Why can recind or amend something previous adopted

[Guest Puzzeling]

Why can remind or amend something previously adopted. Not be reconsidered after adoption?

Not as criticism (yet) but just for learning and information

[Dan Honemann]

Actually, this is an excellent question.

[Guest Puzzeling]

22 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Actually, this is an excellent question.

Thanks

(But I thought that if there would be only one person who would know, it would be you)

I was thinking maybe because the number of voters in favour would be at least 2/3 of the vote.

And the same number of voters can suspend the rules to allow reconsideration of the motion. (After adoption)

(But this is only a guess)

 

[Dan Honemann]

21 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

Thanks

(But I thought that if there would be only one person who would know, it would be you)

I was thinking maybe because the number of voters in favour would be at least 2/3 of the vote.

And the same number of voters can suspend the rules to allow reconsideration of the motion. (After adoption)

(But this is only a guess)

 

The motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted may or may not have required a two-thirds vote for its adoption, but even assuming that it did I do not think that this would be any reason to preclude a motion to reconsider the vote on it when it has been adopted.

[George Mervosh]

It seems that all of the M/B class motions are the same in this regard.  So the answer lies there, somewhere, in the characteristics of those kinds of motions it seems. 

Edited November 2, 2020 at 04:57 PM by George Mervosh

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

It seems that all of the M/B class motions are the same in this regard.  So the answer lies there, somewhere, in the characteristics of those kinds of motions it seems. 

Well, at least SDC 8 for Lay on the Table and Reconsider explain why they can't be reconsidered.

[George Mervosh]

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, at least SDC 8 for Lay on the Table and Reconsider explain why they can't be reconsidered.

Yes indeed.  It seems that an affirmative vote on the motions listed on t50-t51 means that the actions have either been partially or fully carried out or you could get back to them with a different parliamentary motion.  I might have this all messed up, and I'm glad it wasn't on my RP test, that's for sure.

[Nathan Zook]

I am a bit confused here. The motion to Reconsider has the highest precedence, and it suspends the effect of its object until resolved.  Because of this, it has a very limited time frame (same day or next day of the same session), and cannot be made in reference to motions partially carried out.  The motions to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted have neither of these limitations.

So an adopted motion to place flowers at a memorial every year might be Reconsidered at that same meeting, or the next day of the same session, but no later.  Five years down the road, however, the motion may be Rescinded or Amended.  Reconsideration at that point (if permitted) would have the effect of deauthorizing the actions taken during the intervening years after the fact.

What am I missing?

 

[Dan Honemann]

2 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

I am a bit confused here. The motion to Reconsider has the highest precedence, and it suspends the effect of its object until resolved.  Because of this, it has a very limited time frame (same day or next day of the same session), and cannot be made in reference to motions partially carried out.  The motions to Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted have neither of these limitations.

So an adopted motion to place flowers at a memorial every year might be Reconsidered at that same meeting, or the next day of the same session, but no later.  Five years down the road, however, the motion may be Rescinded or Amended.  Reconsideration at that point (if permitted) would have the effect of deauthorizing the actions taken during the intervening years after the fact.

What am I missing?

 

The point.

[Atul Kapur]

7 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

So an adopted motion to place flowers at a memorial every year might be Reconsidered at that same meeting, or the next day of the same session, but no later.  Five years down the road, however, the motion may be Rescinded or Amended.  Reconsideration at that point (if permitted) would have the effect of deauthorizing the actions taken during the intervening years after the fact.

As Mr Honemann says, your question is not exactly related to the OP. However, to answer your question, if the original motion was adopted in 2014 and then rescinded in 2019, that does not "deauthorize" the laying of flowers from 2014-19. It just says that you will not be doing that going forward.

[Dan Honemann]

I still prefer my answer to Mr. Zook's question.  🙂

He posits a situation in which a motion to place flowers at a memorial every year is adopted. He says that, five years later, this may be rescinded or amended, which is certainly true. He then goes on to say that reconsideration at this point in time (if permitted) "would have the effect of deauthorizing the actions taken during the intervening years after the fact" which makes some sense only if the vote to which he refers as being the vote sought to be reconsidered is the vote that was taken on the motion which was adopted five years ago. I think it's fair to say that this assertion entirely misses the point of the preceding discussion.

[Guest Puzzeling]

To make the point more clear:

Last year it was moved and adopted that the clubhouse would be painted green.

The painting did not happen.

Then in this year's meeting it was moved and adopted (by the motion to amend something previously adopted). To paint it yellow.

Later in this same meeting (this year's) some members wanted to reconsider this last motion to change it to blue.

According to RONR this last step (the new reconsideration) is not allowed.

 

[Nathan Zook]

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

As Mr Honemann says, your question is not exactly related to the OP. However, to answer your question, if the original motion was adopted in 2014 and then rescinded in 2019, that does not "deauthorize" the laying of flowers from 2014-19. It just says that you will not be doing that going forward.

I did say I was confused...

But it appears that I was also misunderstood.  The point of my example was to explain why it is nonsensical to Reconsider a motion once it has been partially executed--because it can have the nonsensical effect of "deauthorization" of a previously authorized act.

[Dan Honemann]

42 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

To make the point more clear:

Last year it was moved and adopted that the clubhouse would be painted green.

The painting did not happen.

Then in this year's meeting it was moved and adopted (by the motion to amend something previously adopted). To paint it yellow.

Later in this same meeting (this year's) some members wanted to reconsider this last motion to change it to blue.

According to RONR this last step (the new reconsideration) is not allowed.

 

The question you asked originally was (after a bit of editing on my part): "Why cannot Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted be reconsidered after adoption?

You have yet to receive a valid answer. 

[Nathan Zook]

41 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

To make the point more clear:

Last year it was moved and adopted that the clubhouse would be painted green.

The painting did not happen.

Then in this year's meeting it was moved and adopted (by the motion to amend something previously adopted). To paint it yellow.

Later in this same meeting (this year's) some members wanted to reconsider this last motion to change it to blue.

According to RONR this last step (the new reconsideration) is not allowed.

 

This I believe I understand.

[Atul Kapur]

12 hours ago, Nathan Zook said:

What am I missing?

 

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The point.

 

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I still prefer my answer to Mr. Zook's question.  🙂

I was trying to be nice and answer the question that I thought Mr. Zook was asking. But since he didn't like my answer, I won't try to do that again.

I do agree with Mr. Honemann when he says,

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The question you asked originally was (after a bit of editing on my part): "Why cannot Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted be reconsidered after adoption?

You have yet to receive a valid answer. 

 

[Nathan Zook]

43 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

 

 

I was trying to be nice and answer the question that I thought Mr. Zook was asking. But since he didn't like my answer, I won't try to do that again.

 

 

[Guest Puzzelling]

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The question you asked originally was (after a bit of editing on my part): "Why cannot Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted be reconsidered after adoption?

You have yet to receive a valid answer. 

Yes this is my question.

I just added an simple  example of it (or is there something wrong with my example? )

 

[George Mervosh]

Is there a chance of receiving a valid answer to this so that we are all not puzzled?  

[Guest Puzzeling]

Another guess to the reason (nothing official)

It can become quite a mess if the reconsideration itself is adopted but not acted on (a motion of reconsideration even if adopted does not mean that the to-be-reconsidered motion is called up or under consideration  it is only laid on the table)

Mess occurs if the reconsideration for one reason or another does not happen at the same meeting.

Even bigger mess:

What if it is the reconsideration motion is in the special "reconsideration and add to the minutes" form.

Does the original (year old) motion stand or the (newly amended) new one, neither motion or maybe even both motions?

 

[Dan Honemann]

You say that a motion previously adopted to paint the clubhouse green is amended by changing the color from green to yellow, and that later in the same meeting members change their minds and want to reconsider the vote on the adopted motion to change the color to yellow. RONR very clearly says that the adoption of this motion cannot be reconsidered since it was a motion to amend something which had previously been adopted (35:2 (8)), and this is so even although this does not seem to fall within any of the exceptions listed in 37:9 (2)).  

The only recourse (if this is all to be accomplished at the same meeting) will require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote, or the adoption of a motion to rescind or amend the motion which was adopted to change the color to yellow, which will also require a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership).

 

 

[Guest Puzzeling]

21 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The only recourse (if this is all to be accomplished at the same meeting) will require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote, or the adoption of a motion to rescind or amend the motion which was adopted to change the color to yellow, which will also require a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership).

 

 

A (necessary) recourse to "suspend the rules" always gives me an unsatisfactory feeling (whatever the situation)

[Guest Puzzling]

Still wondering about the why?

(Why can a motion to "amend something previously adopted " not be reconsidered.

I guess this question got a bit snowed under

[Dan Honemann]

37 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Still wondering about the why?

(Why can a motion to "amend something previously adopted " not be reconsidered.

I guess this question got a bit snowed under

Because that's the rule - assuming it has been adopted.

Edited December 4, 2020 at 05:45 PM by Daniel H. Honemann
Tacked on the last part, just to be clear.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/3/2020 at 11:24 AM, Guest Puzzeling said:

To make the point more clear:

Last year it was moved and adopted that the clubhouse would be painted green.

The painting did not happen.

Then in this year's meeting it was moved and adopted (by the motion to amend something previously adopted). To paint it yellow.

Later in this same meeting (this year's) some members wanted to reconsider this last motion to change it to blue.

According to RONR this last step (the new reconsideration) is not allowed.

 

On 11/5/2020 at 12:12 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You say that a motion previously adopted to paint the clubhouse green is amended by changing the color from green to yellow, and that later in the same meeting members change their minds and want to reconsider the vote on the adopted motion to change the color to yellow. RONR very clearly says that the adoption of this motion cannot be reconsidered since it was a motion to amend something which had previously been adopted (35:2 (8)), and this is so even although this does not seem to fall within any of the exceptions listed in 37:9 (2)).  

The only recourse (if this is all to be accomplished at the same meeting) will require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote, or the adoption of a motion to rescind or amend the motion which was adopted to change the color to yellow, which will also require a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership).

Since we're not answering why the rule is what it is, let me quibble on another point.

I would think that: (1) Any amendment would have to apply to the motion "to paint the clubhouse yellow" — i.e., the motion to paint the clubhouse, as amended — rather than to the motion to change the color to yellow. (2) Therefore, if the desired effect is to reverse the decision of changing the new color from green to yellow, the proper motion would be to amend the underlying motion by striking out "yellow" and inserting "green" — and not by "rescinding" the motion to change the color.

In other words, by the same principle that prevents rescinding a motion to rescind, I don't think you can "rescind" a motion to amend something previously adopted, although its effects can be undone by re-amending the motion that is currently in effect back to the way it was before it was amended the first time.

[Citations omitted. 😃]

Do you disagree?