Motion to Reconsider & Call the Previous Question order

[Guest A Brown]

I am using notes from a meeting as an example to walk through parliamentary procedure basics to those new to it, and I came across something that I'm not sure was handled correctly.  But I am a newbie to RR myself.

1)  The Main Motion was an Amendment to a Constitution to change a number from 50 to 30. 

2)  A Motion to Amend from 50 to 40 passed. 

3)  A Motion to Postpone Indefinitely was made, and after the Previous Question was called, the Motion to Postpone Indefinitely failed.

4)  A Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Amend from 50 to 40 passed, and therefore the proposal at that point was reset to 50 to 30.

5)  Someone immediately called the Previous Question and a vote at that point was taken on the original proposal of 50 to 30 (which failed).

Should the chair have immediately gone back to a vote on the Motion to Amend from 50 to 40 after the Reconsider passed and therefore the Previous Question was out of order?  Or would a Previous Question have precedence in this situation?

[Joshua Katz]

3 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

1)  The Main Motion was an Amendment to a Constitution to change a number from 50 to 30. 

 2)  A Motion to Amend from 50 to 40 passed. 

 

These two statements seem contrary to each other. If the main motion was to change 50 to 30, the only number that could be changed by an amendment is 30, not 50.

[Guest A Brown]

Basically the original proposal/Main Motion was an Amendment to a Constitution that changed a number in it from 50 to 30.  The Motion to Amend the original proposal was to change the number to 40 instead of 30 as the original proposal reflected.

[Atul Kapur]

After step 4, the adoption of the motion to reconsider the amendment, the motion that is under active consideration by the assembly (known as the immediately pending question) was the amendment to change to 40.

So when the previous question was ordered in step five, the vote that should have been held would have been the vote on the amendment.

To be explicit, adopting the motion to reconsider does not by itself reverse the decision that was made. It reopens that question to the point where it stood immediately before the vote had been held.

Edited October 21, 2018 at 03:24 AM by Atul Kapur

[Guest A Brown]

Thanks.  So would it be possible for someone to raise an issue at the next session to dispute the final voting results of the proposal that failed? 

[Josh Martin]

18 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

Thanks.  So would it be possible for someone to raise an issue at the next session to dispute the final voting results of the proposal that failed? 

No. Generally, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach. The motion to amend the bylaws may, however, be raised anew, following whatever notice requirements are in your bylaws.

[Atul Kapur]

A Point of Order would have been appropriate at the time the error occurred. It is too late to raise it now.

31 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

Should the chair have immediately gone back to a vote on the Motion to Amend from 50 to 40 after the Reconsider passed 

After the motion to Reconsider was adopted, you should have gone back to debate on the motion to Amend.

Once you are again debating the amendment, a motion for the previous question would be in order.

 

[Guest A Brown]

Thank you! 👌

[Guest Zev]

Hey guys. This is not a regular motion here. This is an amendment to the organization's constitution. Notice that a change from 50 to 30 is required. Since I do not know what 50 and 30 refer to, I cannot determine if the secondary amendment to change 30 to 40 is allowed or not. It is possible that it is not allowed without having given previous notice that an amendment to 40 will also be considered. More information would clarify this. Assuming for a second that both 30 and 40 are allowed, the rest of this sequence 1-5 looks OK to me, which means that the original language of 50 has remained unchanged. Step 4 simply amended the 40 back to 30 during the reconsideration, which I hope was proposed by someone that voted in favor of the amendment to 40 and not someone else that voted with the losing side.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

It is possible that it is not allowed without having given previous notice that an amendment to 40 will also be considered.

Guest Zev,

See RONR, "scope of notice", for amendments, pages 307-308.

Note that "40" is NOT beyond the scope of their given notice.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with Kim Goldsworthy. Amending the new number from 50 to 40 is within the scope of notice. It could be amended to any number between 50 and 30.

Also, once the motion to reconsider is adopted, the motion which is being reconsidered is back in the same status as it was before it was originally adopted. It can be adopted again, amended, or rejected.

As Dr. Kapur pointed out, a motion to reconsider is actually a two-step process. If the motion to reconsider is adopted, it simply means that the assembly will then, at that point, revisit (reconsider) the adoption of the motion being reconsidered. It opens that motion back up to debate and amendment.

I can't tell from the original poster's comments whether this is what was done, but it seems clear to me that he and probably the assembly are under the impression that regardless of whether they followed the proper procedure, the adoption of the amendment changing the figure from 50 to 40 was reconsidered and failed upon reconsideration

The motion to reconsider is a bit complicated and it is late, 1:30 a.m. in New Orleans, and I am tired, and perhaps I didn't express myself very well either! 😉

Edited October 21, 2018 at 06:54 AM by Richard Brown
Edited second paragraph

[Guest Zev]

53 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Amending the new number from 50 to 40 is within the scope of notice.

I do not disagree. If I am in the chair I would just like to know what 50 and 30 are before I state the question. Careful. Just being careful.

53 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

...the adoption of the amendment changing the figure from 50 to 40 was reconsidered and failed upon reconsideration.

I thought ABrown said under #4 that during the reconsideration is was amended back to 30. Or did I read this wrong? 

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I thought ABrown said under #4 that during the reconsideration is was amended back to 30. Or did I read this wrong? 

That's not the way I read it. That's the point that I said guest A Brown was not clear on.  I think what he means or was trying to say that when the amendment to change the number from 50 to 40 was reconsidered, it failed upon reconsideration, causing the pending question to again be the original main motion to change the number in the Constitution from 50 to 30.

It would help if A Brown would explain just what he means when he says the motion was reconsidered. Did they follow the proper two step process for reconsideration? Based on his description I don't think any of us can be sure exactly what was done during the so-called reconsideration. It sounds to me like they did it in just one step, bypassing a vote on the actual motion to reconsider and went directly to the reconsideration itself. Or perhaps he thinks that by adopting the motion to reconsider that in itself amounted to rejecting the motion to change 50 to 40. 

[Guest A Brown]

I made up those numbers just in the slim chance someone happened upon this thread and tried to pull some shenanigans.  Here is the real story and I apologize for the confusion.

1)  A proposal to amend our Constitution to modify the number of board members from 25 to 15 was presented (Main Motion).

2)  A Motion to Amend the Proposal from 15 to 21 passed.

3)  A Motion to Postpone Indefinitely was made, and after the Previous Question was called, the Motion to Postpone Indefinitely failed.

4)  A Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Amend from 15 to 21 passed.

5)  The chair stated a debate would resume on the original proposal (of 15).

6)  Someone immediately called the Previous Question and a vote at that point was taken on the original proposal of 15 (which failed).

It looks like they mixed up Reconsider and Rescind.  But I didn't know if the Previous Question could supersede the revote on the Amend to 21.

[Richard Brown]

22 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

4)  A Motion to Reconsider the Motion to Amend from 15 to 21 passed.

The problem I am seeing is still with step four. The motion to reconsider is a two-part or a 2-Step motion. First, the assembly votes on whether to reconsider the motion. If that passes, then the motion which is being reconsidered is up  for debate and a vote. It is in the same position it was in immediately before it was originally voted on. It can be adopted again or amended, or rejected.  It sounds like  it was rejected, but you are not saying so  in plain language. I still don't understand exactly how your organization handled the motion to reconsider.

 

[Joshua Katz]

I think it's pretty clear how the organization handled the motion to reconsider - they treated it as meaning the amendment was gone and they were back to the main motion, rather than as bringing the amendment again before the assembly. My issue is with:

1 hour ago, Guest A Brown said:

6)  Someone immediately called the Previous Question and a vote at that point was taken on the original proposal of 15 (which failed).

 

Was there a vote on the motion for the previous question? It is not correct to say (in effect) "oh, someone shouted 'question,' we have to vote now." Rather, you move to a vote on the previous question, which requires a 2/3 vote. If adopted, you move to a vote on the main motion.

1 hour ago, Guest A Brown said:

But I didn't know if the Previous Question could supersede the revote on the Amend to 21.

Well, there are two ways to see this. One is there was an erroneous announcement made as to where the organization stood, but no objection was made, and debate resumed, so the question was then on the main motion (as unamended). In that case, previous question was fully in order. I think that is also the correct way to see it.

The second is that the amendment was pending, notwithstanding the incorrect announcement. I think this is incorrect, but if you follow that logic, the previous question was still in order, and the chair should have clarified if the pq was moved on the immediate pending question or all pending questions, then moved to a vote (if pq was adopted) accordingly.

Finally, to get at what I think is bothering you - the pq may only be moved on the immediately pending motion, or any sequence of pending questions beginning with the immediately pending question and moving backwards. So, if, for instance, a main motion and an amendment were pending, the previous question would be out of order on the main motion only, but would be in order on the amendment only, or on both, in which case the assembly votes on the amendment and then the main motion. It cannot be used to make amendments go away.

Edited October 21, 2018 at 06:51 PM by Joshua Katz

[Richard Brown]

Based on his posts, I cannot tell if guest A Brown completely understands either the motion to reconsider or the motion for the previous question. I cannot tell if proper procedure was followed in either case.

Part of my concern is based on his repeated statement in this thread and his other thread about members calling the question. A member may move the previous question, but it is not proper to ever simply call for the question or call the question or demand the question.

When a member tries that, the chair should make sure it is treated properly as a motion for the previous question and that it is seconded and adopted by a two-thirds vote. Also,  the member who moved it must have been properly recognized and did not simply shout it out without being recognized. If someone just shouted it out without having been recognized, the chair should ignore it, at least if anyone else is seeking recognition.

Edited October 21, 2018 at 07:21 PM by Richard Brown

[Guest Zev]

 

1 hour ago, Guest A Brown said:

It looks like they mixed up Reconsider and Rescind.

I don't think they did, as long as the person moving the reconsideration voted with the prevailing side, that is, the side that adopted the amendment. In the case of Rescind, any member could have moved it.

1 hour ago, Guest A Brown said:

But I didn't know if the Previous Question could supersede the revote on the Amend to 21.

If the only thing pending is either a main motion or a main motion and an amendment, then the Previous Question ranks higher and must be decided first.

The problem I have is how did the main motion mysteriously (#5) get back to 15? Did the chair just assume that adopting a reconsideration automatically rejected the amendment from 15 to 21? If so, then this may be the source of the confusion.

2 hours ago, Guest A Brown said:

But I didn't know if the Previous Question could supersede the revote on the Amend to 21.

I'm a little bit confused about which Previous Question you are talking about. In the first case at #3, the pending question is the main question and the motion to Postpone Indefinitely. The unqualified motion for the Previous Question would apply only to the motion to Postpone Indefinitely and not include the main motion. In the second case at #6, the pending question seems to be the original main motion for 15, so the Previous Question is only on that motion and nothing else.

I get the impression that what happened is that the chairman mistakenly assumed that the adoption of the reconsideration just rejected the amendment made at #2 and the only thing then pending was the original motion for 15. The process of amending 15 to 21 in #2 seemed legitimate to me. The reconsideration of 21 at #4 also seems legitimate, the only question is what was done with it.

If I understand #6 correctly, the Previous Question was adopted and the main motion to change 25 to 15 was defeated leaving the constitution unchanged. The meeting was adjourned with some people going home scratching their heads a little bit about what happened to the 21 adopted back in #2.

[Guest A Brown]

Each Previous Question passed with the 2/3rd majority, and who made the motion was properly recognized.

From what I am picking up from this thread, the Motion to Reconsider was not handled properly.  If I understand correctly, after the Motion to Reconsider passed, another vote should have been taken immediately on the Motion to Amend the Proposal to 21 members again since that was the motion that was Reconsidered.  But instead, the chair stated we would resume debate on the original proposal of 15 members.  At that point, someone called the Previous Question (they were recognized), and it passed with the 2/3rds majority.  A vote was then taken for the original proposal of 15 members and did not pass.  But someone who is unhappy with the vote cannot come back at this point and try to do something to reverse it, correct?

[Richard Brown]

28 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

Each Previous Question passed with the 2/3rd majority, and who made the motion was properly recognized.

Good!  I think  this makes most (all?) of us  feel better!

28 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

From what I am picking up from this thread, the Motion to Reconsider was not handled properly.  If I understand correctly, after the Motion to Reconsider passed, another vote should have been taken immediately on the Motion to Amend the Proposal to 21 members again since that was the motion that was Reconsidered.  But instead, the chair stated we would resume debate on the original proposal of 15 members.  At that point, someone called the Previous Question (they were recognized), and it passed with the 2/3rds majority.  A vote was then taken for the original proposal of 15 members and did not pass. 

 

Based  on this, you are correct that the motion to reconsider  was not handled correctly.  But you still aren't quite right on the procedure.  You are correct that when someone moved the previous question to reconsider the proper thing to do is  to vote on that motion... the motion to reconsider the vote on the amendment to change 15 to 21.   If the motion to reconsider fails, that's that.   It's  over.  The  amendment stands adopted.  

But if the motion to reconsider is adopted, you THEN get to part two:  The actual reconsideration of the vote on the amendment changing the number from 15 to 21.  But, you don't go straight to a vote, at least not if anyone wants to debate it.  Adopting the motion to reconsider opens up the motion being reconsidered all over again and puts it in the posture it was in just before it was originally adopted.   It is subject to debate, further amendment, and adoption again in its original form, or as amended, or it can be voted down.  

If it is voted down, the effect is as if the amendment changing the proposed number from 15 to 21 was never adopted.  It is not  rescinded.  It is instead as if it had never been adopted and you are back to the original main motion to amend the bylaws to change the board size from 25 to 15 (or whatever it was).

So, yes, it appears the chair skipped a step... he skipped the step  of actually reconsidering the 21 member amendment. He erroneously assumed that adopting the motion to reconsider automatically set aside the adoption of the motion to be reconsidered.

28 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

But someone who is unhappy with the vote cannot come back at this point and try to do something to reverse it, correct?

A member who is unhappy with the failure of the bylaw change can propose it all over again by following the procedure for bylaw amendments in your bylaws.   Or he can propose one slightly different, such as to change the number of board members from 25 to 21... or whatever number he wants.  You just have to start the bylaw amendment process all over again.  There is no shortcut.  What  was done is done.  It can be undone only by following the regular bylaw amendment process.... assuming the members support it. 

btw, you're catching on!  🙂

Edited October 21, 2018 at 08:48 PM by Richard Brown
Made correction indicated by strikethrough and underline

[jstackpo]

25 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

If I understand correctly, after the Motion to Reconsider passed, another vote should have been taken immediately on the Motion to Amend the Proposal to 21 members again since that was the motion that was Reconsidered.

Picking at pieces of your understanding...

Yes you are (almost) correct as to what should happen when reconsider was adopted, BUT there is supposed to be a renewed opportunity to debate the reconsidered motion - in your case the change 15 to 21 amendment.  It didn't happen, I suppose but no harm -- if somebody had something to say they colud have insisted (or raised a point of order).

29 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

But instead, the chair stated we would resume debate on the original proposal of 15 members.

Yes, that is where you went off the rails.  But... done is done (and I see R. Brown has been busy typing his reply as I type the, so I'll see what he has to say.

[Richard Brown]

2 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

Yes, that is where you went off the rails.  But... done is done (and I see R. Brown has been busy typing his reply as I type the, so I'll see what he has to say.

I think... and I hope.... that we are saying the same thing!! 

[jstackpo]

And I agree with what he wrote (faster than I did.)

 

All seems cleared up, I presume.  Go thou and sin no more.

And get a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link:

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

And give it to your chairman as a Thanksgiving gift so he can read page 58ff.

[Guest A Brown]

Thank you Richard.  You should replace our parliamentarian. 😄

[Guest A Brown]

That's what is nuts.  We have an official parliamentarian sitting next to the chair.  Who has a copy of RR.