If Rescind is postponed....

[J. J.]

Just now, Joshua Katz said:

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

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.

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?

The process, however, is "efficient," as it give the member making the motion two paths to achieving it. 

[J. J.]

1 minute ago, Richard Brown said:

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

Even excluding a need for the notice to be mentioned in the call of the meeting.  No one in the assembly has actually been given notice. 

 

[Richard Brown]

31 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Even excluding a need for the notice to be mentioned in the call of the meeting.  No one in the assembly has actually been given notice. 

 

JJ, my friend, they have received it just as effectively, and maybe even more so, than if member A stood up at the end of the  meeting, as people were preparing to leave and some have perhaps already left, and announced, “Madam president I give notice that at the next meeting I will move to rescind  the motion we adopted last month to add a skylight to the clubhouse roof”. 

By having just debated the motion to rescind for 15 minutes before it was postponed to the next meeting, members are WELL aware that it will be coming up at the next meeting and know much more about it than if the member has just made a simple announcement at the end of the meeting. 

Edited October 19, 2019 at 04:50 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Gary Novosielski]

1 hour 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.

Previous notice, if given at the meeting, is not required to be in the call either, so the problem (if any) would exist either way. 

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

JJ, my friend, they have received it just as effectively, and maybe even more so, than if member A stood up at the end of the  meeting, as people were preparing to leave and some have perhaps already left, and announced, “Madam president I give notice that at the next meeting I will move to rescind  the motion we adopted last month to add a skylight to the clubhouse roof”. 

By having just debated the motion to rescind for 15 minutes before it was postponed to the next meeting, members are WELL aware that it will be coming up at the next meeting and know much more about it than if the member has just made a simple announcement at the end of the meeting. 

I agree that the promotion of all that is Good, Right, and Proper would not be damaged in the slightest if the rules held that previous notice is satisfied whenever members are well aware that the motion will be considered at the next meeting.  

But the operative word above is "if."  And I will stipulate that if things were different they wouldn't be the same.

Nevertheless, previous notice, as currently defined, means notice of intent to introduce a motion, not to continue consideration of a motion already introduced. 

Edited October 19, 2019 at 07:11 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Joshua Katz]

13 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Nevertheless, previous notice, as currently defined, means notice of intent to introduce a motion, not to continue consideration of a motion already introduced. 

It gets really hard to convince people that following the rules of parliamentary procedure is not formality for its own sake when some of the rules appear to be there for their own sake. Granted, this particular situation does not arise that often, but if it does, it will produce a room full of people convinced that parliamentary procedure is just a game.

[Dan Honemann]

16 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

It gets really hard to convince people that following the rules of parliamentary procedure is not formality for its own sake when some of the rules appear to be there for their own sake. Granted, this particular situation does not arise that often, but if it does, it will produce a room full of people convinced that parliamentary procedure is just a game.

If a member makes a motion which requires a certain vote for its adoption, he should not be surprised that it will take that vote to adopt it.

[Joshua Katz]

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about telling that member that he can, in fact, accomplish what he wants, with the vote threshold he wants, but only if he says the right magic words, giving notice of a different but identical motion, and then withdrawing the one that was postponed, despite the fact that no one gains a thing from this process except that we get to say "well, those are the rules." Except, as we point out here repeatedly, they aren't (usually) the rules in some over-arching sense. Rather, they are the rules for those organizations which choose to be bound by them, and it would behoove us to encourage them to do so.

[Dan Honemann]

5 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about telling that member that he can, in fact, accomplish what he wants, with the vote threshold he wants, but only if he says the right magic words, giving notice of a different but identical motion, and then withdrawing the one that was postponed, despite the fact that no one gains a thing from this process except that we get to say "well, those are the rules." Except, as we point out here repeatedly, they aren't (usually) the rules in some over-arching sense. Rather, they are the rules for those organizations which choose to be bound by them, and it would behoove us to encourage them to do so.

Okay.  🙂

 

[Guest Zev]

Question: Would anything in this book be upset if the expression "...will be introduced..." (p. 121 l. 25) is changed to "...will be considered..." and would this problem go away if such a change were to be made?

[Gary Novosielski]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Question: Would anything in this book be upset if the expression "...will be introduced..." (p. 121 l. 25) is changed to "...will be considered..." and would this problem go away if such a change were to be made?

I do not think that the entire structure of the rules would crumble, or even vibrate excessively, but neither do I expect to see such a change in RONR12.  📖  

There is something to be said for bringing a postponed matter again before the assembly in a state resembling, as closely as possible, the state it was in at the time it was postponed.  

[J. J.]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

That's not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about telling that member that he can, in fact, accomplish what he wants, with the vote threshold he wants, but only if he says the right magic words, giving notice of a different but identical motion, and then withdrawing the one that was postponed, despite the fact that no one gains a thing from this process except that we get to say "well, those are the rules." Except, as we point out here repeatedly, they aren't (usually) the rules in some over-arching sense. Rather, they are the rules for those organizations which choose to be bound by them, and it would behoove us to encourage them to do so.

Since it is incredibly easy to comply, why is this a problem?

[J. J.]

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Question: Would anything in this book be upset if the expression "...will be introduced..." (p. 121 l. 25) is changed to "...will be considered..." and would this problem go away if such a change were to be made?

Well, you could have a problem relating to ASPA.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

JJ, my friend, they have received it just as effectively, and maybe even more so, than if member A stood up at the end of the  meeting, as people were preparing to leave and some have perhaps already left, and announced, “Madam president I give notice that at the next meeting I will move to rescind  the motion we adopted last month to add a skylight to the clubhouse roof”. 

By having just debated the motion to rescind for 15 minutes before it was postponed to the next meeting, members are WELL aware that it will be coming up at the next meeting and know much more about it than if the member has just made a simple announcement at the end of the meeting. 

I do not agree that they have received notice.  Keep in mind that the rules may be suspended to take up the postponed motion at this meeting.  Just because the motion was postponed to the next session does mean it it will not be considered  this session.