How To Restrict Renewal of Motions

[Guest W. Watson]

A strange thing happen in our assembly several years ago that I still have doubts about. They adopted by a majority vote a standing rules that said that once a proposal (we call them proposals and not motions) is defeated in our assembly,  it could not be brought up again (i.e., renewed) before one year has elapsed (we meet biannually). Isn’t renewal of a proposal in the next session after it is defeated in the current session a basic right of membership or is this something that we can restrict via a standing rule or bylaws amendment. I don’t think it can be done at all by adopting  a standing rule since we have adopted RONR. Please comment!

[George Mervosh]

A strange thing happen in our assembly several years ago that I still have doubts about. They adopted by a majority vote a standing rules that said that once a proposal (we call them proposals and not motions) is defeated in our assembly,  it could not be brought up again (i.e., renewed) before one year has elapsed (we meet biannually). Isn’t renewal of a proposal in the next session after it is defeated in the current session a basic right of membership or is this something that we can restrict via a standing rule or bylaws amendment. I don’t think it can be done at all by adopting  a standing rule since we have adopted RONR. Please comment!

 

It requires a special rule of order, RONR (11th ed.), pp. 15-17 to adopt a rule such as this.  A standing rule adopted by majority vote - RONR (11th ed.), p. 18. - is not sufficient to adopt such a rule.  As of now I'd say that if you wish to renew a proposal, simply make the proposal again and if the chair rules it out of order, appeal and state the rule regarding renewal of motions was improperly adopted in the first place using the cited pages.

 

[edited, because typing while eating shrimp lo mein is tricky)

[jstackpo]

Yes, it can. Your rules (however improperly adopted  --  it should have been with a notice AND a 2/3 vote, see p. 17  --   but it is way too late to worry about that now) supercede RONR.

 

If you don't like your old rule, move to rescind it - see p. 305.

[Curiosulus]

Unless the rule was adopted by a majority of the entire membership, haven't the rights of absentees been violated, which makes this a continuing breach?

[Gödel Fan]

I'm confused by Dr. Stackpole's answer.  The bylaws contain the selection of a parliamentary authority (presumably RONR).  That parliamentary authority provides that you can make original main motions.  The parliamentary authority gives the rules to follow unless contradicted by (unless the bylaws say something different) procedural laws, the bylaws, or special rules of order.  The standing rules are not one of those, and the rules of order outrank standing rules in the hierarchy.  So this is a standing rule that contradicts a higher ranking rule, which makes it void, as far as I can see.  What am I missing?

[jstackpo]

Responding to Curiosuls  (#4): 

 

Could be, but it could instead be an impropriety in the voting process (on the part of the chair who declared the restrictive rule adopted in error) and there was no immediate point of order raised, which is a requirement - p. 408 & p. 250.

 

Besides, I'm not so sure that the parliamentary rule permitting renewall of a defeated motion reaches the level of a "fundamental principle" or is all that protective of absentees.  Anybody could "test" the rule the way George M. suggests, but it seems cleaner to just move to rescind (Majority with notice.)  Or offer a motion that is slightly different from the defeated one that doesn't (quite) raise the identical question.

 

Resoonding to Gödel Fan:

 

The OP, W.Watson, did call the rule a "Standing Rule" but it seems to me that it really was a "Special Rule of Order", per the definitio on p. 15.  WW just didn't have the terms quite straight  --  a pretty common problem. 

[George Mervosh]

Unless the rule was adopted by a majority of the entire membership, haven't the rights of absentees been violated, which makes this a continuing breach?

 

If the motion requires any fraction or percentage of the members present and voting to adopt it, it doesn't protect absentees and a timely point of order would be required.  In this case, the original poster notes the motion was adopted by majority vote.  The requirement is previous notice and a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, not some fraction or percentage of those present and voting.

 

As such, absent some additional facts, it's my opinion the motion is null and void and a point of order can be raised at any time regarding the matter, preferably, the next time someone wants to renew a proposal within that one year time frame.

 

See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18 particularly the second paragraph of the authorship team's answer.

[Curiosulus]

What if previous notice had been given (we don't know from the OP) — would the motion still be null and void?

[jstackpo]

Yes. The requirement (p. 17) to adopt special rules of order is notice AND a 2/3 vote.

[Curiosulus]

Could be, but it could instead be an impropriety in the voting process (on the part of the chair who declared the restrictive rule adopted in error) and there was no immediate point of order raised, which is a requirement - p. 408 & p. 250.

 

Yes. The requirement (p. 17) to adopt special rules of order is notice AND a 2/3 vote.

 

I'm confused. You said there might not be a continuing breach because no point of order was raised when the motion was declared adopted with less than a 2/3 vote. But you also say that the adopted motion is null and void because it didn't receive a 2/3 vote.

[George Mervosh]

What if previous notice had been given (we don't know from the OP) — would the motion still be null and void?

 

Yes, I think so.  By rule, the alternative to previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a vote of a majority of the entire membership.  Unless the majority that adopted this rule in post #1 was a majority of the entire membership, I would opine it's still null and void.

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, I think so.  By rule, the alternative to previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a vote of a majority of the entire membership.  Unless the majority that adopted this rule in post #1 was a majority of the entire membership, I would opine it's still null and void.

 

If a majority of the entire membership was present at the time the motion to adopt the special rule of order was declared to have been adopted, wouldn't a point of order have had to have been raised at the time the breach occurred?

[George Mervosh]

If a majority of the entire membership was present at the time the motion to adopt the special rule of order was declared to have been adopted, wouldn't a point of order have had to have been raised at the time the breach occurred?

 

Yes.  My last answer was not quite on the money.

[Gary Novosielski]

If a majority of the entire membership was present at the time the motion to adopt the special rule of order was declared to have been adopted, wouldn't a point of order have had to have been raised at the time the breach occurred?

 

Except that what was declared adopted was not a Special Rule of Oreder, but rather a Standing Rule, which does not appear to outrank RONR, at least according to the standard language on adopting a parliamentary authority.

[Dan Honemann]

Except that what was declared adopted was not a Special Rule of Oreder, but rather a Standing Rule, which does appear to outrank RONR, at least according to the standard language on adopting a parliamentary authority.

 

Huh?

[Gödel Fan]

I am going to assume the word "does" in Mr. Novosielki's answer should be "does not."  On that assumption, I'm going to agree with him, and with Mr. Mervosh, above (if I'm wrong, at least I'm in good company).  If the assembly adopts something it is calling a standing rule, and the chair states the question calling it a standing rule, using the vote threshold (and notice requirement) for a standing rule, it seems to me that it ought to be considered a standing rule, and hence null as it conflicts with a higher order rule.  It seems very odd to me to say in such a situation "well, they actually adopted a special rule of order, even though they used the wrong threshold and notice requirement and called it the wrong thing."  

 

I don't think the rights of absentees are at stake, but a fundamental principle seems to be:  the rights of members to make motions at meetings.  As such, I would think (I'm on much shakier ground here though) that, if such a special rule of order were adopted with the wrong threshold, that would be a continuing breech.  Otherwise, why not apply the same logic to bylaws?  "Well, yes, we passed a motion with a majority vote that conflicts with our bylaws.  But we're just going to consider it to have contained a bylaw amendment, even though it wasn't stated that way, didn't have notice, and didn't receive the voting threshold for a bylaw amendment.  So there's no conflict, the bylaws are changed, and you can't do anything about it - unless you want to give notice and try to get a 2/3 vote to put it back the way it was."  

 

It's been suggested that it would be cleaner to rescind something previously adopted.  However, it's certainly possible that the number of people favoring such a rule is such that it could not be adopted as a special rule of order, but also cannot be rescinded.  

[Gary c Tesser]

....  If the assembly adopts something it is calling a standing rule, and the chair states the question calling it a standing rule, using the vote threshold (and notice requirement) for a standing rule, it seems to me that it ought to be considered a standing rule,...

 

There's a riddle attributed (wrongly, I read somewhere) to Abraham Lincoln that goes, if you call a dog's tail a leg, how many legs does the dog have?  The answer is, four:  calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.  Similarly, calling a rule that is a rule of order a rule about administration does not make it a rule about administration, since it isn't.  (See the bottom of p. 18 for additional confusion.)

 

(You see why the comparison to  bylaws doesn't hold?)

[Gary c Tesser]

What if previous notice had been given (we don't know from the OP) — would the motion still be null and void?

 

Yes, I think so.  By rule, the alternative to previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a vote of a majority of the entire membership.  Unless the majority that adopted this rule in post #1 was a majority of the entire membership, I would opine it's still null and void.

 

But George, if previous notice had been given, we can restrict our attention to the 2/3 threshold, disregarding the MEM option.  So why wouldn't the special rule stand adopted, since the point of order (against the mistaken declaration that the motion had been adopted) would have had to be timely?

[Dan Honemann]

An initial question to be answered is whether or not a special rule of order purporting to restrict the right of members to renew defeated motions, as described in post #1, can validly be adopted. I think that it can. If adopted, it can be suspended, amended or rescinded in accordance with the applicable rules for doing so.

 

If previous notice has been given, there should be no doubt but that the rule requiring a two-thirds vote for adoption of a special rule of order can be suspended, so that if this rule is violated (e.g., the chair declares the motion to create the rule adopted by a majority vote), a point of order must be promptly raised at the time when the breach occurs. A more difficult question, it seems to me, is whether or not the rule which requires the vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption of a special rule of order when previous notice has not been given is a rule which can be suspended so that, if this rule is violated (the chair declares the motion to create the rule adopted by something less than the vote of a majority of the entire membership), a point of order must be promptly raised at the time when the breach occurs. I think that it can be suspended, but only if a majority of the entire membership is present at the time. My recollection is that this was hashed out at length in this forum (or its predecessor) quite some time ago, but I have no reference to it.

[George Mervosh]

But George, if previous notice had been given, we can restrict our attention to the 2/3 threshold, disregarding the MEM option.  So why wouldn't the special rule stand adopted, since the point of order (against the mistaken declaration that the motion had been adopted) would have had to be timely?

 

It was one of those days where I contradicted myself more than once.  Pointing to the OI, then ignoring it.  As to Dan's last point in post #19, I did agree with that in post #13 so not all was lost.  It was just one of those I can't think straight days.

[Gödel Fan]

No, but feel free to tell me why, under the horse-tail standard, a temporary majority couldn't call something a standing rule (or main motion), and adopt it with that threshold, when it is actually a bylaw amendment, then tell anyone who wasn't present "yeah, well, it doesn't matter what we called it, it's a bylaw amendment now - and you didn't object at the time to it being improperly adopted, so there it is.  Feel free to amend it back - but, of course, you have to do so properly."  

 

This is what this argument allows assemblies to do with their special rules, and it provides a tactic for passing a special rule when the assembly is split close to 50-50 on it.  If that outcome is accepted, why not for bylaws?

[Dan Honemann]

No, but feel free to tell me why, under the horse-tail standard, a temporary majority couldn't call something a standing rule (or main motion), and adopt it with that threshold, when it is actually a bylaw amendment, then tell anyone who wasn't present "yeah, well, it doesn't matter what we called it, it's a bylaw amendment now - and you didn't object at the time to it being improperly adopted, so there it is.  Feel free to amend it back - but, of course, you have to do so properly."  

 

This is what this argument allows assemblies to do with their special rules, and it provides a tactic for passing a special rule when the assembly is split close to 50-50 on it.  If that outcome is accepted, why not for bylaws?

 

What do the bylaws provide as the requirement for their amendment?

 

And by the way, the fact that the assembly is calling a rule something that it is not is beside the point. The same rules will apply if they call it what it is.

[Gödel Fan]

In the hypothetical, the bylaws provide no rules for amendment, leaving it at the RONR procedure.  If you think it's irrelevant that they're calling it something other than what it is, feel free to modify so that a temporary majority is openly amending the bylaws by a majority vote with no notice.

[Josh Martin]

In the hypothetical, the bylaws provide no rules for amendment, leaving it at the RONR procedure. If you think it's irrelevant that they're calling it something other than what it is, feel free to modify so that a temporary majority is openly amending the bylaws by a majority vote with no notice.

If the organization's bylaws are silent, then an amendment to the bylaws may be adopted by the same vote as a special rule of order - a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice. As a result, if a bylaw amendment is adopted without notice, this constitutes a continuing breach unless a majority of the entire membership was present, in which case it does not constitute a continuing breach.

This is what this argument allows assemblies to do with their special rules, and it provides a tactic for passing a special rule when the assembly is split close to 50-50 on it. If that outcome is accepted, why not for bylaws?

The use of "tactic" suggests that this is done maliciously, with full knowledge that it was improper. If this is done, the members responsible could be disciplined.

Of course, the best defense against this or any other violation of the rules is to promptly raise a Point of Order when a member believes there is a breach of the rules, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

[Dan Honemann]

If the organization's bylaws are silent, then an amendment to the bylaws may be adopted by the same vote as a special rule of order - a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice. As a result, if a bylaw amendment is adopted without notice, this constitutes a continuing breach unless a majority of the entire membership was present, in which case it does not constitute a continuing breach.

The use of "tactic" suggests that this is done maliciously, with full knowledge that it was improper. If this is done, the members responsible could be disciplined.

Of course, the best defense against this or any other violation of the rules is to promptly raise a Point of Order when a member believes there is a breach of the rules, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

 

I agree.

 

If the motion is a motion to amend the bylaws, and the bylaws provide (either specifically or simply by adoption of RONR) that they may be amended, without previous notice, by the vote of a majority of the entire membership, then, if the motion is mistakenly declared to be adopted by something less then the vote of a majority of the entire membership at a time when a majority of the entire membership is present, a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach of the rules occurs. Under these circumstances, the rule requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption of the motion is a rule which can be suspended.

 

Deliberate violation of the rules by an assembly is an entirely different matter.

 

PS.  I sincerely wish that I could refer back to the previous discussion(s) of this question here in this forum. My recollection is that it was explored in depth, and I feel like I was a lot smarter back in those days.