Rescind or reconsider prior action or decision

[Josh Martin]

22 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Is the right of a board member to resend or amend something previously adopted as strong or significant a right as making a main motion?

Sure, why not?

RONR doesn’t really get into philosophical questions like this, but I personally am inclined to think the right to make one motion is as important as the right to make another.

22 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

If the answer is yes, could a special rule of order be made that states that a board member cannot make motions?

A special rule of of order cannot be adopted which prevents a particular board member from making motions. A special rule of order preventing all board members from making motions would be in order, although it’s not clear how the board would then conduct business (perhaps the rule would specify this). Such a rule, however, can only be adopted by the membership.

Similarly, a rule which prohibits or limits the making of motions to bring a question again before the assembly (for all board members, not a single member) is in order, but it may only be adopted by the membership.

[Atul Kapur]

Le's simplify it even further. Go back and read Mr. Martin's response that was just endorsed by Mr. Honemann. The essence of the answer was that an assembly with the proper authority can create a Special Rule of Order to prohibit reconsideration of past decisions. The assembly with that authority would be the general membership meeting of the organization.

Equating that with a prohibition on making any motions is not correct.

Edited June 17, 2019 at 01:16 PM by Atul Kapur

[BabbsJohnson]

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Sure, why not?

RONR doesn’t really get into philosophical questions like this, but I personally am inclined to think the right to make one motion is as important as the right to make another.

A special rule of of order cannot be adopted which prevents a particular board member from making motions. A special rule of order preventing all board members from making motions would be in order, although it’s not clear how the board would then conduct business (perhaps the rule would specify this). Such a rule, however, can only be adopted by the membership.

Similarly, a rule which prohibits or limits the making of motions to bring a question again before the assembly (for all board members, not a single member) is in order, but it may only be adopted by the membership.

 When you say it may only be adopted by the membership, do you mean the entire membership body? Similarly to what is needed to amand by-laws?

[BabbsJohnson]

6 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

Le's simplify it even further. Go back and read Mr. Martin's response that was just endorsed by Mr. Honemann. The essence of the answer was that an assembly with the proper authority can create a Special Rule of Order to prohibit reconsideration of past decisions. The assembly with that authority would be the general membership meeting of the organization.

Equating that with a prohibition on making any motions is not correct.

So are you saying that bringing a motion before the assembly to rescind a past action or decision is not a right?  Or are you saying that it is a right that can be taken away by the membership only (by a vote of the membership) or by a vote at a meeting of the membership? Because a membership meeting could be comprised of two members... the entire membership voting body is many more (in my case, over 300).

[BabbsJohnson]

12 hours ago, J. J. said:

However, RONR permits its rules to be superseded by a special rule of order in most cases (p. 16, ll. 1-2).

RONR says two things.  The board cannot establish a special rule that runs counter a rule in RONR; most rules in RONR can be superseded by a special rule.  If you assume the former, then the latter cannot be true. 

 OK ...so is a special rule of order only temporary, or can it be permanent?

 Is there such a thing as a standing special rule of order?

[jstackpo]

[Something happened to your question between the time I read it and typed this reply.]

"Right of a member" is the SAME in either case.

A motion to rescind/amend something previously adopted (R/ASPA) IS a main motion - p. 305.

Edited June 17, 2019 at 01:48 PM by jstackpo

[Josh Martin]

52 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

When you say it may only be adopted by the membership, do you mean the entire membership body?

The membership of the society, at a meeting of the society. It requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

48 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Because a membership meeting could be comprised of two members... the entire membership voting body is many more (in my case, over 300).

What is the quorum for a meeting of the membership? (Also remember that board members are likely also members of the society.)

47 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 OK ...so is a special rule of order only temporary, or can it be permanent?

 Is there such a thing as a standing special rule of order?

Special rules of order are permanent until amended or rescinded.

 

[J. J.]

45 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

 OK ...so is a special rule of order only temporary, or can it be permanent?

 Is there such a thing as a standing special rule of order?

A special rule of order is permanent until rescinded or amended (or superseded by a bylaw).  Note that many rules of order can suspended, even for the entire session. 

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

This question was asked by the OP:

"Can a board make a special rule of order or implement a rule on an  agreement of some kind that says that a member can never bring up a past decision for reconsideration?"

Some subsequent responses seem to question the correctness of this response by Mr. Martin, but they shouldn't have. 

I'm seeing real problems with this answer.

12 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

 

My interpretation of the rule in question has been that it places additional limitations upon the rules a subordinate board may adopt - that is, that such a board may only adopt special rules of order which, for instance, address a subject not covered in RONR, or which involve a rule which specifically mentions the possibility of a special rule of order (such as the rule concerning the number and length of speeches in debate).

If this is not correct, and a subordinate board is indeed free to adopt any special rules of order for its own use that it wishes (except to the extent that such rules conflict with other rules of the society or with rules in RONR which may only be superseded by a rule in the bylaws), then I agree that the board could adopt such a rule for its own meetings.

The first is the specific mention of a special rule in RONR. 

For example, RONR notes that a special rule can be adopted to require something other than a majority to order a roll call vote (p. 420, ll. 10-19), but it does not permit a special rule to be adopted to permit a roll call vote to be ordered on specific motions.  The board wants to adopt a special rule "that a roll call vote be ordered on any motion before the board that authorizes an expenditure of more that $500.00."  Since this is not specifically mentioned, such a rule would be beyond the board, according to this theory.   Is that correct?

The second is the "ordering" aspect.  The assembly adopts a motion instructing the board "to conduct a roll call vote on any motion before the board that authorizes an expenditure of more that $500.00."  Would they be able to do that without adopting a rule of order?

[Dan Honemann]

7 minutes ago, J. J. said:

For example, RONR notes that a special rule can be adopted to require something other than a majority to order a roll call vote (p. 420, ll. 10-19), but it does not permit a special rule to be adopted to permit a roll call vote to be ordered on specific motions.  The board wants to adopt a special rule "that a roll call vote be ordered on any motion before the board that authorizes an expenditure of more that $500.00."  Since this is not specifically mentioned, such a rule would be beyond the board, according to this theory.   Is that correct?

No, it is not correct. A special rule of order such as the one which you have quoted above does not conflict with any of the rules in RONR.

 

[J. J.]

18 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, it is not correct. A special rule of order such as the one which you have quoted above does not conflict with any of the rules in RONR.

 

Would a special rule, "Amendments to amendments of main motions shall not be in order," quality as a rule conflicting with RONR?  If so, could the board adopt that rule?

[Dan Honemann]

4 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Would a special rule, "Amendments to amendments of main motions shall not be in order," quality as a rule conflicting with RONR?  If so, could the board adopt that rule?

Such a special rule of order obviously conflicts with the rule in RONR found on page 132, lines 12-17.

[J. J.]

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Such a special rule of order obviously conflicts with the rule in RONR found on page 132, lines 12-17.

And it is your opinion that the board could not adopt such a rule? 

[Dan Honemann]

5 minutes ago, J. J. said:

And it is your opinion that the board could not adopt such a rule? 

Yes it is; I've already said as much. The sentence on page 486, lines 17-19 , means exactly what it says.

[J. J.]

Then to my second question, the assembly adopts this motion "the board be instructed not entertain amendments to amendments of main motions."   This is an instruction and is not adopted by the vote needed to adopt a rule of order.  Is this instruction in order and binding on the board? 

[Dan Honemann]

J.J., I'm afraid that this discussion has already been allowed to wander too far afield. If you want to raise additional questions, I suggest you start your own thread.

[BabbsJohnson]

36 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes it is; I've already said as much. The sentence on page 486, lines 17-19 , means exactly what it says.

So just to be clear,  it hasn’t been made clear already,  can a board make a special rule of order that no board member can make the incidental motion to rescind, repeal, annul (or amend) something previously adopted?

I was under the impression from previous answers that making such a motion is a right that should not be taken away by another rule.

[J. J.]

8 minutes ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I was under the impression from previous answers that making such a motion is a right that should not be taken away by another rule.

I think the only question is if the board to make this rule, not that there is a right for any member to specific motion.

An assembly could adopt a rule that would prohibit the making of a certain motion, including R/ASPA.  The rules could also be suspended to prohibit the making of a certain motion during an entire session. 

[BabbsJohnson]

11 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I think the only question is if the board to make this rule, not that there is a right for any member to specific motion.

An assembly could adopt a rule that would prohibit the making of a certain motion, including R/ASPA.  The rules could also be suspended to prohibit the making of a certain motion during an entire session. 

Ok, so an assembly could adopt a rule, and if it were that no one could ever make a motion to R/ASPA would be in effect permanently, since no one could ever rescind it?

Edited June 17, 2019 at 05:15 PM by .oOllXllOo.
Add words

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Ok, so an assembly could adopt a rule, and if it were that no one could ever make a motion to R/ASPA would be in effect permanently, since no one could ever rescind it?

No, that is not correct because the rule is a rule of order an can be suspended by a two thirds vote.

Edited to add:  The rule could, in theory, remain in effect permanently, but that may not be the case because it can be suspended by a two thirds vote to permit a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted... including the amendment or  rescission of the rule itself.

Edited June 17, 2019 at 07:24 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[BabbsJohnson]

32 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

No, that is not correct because the rule is a rule of order an can be suspended by a two thirds vote.

Edited to add:  The rule could, in theory, remain in effect permanently, but that may not be the case because it can be suspended by a two thirds vote to permit a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted... including the amendment or  rescission of the rule itself.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. 

[Josh Martin]

4 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

So just to be clear,  it hasn’t been made clear already,  can a board make a special rule of order that no board member can make the incidental motion to rescind, repeal, annul (or amend) something previously adopted?

I do not think a subordinate board may adopt such a rule, but the membership could. Such a rule may be suspended, so it would seem that if such a rule is adopted, it will be necessary to suspend the rules first (which requires a 2/3 vote and is not debatable) before making any motion to bring a motion to bring a question before the assembly.

4 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

I was under the impression from previous answers that making such a motion is a right that should not be taken away by another rule.

It is correct that members have the right to make motions, including motions to bring a question before the assembly, but this fact does not mean that a special rule of order which generally limits such rights is not in order.

4 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Ok, so an assembly could adopt a rule, and if it were that no one could ever make a motion to R/ASPA would be in effect permanently, since no one could ever rescind it?

The rule could be suspended by a 2/3 vote.