Reaffirming motion

[Drake Savory]

I think we need to know the original motion.  Suppose committee members are appointed annually and need approval of the body and Ann, Bruce, Carmen and Dave have been on the social committee from time immemorial and by tradition they're appointments are "re-affirmed".  Then the motion to re-affirm failing would have an impact, specifically that the four are not on the social committee anymore.  

[Guest Zev]

If presiding officers continue to admit non-parliamentary motions and assembly members continue to vote for non-parliamentary motions, then I am a loss as to what to do other than review their occasional cries for help and saying "don't do that" and explaining the reasons. If the authors changed the statement and made it more emphatic perhaps fewer questions about reaffirmation would surface, but I am not so sure about that given the current level of disregard for what the authors actually said about this subject.

[Dan Honemann]

14 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

To be clear, I'm trying very hard to understand your reasoning, as I've repeatedly found it to be incisive. I categorically agree that details are often the crux of questions of this nature--and that we lack them.  You stated that an ambiguous situation was created.  I am trying to understand what you mean in this regard.

Yes, I don't know what else a "motion" to "reaffirm" would be, if not expressing a particular opinion--namely that this assembly agrees with the prior one.

"The body failed to agree to a motion.  Therefore, it did nothing.":  Yes, I was overly brief in that.  Certainly, the actions matter insofar as they must go in the minutes, and that the failed motion cannot be brought up in the same session, & etc.  I was referring to the situation external to the motion itself.  Perhaps it is better to say "the assembly has accomplished nothing".  A motion to give money to a cause fails--the society has accomplished nothing.  A motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails--the society accomplishes nothing.  And so forth.

I do not agree that the rejection of a motion by a society's assembly accomplishes nothing. If a motion to give money to a cause fails, the society has decided that it will not give money to that cause. If a motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails, the society has decided that it will not endorse that issue or candidate. These decisions will remain in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the society itself at some later session, and until then they are binding upon any subordinate body, even one vested with full power and authority over the affairs of the society between meetings of the society's assembly. 

14 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Let's try to be more specific. 

Case 1)  Suppose the original motion was "to give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X."  A couple of years later, someone proposes a motion to "Reaffirm that we give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X"--and it fails.  To me, when the motion to reaffirm failed, "nothing happened" in the sense that the club continues to give $1000 annually.

Case 2) Suppose the original motion was to endorse a political candidate.  Press releases go out.  Suppose two months later, a "motion" to "reaffirm" the endorsement fails.  Again, I do not contemplate new press releases going out.

Of course, there will be a lot of folks who will be confused, and to me, it is for this reason that the ambiguity is said to exist.  To me, the parliamentary situation is unambiguous--but not in the minds of the members.

Note also that my prior line about "always voting against out of order motions" is not just making a point.  Protest voting is a very real thing.  I am personally very much of a mind to vote against all out-of-order motions, and I often draw 10% or more of the assemblies that I am a part of.

In the first instance, the society has decided that it will not "Reaffirm that we give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X", thus creating an ambiguous situation.  You say that, to you, "when the motion to reaffirm failed, 'nothing happened' in the sense that the club continues to give $1000 annually." I think that the society's Treasurer, who I assume is charged with sending out the $1000 check each year, may have some doubts about it. 

In the second instance, you fail to provide exact language, so I shall provide my own. At one of it's biannual meetings the society adopts this motion:  “That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator.” At its meeting six months later, the same motion is made.* This motion is not in order because it is, in substance, a motion to reaffirm the previously adopted motion, but no point of order is raised. The motion is considered and rejected. Are you sure that nothing of significance has happened and that the society's decision to support Mr. Thornton remains in full force and effect?

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

* I'll admit that this example I have provided is overly simplistic, but as frequent visitors to this forum will recall, motions which are, in substance, motions to reaffirm previously made decisions take many different forms. They seldom use the word "reaffirm", but they are motions which are not in order solely because they are, in substance, motions to "reaffirm", as referred to on page 105. 

[J. J.]

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I do not agree that the rejection of a motion by a society's assembly accomplishes nothing. If a motion to give money to a cause fails, the society has decided that it will not give money to that cause. If a motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails, the society has decided that it will not endorse that issue or candidate. These decisions will remain in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the society itself at some later session, and until then they are binding upon any subordinate body, even one vested with full power and authority over the affairs of the society between meetings of the society's assembly. 

In the first instance, the society has decided that it will not "Reaffirm that we give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X", thus creating an ambiguous situation.  You say that, to you, "when the motion to reaffirm failed, 'nothing happened' in the sense that the club continues to give $1000 annually." I think that the society's Treasurer, who I assume is charged with sending out the $1000 check each year, may have some doubts about it. 

In the second instance, you fail to provide exact language, so I shall provide my own. At one of it's biannual meetings the society adopts this motion:  “That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator.” At its meeting six months later, the same motion is made.* This motion is not in order because it is, in substance, a motion to reaffirm the previously adopted motion, but no point of order is raised. The motion is considered and rejected. Are you sure that nothing of significance has happened and that the society's decision to support Mr. Thornton remains in full force and effect?

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

 

In the case of Thornton, how would saying that the first motion is not in force square with p. 251 b? 

I will readily recognize that there may be cases where the first motion may not be in force.  It the election had taken place between the meetings, the motion may not still be in force. 

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

In the case of Thornton, how would saying that the first motion is not in force square with p. 251 b? 

I will readily recognize that there may be cases where the first motion may not be in force.  It the election had taken place between the meetings, the motion may not still be in force. 

The original motion was still in effect when the second motion was made, but 251 (b) is clearly inapplicable.

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The original motion was still in effect when the second motion was made, but 251 (b) is clearly inapplicable.

Why, it there is a claim that the first motion has been modified by the second defeated motion? 

[Dan Honemann]

Page 251 (b) deals with the adoption of a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted and still in force. I suppose one might argue that rejection of a motion that reaffirms a motion previously adopted and still in force amounts to the same thing, which helps explain why RONR says that rejection of a motion to reaffirm creates an ambiguous situation.  🙂

[Nathan Zook]

On 2/25/2019 at 3:06 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Rejection of a motion ... is a decision not to do whatever it is that the motion proposes.

 

Okay.  This I missed.  (I'll blame the cold.)  Sorry for taking the long way around to get to what I'm having trouble with here.

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I do not agree that the rejection of a motion by a society's assembly accomplishes nothing. If a motion to give money to a cause fails, the society has decided that it will not give money to that cause. If a motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails, the society has decided that it will not endorse that issue or candidate. These decisions will remain in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the society itself at some later session, and until then they are binding upon any subordinate body, even one vested with full power and authority over the affairs of the society between meetings of the society's assembly.

 

I have been presuming that the motion is of a form such as "Resolved, that society X reaffirms..."  As you pointed out (and I missed the import of) the ruling that a motion to reaffirm is out of order does not require that the word "reaffirm" specifically appears in the out-of-order motion.  If a particular motion does include the term "reaffirm", the definitions at https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/affirm all relate to sentiment.  They do not relate to the taking of an action.  So, I started from there.  In particular, this is why I found the discussion on RONR 11th ed, page 105, lines 15-23 to be determinate.

 

 

It seems that our discussion around the effect of a failed motion is a separate, more fundamental discussion.  As I read the discussion at RONR 11th ed, page 104 l32 - pg 105-l7, it would seem that if the assemble failed to adopt a motion, that a fully empowered executive board, for instance, would be free to adopt the motion and proceed; that to block such an action, an affirmative vote to do so is required.  I confess that my attempts to find instructions about the effects of a failed resolution in RONR 11th ed have turned up empty.

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

It seems that our discussion around the effect of a failed motion is a separate, more fundamental discussion.  As I read the discussion at RONR 11th ed, page 104 l32 - pg 105-l7, it would seem that if the assemble failed to adopt a motion, that a fully empowered executive board, for instance, would be free to adopt the motion and proceed; that to block such an action, an affirmative vote to do so is required.  I confess that my attempts to find instructions about the effects of a failed resolution in RONR 11th ed have turned up empty.

Try page 483, lines 6-9, and page 577, lines 23-29. See also RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12.

[J. J.]

13 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Page 251 (b) deals with the adoption of a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted and still in force. I suppose one might argue that rejection of a motion that reaffirms a motion previously adopted and still in force amounts to the same thing, which helps explain why RONR says that rejection of a motion to reaffirm creates an ambiguous situation.  🙂

Some clarification in the text would be welcome. 

[Nathan Zook]

19 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Try page 483, lines 6-9, and page 577, lines 23-29. See also RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12.

Okay.  That directly answers the question.

I would like to request an addition to the index, then.  

 

This also plainly defeats my prior assertion that there the effect of defeating a motion is in any sense a nullity.  And that a failed motion to reaffirm NOT create an ambiguity at a matter of parliamentary law.

Do I now go back and strike my earlier assertions?

Edited February 28, 2019 at 05:12 AM by Nathan Zook
No guns allowed

[Guest Zev]

24 minutes ago, Nathan Zook said:

paramilitary law

Paramilitary law? Is this some new set of rules being cooked up by our authors?

[Nathan Zook]

2 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Paramilitary law? Is this some new set of rules being cooked up by our authors?

Yikes.  Scary to trust in spellcheck.  Thanks.

 

[George Mervosh]

11 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Okay.  That directly answers the question.

I would like to request an addition to the index, then.  

"authority, variations, 482–483, 577–578, 586 "  RONR (11th ed.), p. 675 

[J. J.]

12 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

Okay.  That directly answers the question.

I would like to request an addition to the index, then.  

 

This also plainly defeats my prior assertion that there the effect of defeating a motion is in any sense a nullity.  And that a failed motion to reaffirm NOT create an ambiguity at a matter of parliamentary law.

Do I now go back and strike my earlier assertions?

 

That is by the vote to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted.  I don't have a problem saying that a motion to "reconfirm" would be stated as a motion to Rescind (or even treated as one).  My problem is trying to square the effect of a defeated motion to "reconfirm" with p. 251 b.  

[Nathan Zook]

10 hours ago, J. J. said:

 

That is by the vote to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted.  I don't have a problem saying that a motion to "reconfirm" would be stated as a motion to Rescind (or even treated as one).  My problem is trying to square the effect of a defeated motion to "reconfirm" with p. 251 b.  

This was lending to my error.  I'm going to think about this situation a bit.  I want to break things down, because, among other things, the parties that I have been a part of have NOT been doing things this way.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/22/2019 at 11:50 PM, Lori Lukinuk said:

lol ... I like your answer also.  That's why I asked the question.😵 I'm torn.  I lean towards the original still being in effect as it has not been rescinded.  Some in the organization feel the defeat of the motion to reaffirm in essence rescinded the original motion.  My opinion is ... No it didn't, it is still alive and well.  Unless I hear a clearer answer on this forum.  My advice will be that in my opinion the motion to reaffirm was not in order and the original motion in still in effect.  If someone in the organization wishes to, they can give notice of a motion to rescind the original motion which would require a majority vote to adopt at the next meeting.  

Are we discussing a real situation in which a motion to reaffirm was actually moved and seconded, and not ruled out of order?

Because i would hope in real life the chair would rule the motion out of order.  I believe that if the motion failed it would not create an ambiguity, since a failed motion upholds the status quo, while a passed motion "reaffirms".   Thus the motion accomplishes nothing in either case.

Which is precisely why it should be ruled out of order at the outset.

[Nathan Zook]

17 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Are we discussing a real situation in which a motion to reaffirm was actually moved and seconded, and not ruled out of order?

Because i would hope in real life the chair would rule the motion out of order.  I believe that if the motion failed it would not create an ambiguity, since a failed motion upholds the status quo, while a passed motion "reaffirms".   Thus the motion accomplishes nothing in either case.

Which is precisely why it should be ruled out of order at the outset.

The original question was about a motion to reaffirm was permitted and then failed.  Apparently, this happened a long time ago, and is yet to be rectified.

[Lori Lukinuk]

I apologize for not clarifying some of the questions arising from the discussion in this thread.  I have been out of town and just arrived back last night.  

I will not produce the exact motion so that the organization cannot be identified.  It was however, "that X organization support a specific system."  This motion was adopted over 15 years ago and even then was very divisive.   About 7 years ago a motion to reaffirm support for the "specific system" was defeated.   I believe those who brought the reaffirming motion forward were thinking it would pass and garner further support and bring the issue back into the public eye with stronger support from the organization than originally received.  Once again, a very divisive motion.  No one raised a point of order and the meeting ended.  The issue of whether to support this "system" is still alive and well publicly and now the organization is split on what the official stance is for the organization.  Some feel the original adopted motion still stands, while others feel the defeated reaffirming motion in essence rescinded the original motion.  

[Nathan Zook]

What, take all the fun out by bringing up specifics?

The primary need of the organization would appear to be clarity regarding the actual situation.  To that end, I suggest the following course:

1) Make notice that you believe that the motion seven years ago to reaffirm was out of order, per RONR, 11th Ed.  Make further notice that if this point of order is sustained, that you will bring a motion to rescind the original motion from fifteen years ago.

- This notice serves two purposes.  First, it makes clear that the purpose of the point of order is not to quash those who are opposed to the system, but to clear the decks for a clean vote on what the assembly wants to do now.  Second, it allows the motion to rescind to succeed on a majority vote.

2) In response to those who would hold that the point of order is not timely, I would argue that the continuing confusion (which RONR anticipates) is a clear demonstration that a continuing breach in fact exists, and that the point of order should therefore be sustained. 

 

 

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

I am rather surprised that the ambiguous situation which apparently continues to exist due to rejection seven years ago of a motion to reaffirm has not long since been resolved as a consequence of a point of order being raised, leading to a ruling, perhaps followed by an appeal, all as described in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR.

I do not agree, however, that this could have been done, or should now be done, simply by raising a point of order asserting that the decision made by the assembly not to reaffirm the previously adopted motion is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach. No point of order having been raised at the time the motion to reaffirm was made, it is now too late to raise such a point of order. Instead, what should happen, and ordinarily does happen, is that, at some point in time, an action is proposed to be taken, or is taken, relying upon the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion, and a point of order is then timely raised concerning the validity of this subsequent action, necessitating a ruling as to the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion. As I said, I am surprised that this has not happened long ago.

Perhaps the rule should be that rejection of a motion to reaffirm is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach, but I am not willing to agree that it is now the rule.

[Guest Zev]

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Perhaps the rule should be that rejection of a motion to reaffirm is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach, but I am not willing to agree that it is now the rule.

...and thirty-nine postings ago...

Quote

I think the confusion is caused by the wording of this sentence by suggesting that an ambiguity actually exists. The solution is to rewrite this sentence and make clear that the motion is out of order and if it is admitted then its effect is nil regardless of the vote.

Thank you, Mr. H.

[Dan Honemann]

No confusion is caused by what is said in RONR on page 104, lines 24-31. That wording is perfectly clear, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see it changed any time soon. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/23/2019 at 2:51 AM, Guest Zev said:

I think the confusion is caused by the wording of this sentence by suggesting that an ambiguity actually exists. The solution is to rewrite this sentence and make clear that the motion is out of order and if it is admitted then its effect is nil regardless of the vote.

I think the language is already quite clear that such a motion is not in order, and for that exact reason--that if it were allowed confusion might occur.  Therefore, to avoid confusion, it is not allowed.  

Edited to add;

I could be wrong but I can't think of an instance where RONR specifies a two-part rule that prohibits something in part A, and then specifies in part B what to do if part A is ignored.

If a society were disposed toward breaching part A, why would we expect them to observe part B?

Edited March 4, 2019 at 08:22 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

2 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I could be wrong but I can't think of an instance where RONR specifies a two-part rule that prohibits something in part A, and then specifies in part B what to do if part A is ignored.

 

RONR does not, but the Bible does (do not steal, and when you steal, give it back plus, if memory serves, double). So it wouldn't be unheard of.

Although this rule is explaining why the motion is out of order, I don't think that makes the reason given (ambiguity would result) untrue. So I take it to mean that, if the motion is adopted despite being out of order, an ambiguous situation exists. I cannot think of a simpler textual interpretation, and I'm not sure why this has produced so much discussion.

Suppose I say "tie your shoe, or you're likely to trip and fall." Suppose you then do not trip and fall. Are you likely to trip and fall? Of course you are, that's the point of the warning (unless I'm lying, but in the case of RONR that's not a possibility). If you respond "well, it would be absurd for you to say not to do something, and then give the consequences of doing it" and argue that, therefore, you're not likely to trip and fall once you ignore my "rule," well, good luck to you.