2, which is held more that 10 days letter, the membership voted to rescind  the motion approved at meeting number 1. The question is has the officer  failed to fulfill  his assigned duties for failure to complete the assignment within 10 days?

 

Yes. If an officer is assigned a duty to complete an assignment within ten days, and he does not complete the assignment within ten days, then it seems quite obvious that he has failed to fulfill his assigned duties. Rescinding the motion is probably not in order at this time.

[Richard Brown]

. Rescinding the motion is probably not in order at this time.

Well, doesn't that depend on exactly what the motion was all about?   For example, if it required the officer to paint the clubhouse within ten days, and he failed to do so, and the members have decided that they don't want to paint the clubhouse after all, it is still in order to rescind (or at least) amend the motion to no longer require that the clubhouse be painted.   As a practical matter, even though perhaps not technically correct, I see nothing wrong with simply rescinding the whole motion if there has been a change of heart about painting the clubhouse.  Sometimes we can get just a bit too nitpicky.

[Josh Martin]

Well, doesn't that depend on exactly what the motion was all about?   For example, if it required the officer to paint the clubhouse within ten days, and he failed to do so, and the members have decided that they don't want to paint the clubhouse after all, it is still in order to rescind (or at least) amend the motion to no longer require that the clubhouse be painted.   As a practical matter, even though perhaps not technically correct, I see nothing wrong with simply rescinding the whole motion if there has been a change of heart about painting the clubhouse.  Sometimes we can get just a bit too nitpicky.

 

The assembly may amend the unexecuted part of the motion or adopt a new motion on the subject. It is not proper to rescind the motion in its entirety. The officer was ordered to paint the clubhouse within ten days, and he did not do so. That remains true whether or not the society decides to still paint the clubhouse.

[Richard Brown]

The assembly may amend the unexecuted part of the motion or adopt a new motion on the subject. It is not proper to rescind the motion in its entirety. The officer was ordered to paint the clubhouse within ten days, and he did not do so. That remains true whether or not the society decides to still paint the clubhouse.

Oh, I'm well aware of that and thought that I said so by referring to what would be technically correct.  But, I think this case....and especially the example I used about painting the clubhouse...  might well be the type situation contemplated by RONR on page 456 where it provides as follows:

 

"The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business."

 

Or as General Robert opined on page 308 of Parliamentary Law where he says:  "In enforcing the rules there is need for the exercise of tact and good sense.  In small assemblies, and especially when the members are unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure, a strict enforcement of the rules is unwise.  It is usually a mistake to insist upon technical points, as long as no one is being defrauded of his rights and the will of the majority is being carried out."

 

It seems clear that in this case the assembly changed its mind about whatever it was they had previously directed the officer to do within ten days.

 

Without knowing more, if I was the presiding officer at this meeting or serving as its parliamentarian, no one would hear a peep out of me about "oh, no, you can't do that.  You can't rescind the "within ten days" part of the previously adopted motion.  The motion to rescind the previous;y adopted motion is out of order".   If I was the parliamentarian, I would sit there quiet as a mouse.  Would you intervene? 

 

As long as we are being technical, I question whether the motion to rescind would actually be out of order.  RONR says on page 308, as Dr. Stackpole correctly pointed out, that "When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo. (The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended.)   That seems to say, in different words, that the executed part of the previous motion cannot be rescinded.  However, the part of the motion ordering the officer to paint the clubhouse within ten days has clearly not been executed.  So, why couldn't the whole motion be rescinded?  The assembly has clearly decided that it no longer wants the officer to paint the clubhouse.

 

My original point, however, was not to engage in a debate about what can and cannot technically be rescinded, but, rather, that if it seems clear that the assembly has changed its mind about what it wanted done, there is no harm in simply rescinding the original motion and moving on to the next item of business rather than getting bogged down in parliamentary minutiae about whether the "within ten days" part of the motion may or may not technically be subject to being rescinded.

 

Edited to add:  The original poster's original question was, "has the officer  failed to fulfill  his assigned duties for failure to complete the assignment within 10 days?"

 

I agree that he failed to fulfill at least that particular duty (that seems obvious), but we do not know the reason.   However, if the assembly believes it was a serious matter and that it was a willful or negligent failure to perform the duties of his office, it may indeed subject him to disciplinary action.  What effect the rescinding of the original motion would have on any disciplinary action I don't know.  It seems to me he could still be subject to disciplinary action for refusing to perform the duties at the time he was supposed to have performed them.  I suspect that is really what the original poster is wanting to know.

 

It might also be pertinent whether the assignment given to him was in connection with his duties as an officer, or if it was assigned to him as a member and it is just a coincidence that he is also an officer.

[Guest Dick in Long Neck]

From Dick in Long Neck

Thanks to all of you for your input.

The point of my question had to do with the fact that the officer refused to do what he was ordered to do within ten

days. The time limit was placed on him to require him to do it ASAP.

The motion has not yet been rescinded, but it is anticipated that at the next meeting (#2) a motion will be introduced to rescind the original motion. If that motion is approved, then the question becomes: did the officer fail to

fulfill his duty as ordered? If the answer is yes, then he would be so charged.

What say you?

[Edgar Guest]

. . .  the fact that the officer refused to do what he was ordered to do within ten days.

 

. . . did the officer fail to fulfill his duty as ordered?

It looks like you've answered your own question.

[jstackpo]

Agreeing with EG:  it is simply too late to rescind the "DO IT IN TEN DAYS, OR ELSE!" motion because the ten days have gone by and he didn't do it.  A motion to "rescind" that is just an attempt to rewrite history, and would be clearly out of order.  You can't "rescind" the fact that the officer failed in his required duty.

 

So your only remaining question is what your association is going to do about it.

 

All of this blithely skips over the question as to whether the body that adopted the "do it" motion at the first meeting has, or had, the authority and power to actually tell the officer what to do, rather than, say, "requesting" him to do it.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with EG:  it is simply too late to rescind the "DO IT IN TEN DAYS, OR ELSE!" motion because the ten days have gone by and he didn't do it.  A motion to "rescind" that is just an attempt to rewrite history, and would be clearly out of order.  You can't "rescind" the fact that the officer failed in his required duty.

 

So your only remaining question is what your association is going to do about it.

 

All of this blithely skips over the question as to whether the body that adopted the "do it" motion at the first meeting has, or had, the authority and power to actually tell the officer what to do, rather than, say, "requesting" him to do it.

I disagree....emphatically..... at least with the conclusion that none of the original motion can be rescinded.  There may be dispute as to whether the "within ten days" portion of the ordinance can be rescinded.  I'm not altogether convinced that that portion of the order cannot be suspended.  But think that clearly the portion of the motion that has not yet been executed....whatever it was that the officer was to do.... CAN be rescinded.  If the assembly no longer wants to do whatever it was they voted to do at the previous meeting, that portion of the motion can be rescinded.

 

To use the example I used, if the motion was that "Jack Smith paint the clubhouse within ten days", and Jack failed to do so, but in the meantime the assembly has decided that it doesn't want the clubhouse painted after all, they can most certainly rescind that portion of the original motion.   To maintain that the assembly cannot rescind the motion to paint the clubhouse strikes me as, well, absurd.   They can't change their minds about painting the clubhouse?  Of course they can.

 

btw, even if the whole motion is rescinded, they are not re-writing history by rescinding the fact that the officer didn't do what he was ordered to do, but they are rescinding the order to do it.  And the original motion will remain in the minutes forever... or  at least should.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

RONR 11th ed., p. 111 has this footnote, "Unless an adopted main motion specifies a time for the termination of its effect, it continues in force until it is rescinded." So if the motion is no longer in effect, wouldn't rescinding it be the same as doing nothing? I think there are other ways to accomplish what this assembly wants to do.

 

This leads to the issue of this thread:

 

... the officer refused to do what he was ordered to do within ten days...

... the officer fail to fulfill his duty as ordered... 

... he would be so charged...

 

I suggest looking at Chapter XX "Disciplinary Procedures" in RONR.

[Richard Brown]

RONR 11th ed., p. 111 has this footnote, "Unless an adopted main motion specifies a time for the termination of its effect, it continues in force until it is rescinded." So if the motion is no longer in effect, wouldn't rescinding it be the same as doing nothing?

What makes you think that the motion is no longer in effect unless it has been rescinded?   To go back to my "paint the clubhouse" example, I would think that the motion to paint the clubhouse is still in effect.  It just hasn't been completed within ten days.  What if the delay was caused by inclement weather?   Once the tenth day comes and goes, and it is still raining cats and dogs, has the motion to paint the clubhouse suddenly become moot?   Or is it still in effect and the clubhouse should still be painted as soon as weather permits?   I'm not aware that the motion said, "However, if the job isn't completed in ten days, it shall not be painted and this motion shall  become void and of no effect".    If it did say that, the situation would be different.

 

Is it your contention that if the officer painted the clubhouse on the 11th day, when the rain stopped and the sun came out, that he would be guilty of painting the clubhouse without authorization?  

 

I think the order to paint the clubhouse is still in efffect, but part of it, the ten day part, has not been executed.  For that matter, none of it has yet been executed.  If the clubhouse is painted on the 11th day, the order has then been executed, although not according to its precise terms (within ten days).

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree that any part of the original motion that has not been carried out can be rescinded.  So if the assembly decides to rescind the action that was ordered, it can do so as long as it hasn't yet been carried out.

 

As to whether the officer can be disciplined, he certainly can be, since he failed to carry out what he was assigned to do.

 

But it's also possible that the rescission of the original action was because the assembly realized, almost too late, that the action was extremely ill-advised.  In that case, the assembly might well vote to commend the officer for not doing whatever it was, and thereby saving the society a large sum of money, for example.