Rescind or Reconsider a Motion

[Sarah Lee]

Our board recently took an Action Without Meeting as allowed by our bylaws, in which they voted on meeting locations for 3 consecutive years. This motion passed with a greater than 2/3 vote at 35.5 to 7.5 (we have weighted votes).  There has been discussion among a small group to amend or rescind this motion to alter the 3rd meeting location.  

I understand that a motion to reconsider must be made at the same meeting as the original vote.  My question is, since this was an action without a meeting, how would a motion to reconsider be handled or can it even be brought up?  Also, is it correct that the person bringing forth the motion must have voted for the passed motion and be willing to divulge how they voted?

Secondly, if I understand correctly, a Motion to Rescind is also an option but should be made only when no action has been take on the original motion.  By the time our Board meets again, there will have been significant action on the first two points of the original motions (meeting locations 1 and 2), though no action will have been taken on the 3rd meeting location (the part they want to reconsider). 

What are the options here?

[Josh Martin]

31 minutes ago, Sarah Lee said:

My question is, since this was an action without a meeting, how would a motion to reconsider be handled or can it even be brought up?

I don’t know. RONR has no rules on this matter, since RONR does not permit taking action without a meeting.

31 minutes ago, Sarah Lee said:

Also, is it correct that the person bringing forth the motion must have voted for the passed motion and be willing to divulge how they voted?

Yes.

31 minutes ago, Sarah Lee said:

Secondly, if I understand correctly, a Motion to Rescind is also an option but should be made only when no action has been take on the original motion.  By the time our Board meets again, there will have been significant action on the first two points of the original motions (meeting locations 1 and 2), though no action will have been taken on the 3rd meeting location (the part they want to reconsider). 

No, this is not correct - in fact, that limitation applies to the motion to Reconsider. Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is in order so long as the motion has not been entirely carried out. In all other cases, the unexecuted part of the motion may still be rescinded or amended. Since it is only desired to change the third meeting location, Amend Something Previously Adopted is the proper tool.

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the response above by Mr. Martin, but would add that if this action was taken without a meeting, I do not think that a motion to reconsider would be appropriate unless this organization's own rules provide for the use of such a motion when action has been taken without a meeting. 

I agree that the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is the proper motion to use to make a change in the third meeting date.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the response above by Mr. Martin, but would add that if this action was taken without a meeting, I do not think that a motion to reconsider would be appropriate unless this organization's own rules provide for the use of such a motion when action has been taken without a meeting. 

I do not think that RONR provides an answer one way or the other on how the rules for time limits for the motion to Reconsider apply to action taken outside of a meeting, because RONR prohibts such actions, and therefore provides no rules concerning them. (Indeed, RONR goes so far as to state that in such cases, the group is not a deliberative assembly, and the text itself notes that its rules may not be fully applicable in such situations.) As a consequence, it seems to me that an organization which adopts rules which provide for such actions will have to interpret its own rules on this matter. I do not think it is as simple as saying that the motion to Reconsider is prohibited in such cases unless it is specifically provided for.

”It is important to understand that, regardless of the technology used, the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting. Therefore, a group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing (such as by postal mail, e-mail, "chat rooms," or fax)—which is not recommended—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. Any such effort may achieve a consultative character, but it is foreign to the deliberative process as understood under parliamentary law.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 98)

“A deliberative assembly—the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply—has the following distinguishing characteristics: ...
• The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 1)

”The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 2)

“A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also pp. 97–99).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 1, footnote)

It seems to me that one of those unprecedented situations is the fact that the terms “meeting” and “session” have little meaningful application in such cases, and this requires some creative interpretation of the many rules in the book which refer to these terms, such as the motion to Reconsider. Certainly one possible interpretation is that the motion to Reconsider is categorically prohibited in such cases, unless specifically provided for by the assembly’s rules, but I do not think this is the only reasonable interpretation.

Thankfully, the organization will not have to wrestle with these questions yet, as the motion to Reconsider is also out of order when applied to an affirmative vote which has been partially carried out (with the exception of an affirmative vote to limit or extend debate), and the application of that rule does not seem to be impacted by making decisions outside of a meeting.