Improper Motion to Reconsider

[Clamdigger]

A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes. So, the amendment is nullified. However, the Motion to Reconsider had been made by a member of the losing side - contrary to Robert's. This not having been realized by the Chairman at the time, the second on the Motion for Reconsideration was permitted, the vote was taken and, as noted, passed. The matter, without any amendment, passes. The meeting was adjourned.  Question - with the Motion for Reconsideration having been improper, but no objection made, and the Motion to Reconsider having passed, can the Motion to Reconsider at this point be declared by the Chairman to be void?   

[George Mervosh]

It's too late now to raise a point of order that the member who made the motion was not on the prevailing side, even if it could be proven true.

Edited to add - The chair should always ask a member making a motion to Reconsider how they voted.

 

Edited August 18, 2017 at 03:15 PM by George Mervosh

[Greg Goodwiller, PRP]

It is likewise too late to object to the form in which the matter was reconsidered. For any future use of this motion, however, I would also note that you may have skipped a step. If the motion to reconsider is adopted, all you have done is "re-open" the item reconsidered for further debate, amendment, or other action. You have not yet disposed of it. Robert's Rules states the proper form for the chair's declaration of an affirmative vote to reconsider as follows:

CHAIR: The ayes have it and the votes on the resolution and the amendment are reconsidered. The question is now on the amendment, which is ... [etc.]. 

Note that if the result of the vote on the motion to Reconsider is negative, it is the only vote taken. But if the motion to Reconsider is adopted, this is followed—after any debate—by the taking of the vote or votes that are consequently reconsidered (RONR pg. 332, ll. 18-26).
 

[Gary Novosielski]

12 hours ago, Clamdigger said:

A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes. So, the amendment is nullified.    

No it's not.

Adopting a motion to Reconsider brings the question of the amendment back before the assembly.  It's not nullified unless, after further debate if any, it is voted down.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No it's not.

Adopting a motion to Reconsider brings the question of the amendment back before the assembly.  It's not nullified unless, after further debate if any, it is voted down.

There is a case when it could; if the motion is to amend a constitution or bylaws, then it could not be reconsidered.  

[Dan Honemann]

20 hours ago, Clamdigger said:

A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes. So, the amendment is nullified.   

 

7 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

No it's not.

Adopting a motion to Reconsider brings the question of the amendment back before the assembly.  It's not nullified unless, after further debate if any, it is voted down.

 

6 hours ago, J. J. said:

There is a case when it could; if the motion is to amend a constitution or bylaws, then it could not be reconsidered.  

Yes, we know that an adopted motion to amend a constitution or bylaws cannot be reconsidered, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?   

[J. J.]

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

 

Yes, we know that an adopted motion to amend a constitution or bylaws cannot be reconsidered, but what's that got to do with the price of eggs?   

Well, we don't know what the motion is.  Further, "we" may know that, but clamdigger may not. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 8/18/2017 at 11:44 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No it's not.

Adopting a motion to Reconsider brings the question of the amendment back before the assembly.  It's not nullified unless, after further debate if any, it is voted down.  [emphasis added]

 

On 8/19/2017 at 0:51 AM, J. J. said:

There is a case when it could; if the motion is to amend a constitution or bylaws, then it could not be reconsidered.  

Well, if it can't be reconsidered at all, then the rules on what happens when a motion to Reconsider is adopted would not apply.  But when such a motion is adopted, it does bring the question again before the assembly.

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

 

Well, if it can't be reconsidered at all, then the rules on what happens when a motion to Reconsider is adopted would not apply.  But when such a motion is adopted, it does bring the question again before the assembly.

It would be completely improper, but we don't know if that is what happened. 

[Dan Honemann]

But J.J., we are dealing with reconsideration of a subsidiary motion to amend.

Even if the motion referred to in the very first sentence of Clamdigger's post was a proposed amendment to the organization's constitution or bylaws, that fact is entirely irrelevant. In other words, it ain't got nothin' to do with the price of eggs.  

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But J.J., we are dealing with reconsideration of a subsidiary motion to amend.

Even if the motion referred to in the very first sentence of Clamdigger's post was a proposed amendment to the organization's constitution or bylaws, that fact is entirely irrelevant. In other words, it ain't got nothin' to do with the price of eggs.  

I was looking the description, and I not sure if it is, of if it is Amend or Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). 

Clambdigger's description is:  " A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes."  Is that "matter" a main motion or is is this "matter" something that has been adopted?

It it is ASPA, once that motion is adopted, it would not be subject to reconsider (p. 307, #8).  If "matter" in this case is an original main motion, yes, the vote on the subsidiary motion to Amend could be reached by Reconsider; if it is a case of ASPA, that has been adopted, it cannot. 

 

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I was looking the description, and I not sure if it is, of if it is Amend or Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). 

Clambdigger's description is:  " A matter is properly before the body for consideration. An amendment to the matter is made and passes. Later during the same meeting, a Motion for Reconsider the amendment that passed is made, receives a second and passes."  Is that "matter" a main motion or is is this "matter" something that has been adopted?

It it is ASPA, once that motion is adopted, it would not be subject to reconsider (p. 307, #8).  If "matter" in this case is an original main motion, yes, the vote on the subsidiary motion to Amend could be reached by Reconsider; if it is a case of ASPA, that has been adopted, it cannot. 

 

The "matter" referred to is obviously a pending motion. We are told that, after the motion to reconsider the subsidiary motion to amend it was erroneously thought to have nullified the amendment, this "matter", without any amendment, was then passed.

[J. J.]

48 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The "matter" referred to is obviously a pending motion. We are told that, after the motion to reconsider the subsidiary motion to amend it was erroneously thought to have nullified the amendment, this "matter", without any amendment, was then passed.

I do not agree that the statement is clear.  It is ambiguous enough for me to raise that possibility.  It is enough that, if I was talking to Clamdigger directly, I would be asking what this "matter" is.  There are a few motions, or "matters," that cannot be reconsidered; to me. it looks like it could be a bylaw amendment. 

This "matter" may be a "plain vanilla main motion" that can be reconsidered.  It may not be a "plain vanilla main motion," that cannot be considered.  I don't know which.  If clamdigger would like to add some details, I'd welcome it. 

[Dan Honemann]

40 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I do not agree that the statement is clear.  It is ambiguous enough for me to raise that possibility.  It is enough that, if I was talking to Clamdigger directly, I would be asking what this "matter" is.  There are a few motions, or "matters," that cannot be reconsidered; to me. it looks like it could be a bylaw amendment. 

This "matter" may be a "plain vanilla main motion" that can be reconsidered.  It may not be a "plain vanilla main motion," that cannot be considered.  I don't know which.  If clamdigger would like to add some details, I'd welcome it. 

Oh, for heavens sake J.J., it doesn't make any difference whether the "matter" was or was not a motion that could be reconsidered. The motion to reconsider was not applied to it. It was applied to a motion to amend it.

But never mind. None of his matters to Clamdigger or anyone else, I suppose.