Amend something previously adopted

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

During a 2010 National Association of the Deaf conference at Philadelphia, a motion was made for the organization to work with a member of the US House of Representatives to get a bill introduced in congress naming March 15 to April 15 the National Deaf History month.

During the 2016 conference at Phoenix, a resolution was made to change the date to the full month of April as the National Deaf History Month.

From 2010 to 2016, no action was taken by a committee or the board.  As of today, and with the 2020 conference coming in Chicago, nothing has happened to the motion.

From what I understand, a resolution is a motion and the 2016 resolution should have been called out-of-order and since it did not happen, it is null and void.  What should have happened was that a delegate should have made a motion to amend something previously adopted, not propose a resolution.  Also the original motion has no time limit since no action has taken place.

Your thoughts or comments?

[Atul Kapur]

You state, "a resolution was made to change the date", presumably the date in the 2010 motion.

In that case it was a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted made in the form of a resolution.

I see no problem here.

[Weldon Merritt]

3 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I see no problem here.

I think you're probably right. But perhaps not, depending on the wording of the resolution. If the resolution was worded something like, "Resoloved, that the proposed dates for the Deaf History Month be changed to the month of April," then I agree that it effectively was a motion to Amend Something Previoulsy Adopted, and all is well. But if instead it purported to be a brand new main motion with no reference to the previously adopted, and still in force, resolution, then it would seem to be to be null and void unless it was adopted with the requisite vote. Of course, to get a ruling on the issue, I believe a Point of Order will need to be made and ruled on at another convention.

[Atul Kapur]

You're absolutely correct, Weldon (and you don't need me to tell you that because I never doubt it). But I took Mr. Apodaca's exact words, that it was a resolution to change the dates.

[Weldon Merritt]

56 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 I took Mr. Apodaca's exact words, that it was a resolution to change the dates.

And that's why I said that you're probably right. But people sometimes use inexact langauge to describe what happened, so I thought it worth pointing out the other possibilty. 

[Rob Elsman]

8 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

But if instead it purported to be a brand new main motion with no reference to the previously adopted, and still in force, resolution, then it would seem to be to be null and void unless it was adopted with the requisite vote.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 251, item b).

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

On 3/2/2020 at 9:18 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I think you're probably right. But perhaps not, depending on the wording of the resolution. If the resolution was worded something like, "Resoloved, that the proposed dates for the Deaf History Month be changed to the month of April," then I agree that it effectively was a motion to Amend Something Previoulsy Adopted, and all is well. But if instead it purported to be a brand new main motion with no reference to the previously adopted, and still in force, resolution, then it would seem to be to be null and void unless it was adopted with the requisite vote. Of course, to get a ruling on the issue, I believe a Point of Order will need to be made and ruled on at another convention.

Weldon,

The President of NAD just sent me an email.  Here it is:

Title:  National Deaf History Month Date Change

Code:  2016-AZ-RES-02

Deaf Culture and History Section

Whereas, the 2005-2006 Ad Hoc Committee proposed March 13 – April 15 as the National Deaf History Month

Whereas, the proposed National Deaf History month proclamation was attempted multiple of times to the US Congress.

Therefore, that the National Deaf History Month date shall change to April month only by focus on the first national deaf school, April 15; and ASL Day, April 15.

Resolved, that after passing the change to the April month, we shall ask for proclamation of National Deaf History month to the US Congress before the presidency term ends this year.

 

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Weldon,

The President of NAD just sent me an email.  Here it is:

Title:  National Deaf History Month Date Change

Code:  2016-AZ-RES-02

Deaf Culture and History Section

Whereas, the 2005-2006 Ad Hoc Committee proposed March 13 – April 15 as the National Deaf History Month

Whereas, the proposed National Deaf History month proclamation was attempted multiple of times to the US Congress.

Therefore, that the National Deaf History Month date shall change to April month only by focus on the first national deaf school, April 15; and ASL Day, April 15.

Resolved, that after passing the change to the April month, we shall ask for proclamation of National Deaf History month to the US Congress before the presidency term ends this year.

 

Thanks, Mark. Given that language, I fully agree with Dr. Kapur's initial response. While I might have phrased it differently had I been the drafter, the reolution clearly is intended as an amendment to the previous resolution, so there is no problem.

And to anticipate another possible question, even if it didn't meet one of the requisite voting thresholds for ASPA (you don't say by what vote it was adopted), it's too late to raise a Point of Order on that issue. It's not one of the listed categories of contiunung breach.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

I would like to update you about this.  In my original statement, I stated:

From 2010 to 2016, no action was taken by a committee or the board.  As of today, and with the 2020 conference coming in Chicago, nothing has happened to the motion.

The President and I met with the executive director and he mentioned that he did act upon the 2010 motion.  He met with congressmen and congresswomen but had luck.  He was still working towards having congress propose a bill for Deaf History Month.  

So, in this case the 2016 resolution is out of order because it is still being acted upon?

Mark

[J. J.]

10 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I would like to update you about this.  In my original statement, I stated:

From 2010 to 2016, no action was taken by a committee or the board.  As of today, and with the 2020 conference coming in Chicago, nothing has happened to the motion.

The President and I met with the executive director and he mentioned that he did act upon the 2010 motion.  He met with congressmen and congresswomen but had luck.  He was still working towards having congress propose a bill for Deaf History Month.  

So, in this case the 2016 resolution is out of order because it is still being acted upon?

Mark

No.  The assembly fully acted on the motion, even it it was not carried out.  There was no more that the assembly need to do to adopt the motion.

[Weldon Merritt]

15 minutes ago, Mark Apodaca said:

I would like to update you about this.  In my original statement, I stated:

From 2010 to 2016, no action was taken by a committee or the board.  As of today, and with the 2020 conference coming in Chicago, nothing has happened to the motion.

The President and I met with the executive director and he mentioned that he did act upon the 2010 motion.  He met with congressmen and congresswomen but had luck.  He was still working towards having congress propose a bill for Deaf History Month.  

So, in this case the 2016 resolution is out of order because it is still being acted upon?

Mark

I think you probably mean that the ED had no luck. But the fact that the ED is still trying to carry out the intent of the original motion does not necessarilly render the later one out of order. Since congress has not yet adopted anything, I see no reason the assembly could not legitimately adopt a motion to change the dates.

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

This is a tough one.  He gave the congressmen/women documents with the dates.  Now, he has to go back and give new documents with updated dates?  Congress is the final place in deciding.

 

Mark

[Weldon Merritt]

1 hour ago, Mark Apodaca said:

This is a tough one.  He gave the congressmen/women documents with the dates.  Now, he has to go back and give new documents with updated dates?  Congress is the final place in deciding.

 

Mark

Looks that way to me. Of course, Comgress is free to ignore the new dates and stick with the original ones. Or select other dates of their own choosing. Or drop the whole idea.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

This is a tough one.  He gave the congressmen/women documents with the dates.  Now, he has to go back and give new documents with updated dates?  Congress is the final place in deciding.

 

Mark

If the last time the Executive Director gave out those documents was before the 2016 motion / resolution was adopted, then I don't think any of them will notice that the dates are different.

If the documents were given after the 2016 date change, then Yes, he has to go back and give the updated dates.

Not sure why that's a tough one.

Edited March 27, 2020 at 05:25 AM by Atul Kapur

[Mark Apodaca, PRP]

Tough one because NAD is made up of delegates and in 2010, the delegates felt strongly about the dates.  Six years later, a different group proposes the resolution without knowing about 2010 and the dates were changed.  Former delegates of 2010 are challenging the 2016 proposal because 2016 was not aware.  

I read RONR on page 305 ll 20-23 saying that when something is done, as a result of the vote of the main motion, that is impossible to undo.  What was "done" was that the executive director already acted.  

Weldon has a good point where the motion is competed once congress introduces the bill and the US representatives vote on it.  

Edited March 31, 2020 at 02:12 AM by Mark Apodaca

[Atul Kapur]

11 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Former delegates of 2010 are challenging the 2016 proposal

Former delegates of 2010, or 2016 for that matter, have no status in 2020. Your quote of the 2016 resolution clearly shows that it was a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Beyond that, each session is independent of the other and the 2010 delegates cannot tie the hands of the 2016 delegates. 

[Gary Novosielski]

16 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Tough one because NAD is made up of delegates and in 2010, the delegates felt strongly about the dates.  Six years later, a different group proposes the resolution without knowing about 2010 and the dates were changed.  Former delegates of 2010 are challenging the 2016 proposal because 2016 was not aware.  

I read RONR on page 305 ll 20-23 saying that when something is done, as a result of the vote of the main motion, that is impossible to undo.  What was "done" was that the executive director already acted.  

Weldon has a good point where the motion is competed once congress introduces the bill and the US representatives vote on it.  

A motion is not complete just because a vote was taken; if it were, every motion would be impervious to change from Amend Something Previously Adopted.  The standard is that ASPA can be applied to any motion, or portion of a motion, that has not yet been carried out.  For example, a motion to paint the clubhouse red may be amended well after passage of the motion, so long as the clubhouse has not yet been painted red.

RONR prohibits assemblies from tying the hands of future assemblies.  If the dates for a future meeting were set by the 2010 convention, and the dates have not yet arrived, the motion has not, in my view, been carried out, and is subject to amendment by a later action of a duly authorized assembly. 

The opinion of the 2010 delegates that the new dates are not optimal does not carry any weight beyond whatever influence they can have on those who currently have a vote.

Edited March 31, 2020 at 06:26 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, Mark Apodaca said:

Tough one because NAD is made up of delegates and in 2010, the delegates felt strongly about the dates.  Six years later, a different group proposes the resolution without knowing about 2010 and the dates were changed.  Former delegates of 2010 are challenging the 2016 proposal because 2016 was not aware.  

I read RONR on page 305 ll 20-23 saying that when something is done, as a result of the vote of the main motion, that is impossible to undo.  What was "done" was that the executive director already acted.  

Weldon has a good point where the motion is competed once congress introduces the bill and the US representatives vote on it.  

RONR provides that a motion to Rescind is not in order "When something has been done, as a result of the vote on the main motion, that is impossible to undo. (The unexecuted part of an order, however, can be rescinded or amended.)" (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 308)

It is not possible to "undo" any communications the Executive Director has already sent regarding this matter. It is possible, however, for the Executive Director (and others who act on the motion) to change any future communications on this matter to reflect the organization's new preferred date.