Motion conflicts with previously adopted motion

[paulmcclintock]

I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so...

RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption.  Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted."

OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with a majority vote without a timely point of order; the OI says a point of order must be timely. The final paragraph says: "In the case of a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, the rule protects a minority of any number greater than one-third of the members present. However, such rules may be suspended, and if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely."

Based on this OI quote seems to me to be in conflict with the RONR text.  The page 343 situation allows a two-thirds vote (for example) to adopt a conflicting motion, and the OI says that a point of order in such a case would have to be timely, but RONR says it is null and void (presumably without time constraints).

 

[George Mervosh]

If it was simply a conflicting motion not presented as one to amend something previously adopted, that's where the problem comes in on p. 343.

Once a motion to amend something previously adopted is pending, you've overcome the hurdle of what RONR is saying on p. 343.   See pp. 74-76.  Now, certain procedural mistakes may occur while processing the motion, such as what's described in OI2006-18, but that's another matter. 

Edited November 20, 2017 at 10:09 PM by George Mervosh
.

[Dan Honemann]

17 hours ago, paulmcclintock said:

I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so...

RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption.  Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted."

OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with a majority vote without a timely point of order; the OI says a point of order must be timely. The final paragraph says: "In the case of a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, the rule protects a minority of any number greater than one-third of the members present. However, such rules may be suspended, and if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely."

Based on this OI quote seems to me to be in conflict with the RONR text.  The page 343 situation allows a two-thirds vote (for example) to adopt a conflicting motion, and the OI says that a point of order in such a case would have to be timely, but RONR says it is null and void (presumably without time constraints).

 

 

The quotation you have taken from page 343 is, in its first sentence, simply a restatement of the rule found on page111, lines 23-26, which tells us that

"Apart from a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), no main motion is in order that conflicts with a motion previously adopted at any time and still in force."

and then, in its second, a restatement of the rule found in (b) on page 251, lines 11-15, which tells us that such a motion, if adopted, is null and void unless it "was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion".*

These rules, as George has noted, are referring to motions which are not in order when made for the reason stated. RONR Off. Interp. 2006-18, on the other hand, is not at all concerned with such a motion. It is, instead, concerned with a situation in which a motion, entirely in order when made and requiring (as a consequence of its amendment) a two-thirds vote for its adoption, is declared to have been adopted by something less than a two-thirds vote. 

----------------------------------------------------

* It may be of interest to recall that, prior to the 10th Edition, conflicting motions of this kind, if declared to have been adopted, were null and void no matter what.  

 

[Juiceboy72]

I have a few questions regarding this. Say, for example, that a motion to limit debate on a unified package of amendments was made and passed. Is it correct that a motion to commit would be out of order, because it goes against the nature of the order to limit debate? Second, if this motion did pass despite several points of order, would it still be in order to question the legitimacy of the committee at the following business meeting (one year later)?

 

[George Mervosh]

33 minutes ago, Juiceboy72 said:

I have a few questions regarding this. Say, for example, that a motion to limit debate on a unified package of amendments was made and passed. Is it correct that a motion to commit would be out of order, because it goes against the nature of the order to limit debate? Second, if this motion did pass despite several points of order, would it still be in order to question the legitimacy of the committee at the following business meeting (one year later)?

 

No.  " An order limiting debate applies not only to the motion(s) on which the limitation is ordered, but also to any debatable subsidiary motions, motions to Reconsider, or debatable appeals that may become pending subsequently while the order is in force."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 193.

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Juiceboy72 said:

Is it correct that a motion to commit would be out of order, because it goes against the nature of the order to limit debate?

Only if the motion to limit debate specifies a time for closing debate.

“If, as in Form and Example (c) below, the limitation or extension that has been ordered does not provide for closing debate, it has no effect on what subsidiary motions can be made. On the other hand, after the adoption of an order that does provide for closing debate—by requiring that, at a certain later hour or after debate for a specified length of time, debate shall be closed—motions to Commit or to Postpone to a Certain Time cannot be made, since these motions would be in conflict with the purpose of that order.*(53)” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 194)

In such cases, referring the motion to a committee will require a motion to Suspend the Rules, or a motion to Reconsider the motion limiting debate, or adopting a new motion to Limit Debate which does not include a time for closing debate.

3 hours ago, Juiceboy72 said:

Second, if this motion did pass despite several points of order, would it still be in order to question the legitimacy of the committee at the following business meeting (one year later)?

No. Even if there was a violation, it is not a continuing breach.

Edited February 21, 2018 at 11:50 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary c Tesser]

After not quite six months, would someone (anyone would do, but I think Paul McClintock would be ideal) please tell me at least whether Paul's question was answered; and it would be gravy to know what that answer was.

George Mervosh says [I'm about to try to slickly cut-and-paste,* let's see what works] :

On 11/20/2017 at 5:06 PM, George Mervosh said:

If it was simply a conflicting motion not presented as one to amend something previously adopted, that's where the problem comes in on p. 343.... [snip].  Now, certain procedural mistakes may occur while processing the motion, such as what's described in OI2006-18, but that's another matter. 

[O lawsy me***, it worked.]

But George, it is not another matter at all:  if I understand correctly, it is precisely what Paul is asking about.  The question is whether --

On 11/21/2017 at 11:15 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

such a motion, if adopted, is null and void unless it "was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion"

-- unambiguously, invariably, and not subject to the vagaries of parliamentary error if it happened that it were not adopted by the required threshold; or if, instead, the rule that any "vote required", if such an error is made (we are usually talking about a vote, like this one, that requires 2/3; and fails to get it; but the chair erroneously declares the motion adopted), will carry  (unless a quick point of order snags it).

(I'm thinking about votes requiring a majority of the entire membership, maybe, when you can't subsequently prove that a MEM was in the room; with similar sentiments in the clause on p. 349, lines 25-26 )

____________

*Yes, grammar prigs, that's a comma fault.  You know what you can do with yer fershtunkener college degrees, and any or all the propaganda they trepanned into your brain in junior high school.**

**Slightly higher in Canada

*** Gaelic-English slang for "Great Steaming Cobnuts"

Edited April 19, 2018 at 04:19 PM by Gary c Tesser
fix a semicolon and then ran amok

[Dan Honemann]

The Official Interpretation referred to by Mr. McClintock deals with a vote taken on a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Such a motion is not one of the "conflicting motions" referred to on page 343, lines 20-23. 

Let's don't go mixing apples and rutabagas (or whatever).

 

[SaintCad]

Is is appropriate for the Chair, recognizing that the motion is in conflict, to state the question as a motion to Amend or is it ruled out of order and up to the member to restate the motion in the appropriate form?

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, SaintCad said:

Is is appropriate for the Chair, recognizing that the motion is in conflict, to state the question as a motion to Amend or is it ruled out of order and up to the member to restate the motion in the appropriate form?

I think the chair should point out that the motion conflicts with a previously adopted motion and would be out of order and ask the mover if he wants to re-word his motion to make it a motion to rescind something previously adopted.  If the mover does so, fine.  If he says, "No, I want to leave it as it is", then the chair should rule it out of order at that point.