Motion to Rescind - % needed?

[Guest Kate Williams]

If an assembly passes a motion that requires a 3/4 vote, and then later on a member gives notice that they are going to bring forth a motion to rescind it at the next meeting, will this second vote only need a majority (even though the original motion required a 3/4 vote)?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Why was a 3/4 vote required?

[Guest Kate Williams]

It's a legal requirement due to the financial nature of this motion.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

Yes. A majority vote with notice - assuming the meeting is within a quarterly time period, and regardless of the vote required to adopt the motion in the first place. The only exception is a constitution or bylaws that state their own requirements for amendment.

[Guest Kate Williams]

8 minutes ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

Yes. A majority vote with notice - assuming the meeting is within a quarterly time period, and regardless of the vote required to adopt the motion in the first place. The only exception is a constitution or bylaws that state their own requirements for amendment.

But even in the case of a bylaw amendment, wouldn't a motion to rescind a motion to amend a bylaw ("something previously adopted") only require a majority if notice has been given? How/why would it change for a bylaw amendment?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

18 minutes ago, Guest Kate Williams said:

It's a legal requirement due to the financial nature of this motion.

I think an attorney should be consulted on the legal aspects of rescinding this motion.

[Clurichan]

6 minutes ago, Guest Kate Williams said:

But even in the case of a bylaw amendment, wouldn't a motion to rescind a motion to amend a bylaw ("something previously adopted") only require a majority if notice has been given? How/why would it change for a bylaw amendment?

There are things that can be rescinded, and things that can't. For example, a decision on January 1st to hold the July 4th picnic at 10am at the downtown park can be rescinded at the February meeting.  An amendment to the bylaws made on January 1st is A DONE DEAL, the bylaws are changed. To move them back to the original requires another change, another amendment, thus and usually the higher threshold of votes and/or a previous notice requirement.

Perhaps the motion that passed is of the "it's a done deal" nature, e.g., a vote to buy a new jukebox for the club house, and the purchase has been made. But maybe it's not, and maybe it's in the twilight gray-area maybe-yes-maybe-no ...?

[Joshua Katz]

On page 75, lines 16-18, though, it says "To change what the assembly has adopted requires something more (in the way of a vote or previous notice to the members) than was necessary to adopt it in the first place."  It seems to me, then, that a motion which, per the bylaws, requires a 3/4 vote for its adoption, would require a 3/4 vote with notice for its amendment.  When the vote threshold for rescind/amend something previously adopted are given, I understand that to, like the rest of RONR, contain an implicit "unless the bylaws, etc. say otherwise."  In my mind, when the bylaws specify a higher vote threshold, they have also, implicitly, modified what it takes to rescind or amend.

Now, in this case, it's not in the bylaws, but in an applicable procedural law.  I see no reason the same logic wouldn't apply, though (of course, I'm not going to get into interpreting the law itself).  

[Shmuel Gerber]

16 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

On page 75, lines 16-18, though, it says "To change what the assembly has adopted requires something more (in the way of a vote or previous notice to the members) than was necessary to adopt it in the first place."  It seems to me, then, that a motion which, per the bylaws, requires a 3/4 vote for its adoption, would require a 3/4 vote with notice for its amendment.  When the vote threshold for rescind/amend something previously adopted are given, I understand that to, like the rest of RONR, contain an implicit "unless the bylaws, etc. say otherwise."  In my mind, when the bylaws specify a higher vote threshold, they have also, implicitly, modified what it takes to rescind or amend.

Now, in this case, it's not in the bylaws, but in an applicable procedural law.  I see no reason the same logic wouldn't apply, though (of course, I'm not going to get into interpreting the law itself).  

The text that you quoted is a statement of a general principle; it is not  a rule that can be universally applied in an arbitrary manner as you've suggested here.

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest Kate Williams said:

If an assembly passes a motion that requires a 3/4 vote, and then later on a member gives notice that they are going to bring forth a motion to rescind it at the next meeting, will this second vote only need a majority (even though the original motion required a 3/4 vote)?

 

1 hour ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

I think an attorney should be consulted on the legal aspects of rescinding this motion.

I agree. But if for some reason there is no legal requirement that applies to rescinding the motion (and if none of the other usual caveats apply regarding motions that cannot be rescinded), then, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, it could be rescinded by a majority vote with previous notice.

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

32 minutes ago, Godelfan said:

On page 75, lines 16-18, though, it says "To change what the assembly has adopted requires something more (in the way of a vote or previous notice to the members) than was necessary to adopt it in the first place."  It seems to me, then, that a motion which, per the bylaws, requires a 3/4 vote for its adoption, would require a 3/4 vote with notice for its amendment.  When the vote threshold for rescind/amend something previously adopted are given, I understand that to, like the rest of RONR, contain an implicit "unless the bylaws, etc. say otherwise."  In my mind, when the bylaws specify a higher vote threshold, they have also, implicitly, modified what it takes to rescind or amend.

Now, in this case, it's not in the bylaws, but in an applicable procedural law.  I see no reason the same logic wouldn't apply, though (of course, I'm not going to get into interpreting the law itself).  

I disagree. Think of it in reverse. It only required more than 1/4 to keep it from being adopted in the first place. After the fact, it requires a two thirds vote, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership to rescind it. That is "something more" than would have been necessary to keep it from being adopted in the first place. So it meets the standard.

 

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

1 hour ago, Guest Kate Williams said:

But even in the case of a bylaw amendment, wouldn't a motion to rescind a motion to amend a bylaw ("something previously adopted") only require a majority if notice has been given? How/why would it change for a bylaw amendment?

It only changes if the bylaws/constitution explicitly define the change. If they don't, then the regular rules apply.

[Joshua Katz]

20 minutes ago, Greg Goodwiller said:

I disagree. Think of it in reverse. It only required more than 1/4 to keep it from being adopted in the first place. After the fact, it requires a two thirds vote, a majority with notice, or a majority of the entire membership to rescind it. That is "something more" than would have been necessary to keep it from being adopted in the first place. So it meets the standard.

 

I'll accept Mr. Gerber's answer, but I can't agree with this.  

[Kim Goldsworthy]

2 hours ago, Guest Kate Williams said:

. . . a motion that requires a 3/4 vote . . .

. . . It's a legal requirement due to the financial nature of this motion . . .

"Legal"?

If the state (or whatever government) imposes a law establishing a vote threshold on a body, then you cannot suspend the rules, and you cannot lower the vote threshold, in any way, shape, or form.

If the organization's own constitution/bylaws imposes a vote threshold on one of its boards or committees, then the rule is in the nature of a rule of order and is suspendable.

So, bottom line, I'd like read the rule in context. It is such an usual threshold. And I'd like to know the body who imposed the rule, and the body to which the rule applies.

[Dan Honemann]

7 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

If the organization's own constitution/bylaws imposes a vote threshold on one of its boards or committees, then the rule is in the nature of a rule of order and is suspendable.

I disagree.

An organization's assembly may suspend rules of order which it has imposed upon itself, but rules adopted by an organization's assembly having specific application only to its subordinate boards or committees cannot be suspended by those boards or committees.