Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Amending Something Previously Adopted


Recommended Posts

Guest Guest

A motion was unanimously passed to raise a property using a particular method. After the meeting,  information was provided that identified the method would pose serious liability for the HOA.

Can a motion to amend by dividing the question (demo/method) be moved or should the motion be to rescind what was previously approved?

Link to post
Share on other sites

A motion can be divided only if the various parts can stand as independent propositions. I have doubts that this is the present case.

What I think you need to do is call a special meeting with notice that the motion is to be rescinded, or perhaps just amended as to the method. In this way only a majority vote would be necessary. Without notice a two-thirds vote would be needed.

If the other party has already been notified of your HOA's action then it is too late, unless you can talk them into granting your HOA leave to rescind/amend it. If they decline it then becomes a legal question and not a parliamentary question.

Did I get this right, guys?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Did I get this right, guys?

Mostly. Regardless of whether the parts can stand independently, divide the question is applied when the motion is pending. In principle, it could be used after adopting reconsider, but reconsider is probably out of order. I agree that the right motion is rescind or amend something previously adopted, and amend seems to make the most sense. As for a special meeting, they would need to check their bylaws to see if they can call special meetings. I agree that if they've entered into a contract, it becomes a legal question if the other party is not willing to change it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Motion to Amend Something

No contract has been approved or entered into. The bylaws do permit calling special meetings, but I believe it to be unnecessary as the motion was adopted at the last board meeting (two- weeks ago) and regular meetings are every two weeks. Given the recent liability information, the matter is again on the notice/agenda for discussion at the regular meeting this week. The entire board is to be present. Given this information, is a simple majority or two-thirds majority required to pass a motion to rescind/amend? When during the discussion is the appropriate time to introduce the motion. Lastly, which is the better motion and why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Motion to Amend Something said:

Given the recent liability information, the matter is again on the notice/agenda for discussion at the regular meeting this week. The entire board is to be present. Given this information, is a simple majority or two-thirds majority required to pass a motion to rescind/amend? When during the discussion is the appropriate time to introduce the motion. Lastly, which is the better motion and why?

Prior notice of a motion requires stating intent at the prior meeting, or giving the precise language with the written call. Is the precise language of a motion in the notice, or just the subject? If the latter, which I suspect, it requires a 2/3 vote to rescind or amend. It can also be accomplished, though, by a majority of the entire membership - i.e. yes votes from half the number of people on the board, regardless of how many are present and voting. Depending on the numbers, that may be easier than a 2/3 vote.

I'm a little confused about the question about when the appropriate time to introduce the motion is. Of course, I'm not privy to your organization's customs, but it sounds as if you adopt an agenda (note: you reference the matter being on the notice/agenda for discussion, but in fact, unless your rules say otherwise, the agenda is adopted at the meeting, and may be amended). If so, and if you put this matter on the agenda, it should be introduced when it is reached. But there is no real need, in most organizations meeting more than quarterly, for an agenda. In any event, if i misunderstood and you do not adopt an agenda, instead following the standard order of business, the motion should be introduced as new business. 

Or it's possible I misunderstood your question. If, instead, you're asking when, in the discussion of this very topic, the motion should be made, then the answer is: at the very beginning. While many organizations do otherwise, according to RONR (except under small board rules) discussion is only permitted on a pending motion. Even under small board rules, it is generally a good idea to make a motion before discussing it if you know what you want to move. This allows people to know what the subject is (in the form: should we take this particular action or not?) and thus have a more productive debate. If someone wants to address the same matter in a different way, they can do so through various motions, such as amend.

Finally, you ask if the motion should be rescinded or amended. That really depends on the circumstance. From what I can tell, though, it seems as though the organization still wants the raise the property (whatever that means), but by a different method. In that case, the motion to amend something previously adopted seems best - amend by striking the method and inserting a different method, if the original motion is worded in a manner which permits doing so. If not, another option is to rescind, and to then adopt a substantively different motion which still raises the property, but by doing different things.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

majority of the entire membership - i.e. yes votes from half the number of people on the board, regardless of how many are present and voting.

Actually from more than half the total number of people on the board.

If you have an 8 or 9 member board, this means 5 Yes votes, no matter how many are present and voting. If all show up and vote, then 2/3 vote requires 6 Yes.

As to rescind vs amend, it sounds like amend is the more efficient way to achieve what you want. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 years later...
Guest Amir B

What about if another member is trying to object to voting on amendments to previously adopted by laws. previously  the body was notified and the next month, the motion to vote on amendments hadn't been made yet and a member objected and wanted to vote to get rid of the  voting of amendments entirely. Can that be done for bylaws? The objection didn't pass and the members were quite confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Guest Amir B said:

What about if another member is trying to object to voting on amendments to previously adopted by laws. previously  the body was notified and the next month, the motion to vote on amendments hadn't been made yet and a member objected and wanted to vote to get rid of the  voting of amendments entirely. Can that be done for bylaws? The objection didn't pass and the members were quite confused.

An Objection to the Consideration of a Question can only be applied to an original main motion and not before one is made.  It cannot be made at all regarding a motion to amend the bylaws.  See RONR (12th ed.), 26:2 (2).

Oh and for the future see. 

 

Edited by George Mervosh
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Puzzling
1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

An Objection to the Consideration of a Question can only be applied to an original main motion and not before one is made.  It cannot be made at all regarding a motion to amend the bylaws.  See RONR (12th ed.), 26:2 (2).

Oh and for the future see. 

 

Not sure about that .

A motion to amend the bylaws is an original main motion and 26:2 (2) does not make an exception for bylaws amendments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Guest Puzzling said:

A motion to amend the bylaws is an original main motion and 26:2 (2) does not make an exception for bylaws amendments.

A motion to amend the bylaws is not an original main motion. A motion to amend the bylaws is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which is an incidental main motion.

"By means of the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted - which are two forms of one incidental main motion governed by identical rules - the assembly can change an action previously taken or ordered." RONR (12th ed.) 35:1

"The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted:

...

2) Can be applied to anything (eg., bylaw, rule, policy, decision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions." RONR (12th ed.) 35:2

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

An Objection to the Consideration of a Question can only be applied to an original main motion and not before one is made.  It cannot be made at all regarding a motion to amend the bylaws.  See RONR (12th ed.), 26:2 (2).

Oh and for the future see. 

 

In theory, the rules could be suspended for the remainder of the session, prior to the introduction of the bylaw amendment, "to permit an Objection to the Consideration of a Question to be applied to amendments to the bylaws."  It might be in useful in some situations. 

Edited by J. J.
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

A motion to amend the bylaws is not an original main motion. A motion to amend the bylaws is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which is an incidental main motion.

I agree. People frequently assume that a motion to amend the bylaws is an original main motion, but RONR is clear that it is an incidental main motion, not an original main motion.  An “objection to consideration“ can be applied only to an original main motion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Puzzling
1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree. People frequently assume that a motion to amend the bylaws is an original main motion, but RONR is clear that it is an incidental main motion, not an original main motion.  An “objection to consideration“ can be applied only to an original main motion.

Mea culpa , but I am not the only one. 

Maybe RONR could do with footnote about this.

Was puzzling with a "motion to suspend the rules to allow a motion to object to the consideration of the present  bylaw amendment" but that gets quite confusing as the "motion to object to the consideration has to be asked in the form that a  yes answer upholds consideration, while the "motion to suspend the rules" has to be asked so that a yes answer allows the suspension.

So to kill the amendment the members have to vote yes (to the suspension) and then no (to the consideration )

Will check with other motions that are not original main motions for a reason for not allowing "objection to the consideration "

Mea culpa

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Maybe RONR could do with footnote about this.

Will check with other motions that are not original main motions for a reason for not allowing "objection to the consideration "

In the tinted pages - Tables of Rules Relating to Motions (t6ff), see the motions where the class is M/B.  IIRC correctly, all of them are forms of a motion to Rescind, or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, J. J. said:

In theory, the rules could be suspended for the remainder of the session, prior to the introduction of the bylaw amendment, "to permit an Objection to the Consideration of a Question to be applied to amendments to the bylaws."  It might be in useful in some situations. 

I was thinking it might be cleaner to wait for the amendment to be offered, and then before any discussion occurs move to Suspend the Rules and Object to the Consideration of this Question.

But then stating the question, taking the vote, and determining the result turns out to be a head scratcher.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the rule that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied to a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted  is a rule that cannot be suspended.  I think this is true for the same reason that the rule against its being raised after consideration of the main motion has begun cannot be suspended. The assembly's involvement has already begun. 

And certainly the rule in 26:2(7) cannot be suspended (since it embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law).

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In my opinion, the rule that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied to a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted  is a rule that cannot be suspended.  I think this is true for the same reason that the rule against its being raised after consideration of the main motion has begun cannot be suspended. The assembly's involvement has already begun. 

And certainly the rule in 26:2(7) cannot be suspended (since it embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law).

The incidental main motion to suspend the rules for a session to permit incidental main motions to be Objection to the Consideration of a Question, would be same as constructing a motion to suspend the rules that would only permit bylaw amendments to be introduced only if more than 1/3 of the members present and voting to agree to considering that amendment, which could be only made prior to the start of debate.  The assembly has not yet considered that particular amendment so it is not before the assembly. 

It would something akin to a standing rule in a convention.

Permitting Objection to the Consideration of a Question to be raised under an incidental main motion to suspend the rules is perhaps preferable because the intricacies of handling such an objection are well defined in RONR.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, J. J. said:

The incidental main motion to suspend the rules for a session to permit incidental main motions to be Objection to the Consideration of a Question, would be same as constructing a motion to suspend the rules that would only permit bylaw amendments to be introduced only if more than 1/3 of the members present and voting to agree to considering that amendment, which could be only made prior to the start of debate.  The assembly has not yet considered that particular amendment so it is not before the assembly. 

It would something akin to a standing rule in a convention.

Permitting Objection to the Consideration of a Question to be raised under an incidental main motion to suspend the rules is perhaps preferable because the intricacies of handling such an objection are well defined in RONR.

 

 

Yes, I am aware of the fact that we hold differing opinions on this question.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Puzzling
7 hours ago, J. J. said:

The incidental main motion to suspend the rules for a session to permit incidental main motions to be Objection to the Consideration of a Question, would be same as constructing a motion to suspend the rules that would only permit bylaw amendments to be introduced only if more than 1/3 of the members present and voting to agree to considering that amendment,

I don't think I understand the above.

Also was puzzling 

If 2/3th or more is against the amendment the same result can be reached in other ways:

- a motion to end debate (previous question) followed by a vote

- a motion to postpone indefinitely,  followed by the previous question.

Maybe other options.

What is the best option?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, I am aware of the fact that we hold differing opinions on this question.

This is a different question. 

2006-20 said, "It is simply not possible to prevent debate which has already taken place. As a consequence, a motion to suspend the rules which interfere with the late objection would also be out of order. Rules may be suspended, but facts cannot."

This, in no way, is a case of preventing "debate which has already taken place."  The proposed bylaw amendment, while given noticed, has not been introduced. 

 

Edited by J. J.
punctuation
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, I am aware of the fact that we hold differing opinions on this question.  🙂

I don't know that this particular question ever come up before.  :)

The question here is "can the assembly prevent an incidental main motion from being considered by a 2/3 vote?"

I do not see anything in either your answers here or in 2006-20 that says, "No the assembly cannot do that." 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I said that, in my opinion, the rule that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be applied to a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted  is a rule that cannot be suspended.

I understand that you disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...