If Rescind is postponed....

[Kay Crews]

A question has arisen. An action is taken at a general membership meeting of the garden club, which is held monthly. 

At a later meeting, a member moves to Rescind the previously adopted motion, with no notice. During debate, the motion to Rescind is postponed to the subsequent meeting.

Does the mere act of postponement to the next meeting constitute "notice," and does the vote requirement on the motion to Rescind now take a majority vote instead of 2/3? 

Thanks!

Kay

[Gary Novosielski]

11 minutes ago, Kay Crews said:

A question has arisen. An action is taken at a general membership meeting of the garden club, which is held monthly. 

At a later meeting, a member moves to Rescind the previously adopted motion, with no notice. During debate, the motion to Rescind is postponed to the subsequent meeting.

Does the mere act of postponement to the next meeting constitute "notice," and does the vote requirement on the motion to Rescind now take a majority vote instead of 2/3? 

Thanks!

Kay

That's a good question.  I think it should, but I'm not sure it does.

Stay tuned...

[Dan Honemann]

15 minutes ago, Kay Crews said:

A question has arisen. An action is taken at a general membership meeting of the garden club, which is held monthly. 

At a later meeting, a member moves to Rescind the previously adopted motion, with no notice. During debate, the motion to Rescind is postponed to the subsequent meeting.

Does the mere act of postponement to the next meeting constitute "notice," and does the vote requirement on the motion to Rescind now take a majority vote instead of 2/3? 

Thanks!

Kay

In my opinion, the answer to both questions is "no".

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

That's a good question.  I think it should, but I'm not sure it does.

Stay tuned...

 

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In my opinion, the answer to both questions is "no".

Hmmm.  It IS a good question, but I'm with Mr. Novosielski.  I think postponing the motion to the next meeting constitutes notice, just as much as if the member who moved to rescind had instead given verbal notice of her intent to rescind the original motion at the next meeting.  In both scenarios, those on attendance have been advised that the motion to rescind will be taken up at the next meeting.  

Edited October 18, 2019 at 08:07 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

 

Hmmm.  It IS a good question, but I'm with Mr. Novosielski.  I think postponing the motion to the next meeting constitutes notice, just as much as if the member who moved to rescind had instead given verbal notice of her intent to rescind the original motion at the next meeting.

The motion status remains unchanged.  If notice was given and the motion was postponed to the next meeting, no further notice is necessary.  If it wasn't given, it's status would not change either when it's postponed to the next meeting.

[Dan Honemann]

As defined in RONR (11th ed.), “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5).

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As defined in RONR (11th ed.), “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5).

Yes, I find that persuasive.  The motion has been made and the fact of whether or not previous notice was given is now baked into the parliamentary situation.

If possible, the best course of action would be to vote the motion down at the current meeting and give notice of intent to renew it at the next meeting.  But the time for that seems to have passed.

It seems to me that it would comport with the spirit of the rules to require only a majority vote at the next meeting, but that's not what the rules actually say.  And it appears impossible to give notice without voting down the motion first, since it will not be in order to renew the motion at the next meeting, should it fail then, and Reconsider won't help either.

[J. J.]

I agree with the "no."  That said, there would not be a problem of giving notice at the meeting where the is postponed, and at the next meeting withdrawing the motion that postponed and then making a fresh motion to rescind (which would have notice).

This might be more important in cases where the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted is used. 

[Guest Zev]

We have been down this road before. (Started by Matt Schafer, Feb 08 2013 05:44 AM)

While it is correct that “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” it seems to me to be really whacky that the mover of the motion must withdraw his motion, without it being postponed, and then give previous notice in the same meeting, and re-introduce his motion at the next meeting in order to lower the voting threshold. If the motion had been postponed would saying "and I give notice" help any?

[J. J.]

36 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

We have been down this road before. (Started by Matt Schafer, Feb 08 2013 05:44 AM)

While it is correct that “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” it seems to me to be really whacky that the mover of the motion must withdraw his motion, without it being postponed, and then give previous notice in the same meeting, and re-introduce his motion at the next meeting in order to lower the voting threshold. If the motion had been postponed would saying "and I give notice" help any?

I'm not certain of what thread this is.

I do not find any compelling reason to rule the giving of notice out of order.  I think it would have to separate, however.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, wacky it is, then. Mr. Honemann's second intervention seems pretty obvious to me. Even I could have thought of it. 😜

[Kay Crews]

11 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

As defined in RONR (11th ed.), “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” (p. 121, ll. 23-30). Once a motion has been made, it is no longer possible to give “previous notice” of an intention to make it (p. 306, ll. 26-27; p. 312, l. 5).

 

9 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

We have been down this road before. (Started by Matt Schafer, Feb 08 2013 05:44 AM)

While it is correct that “previous notice” is an announcement that a motion “will be introduced” it seems to me to be really whacky that the mover of the motion must withdraw his motion, without it being postponed, and then give previous notice in the same meeting, and re-introduce his motion at the next meeting in order to lower the voting threshold. If the motion had been postponed would saying "and I give notice" help any?

I find both of these statements to be true, and certainly agree with Mr. Honemann's logic. I'll also point out that the kind of wrapping around the axle that this requires (as pointed by Guest Zev) is what makes it difficult to convince some people of the "efficiency" of parliamentary procedure in modern meetings. 

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, Kay Crews said:

I'll also point out that the kind of wrapping around the axle that this requires (as pointed by Guest Zev) is what makes it difficult to convince some people of the "efficiency" of parliamentary procedure in modern meetings. 

But this "wrapping around the axle" (as you describe it) is the foreseeable result of a member hastily making a motion to Rescind instead of simply giving notice of intent to make it at the next monthly meeting of this garden club.

The rules are clear. If a member makes a motion to Rescind without having given previous notice of intent to do so, the vote required for adoption will be either (i) a two-thirds vote, or (ii) the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

And what is it about "modern meetings" that make rules of parliamentary procedure appear less efficient then they did previously? Are you referring to something other than deliberative assemblies?

 

 

 

[J. J.]

6 hours ago, Kay Crews said:

 

I find both of these statements to be true, and certainly agree with Mr. Honemann's logic. I'll also point out that the kind of wrapping around the axle that this requires (as pointed by Guest Zev) is what makes it difficult to convince some people of the "efficiency" of parliamentary procedure in modern meetings. 

I do not see this as being "inefficient" in any way.  The member making the motion in September, for example, can give notice with exceptional ease.  At the next session, October, the assembly may consider the "September motion," and the noticed "October motion" may be made and considered.  It should be acceptable as there has been a rather important change in circumstances, a  different vote requirement (p. 337, 1)). 

To me, that shows a great deal of flexibility within the rules.

[Joshua Katz]

24 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I do not see this as being "inefficient" in any way.  The member making the motion in September, for example, can give notice with exceptional ease.  At the next session, October, the assembly may consider the "September motion," and the noticed "October motion" may be made and considered.  It should be acceptable as there has been a rather important change in circumstances, a  different vote requirement (p. 337, 1)). 

 

But we're talking about perception. What's actually going to happen is that the member is going to move to rescind, it's going to be postponed, and one of two things will happen. Either nothing will happen, and at the next meeting the moving member will be surprised to find that the voting threshold remains 2/3, but it would have been a majority had he said "notice" instead, or the member will say "I give notice, then," a point of order will be raised, it will be well-taken - and the chair will inform the member that he can actually give notice of a second motion, then at the next meeting withdraw the first motion and move the second (even though the difference between this and what he meant to do is mere formality). Do you really think that this will be perceived as anything other than the rules clogging up business for their own sake?

[J. J.]

2 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

But we're talking about perception. What's actually going to happen is that the member is going to move to rescind, it's going to be postponed, and one of two things will happen. Either nothing will happen, and at the next meeting the moving member will be surprised to find that the voting threshold remains 2/3, but it would have been a majority had he said "notice" instead, or the member will say "I give notice, then," a point of order will be raised, it will be well-taken - and the chair will inform the member that he can actually give notice of a second motion, then at the next meeting withdraw the first motion and move the second (even though the difference between this and what he meant to do is mere formality). Do you really think that this will be perceived as anything other than the rules clogging up business for their own sake?

The member can ask.  I would be of the opinion that a good chair would note that, if the motion was postponed it will still require a 2/3 vote,. e.g.   "If the motion to postpone is adopted the motion to rescind will still require a 2/3  vote."  Hopefully the member asks, via parliamentary inquiry, "How could this this motion be adopted by a majority vote?"

[Joshua Katz]

2 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Hopefully the member asks, via parliamentary inquiry, "How could this this motion be adopted by a majority vote?"

And is then informed of a convoluted process that is, in actuality, very much the same as counting the postponed motion as notice, or at least as allowing him to give notice now without the formality of withdrawing the motion next time. If you don't predict eye rolling when the chair explains this, I don't know what to tell you.

[Dan Honemann]

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

But we're talking about perception. What's actually going to happen is that the member is going to move to rescind, it's going to be postponed, and one of two things will happen. Either nothing will happen, and at the next meeting the moving member will be surprised to find that the voting threshold remains 2/3, but it would have been a majority had he said "notice" instead, or the member will say "I give notice, then," a point of order will be raised, it will be well-taken - and the chair will inform the member that he can actually give notice of a second motion, then at the next meeting withdraw the first motion and move the second (even though the difference between this and what he meant to do is mere formality). Do you really think that this will be perceived as anything other than the rules clogging up business for their own sake?

You say that what's actually going to happen is that "the member is going to move to rescind ...", when, if he fears he will not have the votes, what he should be doing is giving notice of intent to make this motion at the next monthly meeting. Nothing inefficient about that.

[Richard Brown]

10 minutes ago, J. J. said:

The member can ask.  I would be of the opinion that a good chair would note that, if the motion was postponed it will still require a 2/3 vote,. e.g.   "If the motion to postpone is adopted the motion to rescind will still require a 2/3  vote."  Hopefully the member asks, via parliamentary inquiry, "How could this this motion be adopted by a majority vote?"

And this scenario, as well as the comment above that one by Joshua Katz, can all be avoided with the common sense interpretation that postponing a motion to the next meeting amounts to giving notice that the motion will be taken up at the next meeting and that the vote threshold at that  meeting will be reduced to a majority vote. Notice has indeed been effectively given. 

Edited October 19, 2019 at 04:05 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[J. J.]

6 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

And is then informed of a convoluted process that is, in actuality, very much the same as counting the postponed motion as notice, or at least as allowing him to give notice now without the formality of withdrawing the motion next time. If you don't predict eye rolling when the chair explains this, I don't know what to tell you.

RONR does not exist to prevent eye rolling.   The member has two courses of action and may follow both simultaneously.  

[Dan Honemann]

Abiding by the rules is what makes common sense to me.

[J. J.]

5 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

And this scenario, as well as the comment above that one by Joshua Katz, can all be avoided with the common sense interpretation that postponing a motion to the next meeting amounts to giving notice that the motion will be taken up at the next meeting and that the vote threshold at that  meeting will be reduced to a majority vote. Notice has indeed been effectively given. 

Since the postponement is not required to be in the call, there would still be a problem.  No one has informed absentees or the assembly that a the motion will be introduce, effectively, anew.

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

RONR does not exist to prevent eye rolling.  

No one said it does. Here's the statement I'm agreeing with:

8 hours ago, Kay Crews said:

I'll also point out that the kind of wrapping around the axle that this requires (as pointed by Guest Zev) is what makes it difficult to convince some people of the "efficiency" of parliamentary procedure in modern meetings. 

The more you make people roll their eyes, the more resistant they will be to following procedure, because the less convinced they will be that it makes their meetings less annoying.

7 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

And this scenario, as well as the comment above that one by Joshua Katz, can all be avoided with the common sense interpretation that postponing a motion to the next meeting amounts to giving notice that the motion will be taken up at the next meeting and that the vote threshold at that  meeting will be reduced to a majority vote. Notice has indeed been effectively given. 

If a motion has been postponed, people know it will be taken up at the time to which it is postponed, just as they know it will be made if they give notice. What, precisely, is gained by the twisty-turny procedure advocated in this thread? What rights are protected that otherwise would not be? What efficiency is gained?

[Joshua Katz]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

Since the postponement is not required to be in the call, there would still be a problem.  No one has informed absentees or the assembly that a the motion will be introduce, effectively, anew.

If it's postponed to the next regular meeting, there is no call to the meeting.

[Richard Brown]

1 minute ago, J. J. said:

Since the postponement is not required to be in the call, there would still be a problem.  No one has informed absentees or the assembly that a the motion will be introduce, effectively, anew.

Who is talking about a call? We are talking about giving notice at the previous meeting.