Motion voted down three times. Can you motion For the topic to not be brought up for a period of time.

[Guest Educator]

Basically, we have a member that keeps bringing up the same motion. This motion works into their favor and is not educationally sound. It has been denied three times.  Can I motion this: if a motion fails three times it cannot be motion again for ex. Two years?  

 

We we meet once a year. 

[jstackpo]

You could move your "not again" motion but it would require a notice AND a 2/3 vote to be adopted (RONR, page 17, line 27ff) since you are setting up a special rule of order.  All RONR says is that a defeated motion can be renewed (made again) at the next meeting/session. One  year to the next meeting will do it.

Probably not worth the bother  -- just (resoundingly) defeat the person's motion each meeting, and that only requires a majority vote. Eventually, he/she will get the message.

[Chris Harrison]

2 hours ago, jstackpo said:

 just (resoundingly) defeat the person's motion each meeting, and that only requires a majority vote. Eventually, he/she will get the message.

...Although that would allow the question to be debated which takes up time.  Another option is as soon as he or she makes the motion a member can Object To The Consideration Of A Question (RONR pp. 267-270).  It takes a 2/3 vote but the advantage is that an even stronger message gets sent because not only are more people saying "we don't want to even talk about this" but the brakes are put on the motion before it even gets momentum.

Edited February 9, 2019 at 04:59 PM by Chris Harrison

[Joshua Katz]

13 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

...Although that would allow the question to be debated which takes up time.  Another option is as soon as he or she makes the motion a member can Object To The Consideration Of A Question (RONR pp. 267-270).  It takes a 2/3 vote but the advantage is that an even stronger message gets sent because not only are more people saying "we don't want to even talk about this" but the brakes are put on the motion before it even gets momentum.

Isn't previous question just as effective in this situation? I prefer to limit use of objection to consideration to cases where there's an issue with considering it because any answer will be bad. 

[Richard Brown]

I agree with the previous posters but believe that, as a practical matter, having someone quickly move for the adoption of the previous question is probably the best solution unless the members are unusually knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure.. Although an objection to consideration of the question is tailor-made for a situation such as this, it must be moved immediately, before any debate, and most laymen are not knowledgeable enough to even know the motion exists, let alone how and when to use it. However, most everybody understands that the previous question can be used to stop debate and bring the motion to an immediate vote.

If someone at the meeting is sharp enough and quick enough to make an objection to consideration of the question before debate begins, and if the chair is knowledgeable enough to know how to handle it, then go for it. Otherwise, just have someone move the previous question as quickly as possible. 

Edited February 9, 2019 at 06:33 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Chris Harrison]

7 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Isn't previous question just as effective in this situation?

It is a better option than allowing the motion go to a vote naturally.  Using Object to Consideration allows the motion to be nixed immediately.  Otherwise, the member making the motion has first crack at recognition before anyone else and assuming the default rule of 10 minute speechs is in place that uses up 10 minutes before a member can even move the Previous Question.

[Guest Zev]

I can understand adopting a special rule of order in cases where the assembly meets once every month and does not wish to entertain some whacky motion every time. But only once every year? Why so much anguish over ten minutes once a year? Perhaps the subject is outside the organization's purpose as defined in the bylaws and the presiding officer did not know that the motion would require a two-thirds vote in order to be considered?

[Atul Kapur]

Never mind. I reconsidered my post. I blame it on the late hour.

Edited February 10, 2019 at 06:13 AM by Atul Kapur

[J. J.]

On 2/9/2019 at 12:13 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Isn't previous question just as effective in this situation? I prefer to limit use of objection to consideration to cases where there's an issue with considering it because any answer will be bad. 

Perhaps more so.  The motion might be an incidental main motion, which would make Objection to the Consideration of the Question out of order.