Motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes

[Unrealz]

Hi all, 

I have a technical question regarding this motion.

What happens to the motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes if 1) the meeting when this motion was raise has adjourned; and 2) when this motion was raised at the meeting it was seconded but the individual raising the motion did not indicate whether he/she was in the affirmative for the initial vote of the reconsidering motion and the chair also did not follow in asking whether this person voted in the affirmative or not? Does this motion get dropped (due to incorrect procedure)? or Is this motion to reconsider deemed valid and can be recalled at the next meeting? 

I do realize that if this doesn't work out, a rescind motion can be put in front of the members at the next meeting (with notice of course).

thanks in advance for any advice! 

[Steven Britton]

If the next regular meeting is within a quarterly time period, the motion to Reconsider and Enter On The Minutes may be called up at any appropriate time during that meeting.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

>> . . . but the individual raising the motion did not indicate whether he/she was in the affirmative for the initial vote of the reconsidering motion,

>> and the chair also did not follow in asking whether this person voted in the affirmative or not?

Normally, the mover should have been queried by the chair regarding which side the member voted with.

Since no one queried the member, and since no point of order was raised, then, if I were chair, I would let it stand.

I mean, there was no objection by anyone present.

***

You snooze, you lose.

Or, here, You acquiesce, you suffer the consequences.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

You snooze, you lose.

Or, here, You acquiesce, you suffer the consequences.

At the NAP eNAP electronic unit online meeting Monday night a few of us were apparently snoozing and a few seconds too late (in the opinion of the chair) with shouting (well, typing, actually) "Appeal" and "I appeal from the decision of the chair". He ruled our multiple points of order and attempts to appeal out of order as being untimely by a few seconds.  

It all ended well because the motion we were trying to defeat through some parliamentary maneuvering wound up being voted down anyway in the end. 

It was all an unplanned but excellent exercise and lesson on what motions are in order after the previous question on all pending questions had been ordered and a vote on the first of two questions under the order had been taken but the vote on the second question had not actually started and the question had not yet been put to the assembly.

And it was most definitely a good lesson on the importance of TIMELY points of order and appeals.  Speak first, then look it up. 

You snooze, you lose. And suffer the consequences.  

[George Mervosh]

8 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

At the NAP eNAP electronic unit online meeting Monday night a few of us were apparently snoozing and a few seconds too late (in the opinion of the chair) with shouting (well, typing, actually) "Appeal" and "I appeal from the decision of the chair". He ruled our multiple points of order and attempts to appeal out of order as being untimely by a few seconds.  

It all ended well because the motion we were trying to defeat through some parliamentary maneuvering wound up being voted down anyway in the end. 

It was all an unplanned but excellent exercise and lesson on what motions are in order after the previous question on all pending questions had been ordered and a vote on the first of two questions under the order had been taken but the vote on the second question had not actually started and the question had not yet been put to the assembly.

And it was most definitely a good lesson on the importance of TIMELY points of order and appeals.  Speak first, then look it up. 

You snooze, you lose. And suffer the consequences.  

In other words, e-meetings are nothing short of a disaster when it comes to applying the rules in RONR?  Who knew?

[Weldon Merritt]

26 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

In other words, e-meetings are nothing short of a disaster when it comes to applying the rules in RONR?  Who knew?

I wouldn't quite agree. They require a good bit of adaptation, but for the most part, they work pretty well.

Confession: I was the chair of the meeting to which Richard is referring. And in retrospet, I perhaps should have been more lenient in allowing the appeals. At the time, I believed that I had allowed ample time for appeals of other interruting motions before moving on, but I know that there were some members who felt otherwise. I thiunk part of the problem was that the meeting already had been going longer than usual, and many of us were getting tired.

BTW, George, if I recall correctly, you agreed with me a couole of years ago when I was having a discussion on this forum about whether "simultaneous aural communiction" really was "essential" to a deliberative assembly, and I pointed out that teleconferrence meetings (which do provide the aural component) ofteh are more problematic than chat room meetings (which do not). That discussion took place just a day or two after we both had particpated in a teleconference meeting of the NAP Membership Extension and Retention Committee in which there were all sorts of technical problems that made it very difficult to have a coherent meeting.

[George Mervosh]

You, I have complete faith in, Weldon.  I do remember those meetings, and yes, the technology isn't always so good.

[Weldon Merritt]

17 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

You, I have complete faith in, Weldon.  I do remember those meetings, and yes, the technology isn't always so good.

I appreciate your faith, George. As it turns out, my ruling that Adjourn was not in order at the time it was made (after the vote on one motion under an order for the Previous Question but before the vote on the second motion in the series) was erroneous. So if I had allowed an appeal (which I still think was untimely, but maybe I should have been more lenient), my ruling most likely would have been overturned.

Interestingly enough, if Adjourn had been voted on at the time it was made, and had passed, the motion that was next in the series under the order for the PQ would have come up at our next meeting as unfinished business. As it stands now, however, that motioin (for a new Special Rule of Order) was defeated, so it would now have to be re-noticed and moved again if anyone still wants to have it adopted.