Rescind a motion

[Guest KAMP]

What are guidelines to rescind a motion!

when can’t you rescind a motion?

[J. J.]

When a motion has been carried out completely, it cannot be rescinded.  A motion that can be reached by calling up a motion reconsider cannot be rescinded.  A motion to expel someone from office or membership cannot be rescinded.  In some cases, a motion to elect someone to an office cannot be rescinded after the person has been  informed (35:6).

[Atul Kapur]

8 hours ago, J. J. said:

A motion that can be reached by calling up a motion reconsider cannot be rescinded.

To pick a nit, a question that can be reached by calling up a motion to reconsider that has already been moved cannot be rescinded.

I know that this is inherent in J.J.'s use of the term "calling up" but I think it is useful to make explicit here because I see this commonly misunderstood as meaning that rescind cannot be moved if it is still possible to make the motion to reconsider.

[Richard Brown]

12 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

To pick a nit, a question that can be reached by calling up a motion to reconsider that has already been moved cannot be rescinded.

I know that this is inherent in J.J.'s use of the term "calling up" but I think it is useful to make explicit here because I see this commonly misunderstood as meaning that rescind cannot be moved if it is still possible to make the motion to reconsider.

That's actually a pretty good "nit-pick" and acknowledgment that J.J. understands the difference and technically stated his suggestion accurately.  At one time I did not fully understand the difference between MAKING a motion to reconsider and CALLING UP the motion to reconsider.  I have heard others state it incorrectly as well, so it is apparently a rather widespread misunderstanding.

[J. J.]

Good points.

 

[Guest Puzzling]

On 2/20/2021 at 3:58 PM, Atul Kapur said:

To pick a nit, a question that can be reached by calling up a motion to reconsider that has already been moved cannot be rescinded.

I know that this is inherent in J.J.'s use of the term "calling up" but I think it is useful to make explicit here because I see this commonly misunderstood as meaning that rescind cannot be moved if it is still possible to make the motion to reconsider.

So if I understand correctly 

A motion to rescind can be made on the same day as the motion it wants to rescind if no motion to reconsider is already made.

In this case the motion needs a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership to be adopted (no previous notice possible in this case)

 

[Atul Kapur]

Almost.

If a motion to reconsider was already made and disposed of, the motion to rescind can still be made the same day.

The only time reconsider prevents the making of the motion to rescind is when the motion to reconsider was not considered at the time it was made. In that case, the motion to reconsider can be called up and, in that case, rescind would be out of order. RONR (12th ed.) 37:15 and 35:6(a)

[Guest Puzzling]

8 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Almost.

If a motion to reconsider was already made and disposed of, the motion to rescind can still be made the same day.

In this case is the motion to rescind not improper, and is out of order?

It's goal is broadly the same as the motion to reconsider and because of the reconsideration was not adopted there seems to be a sustained majority for supporting the main motion. So there is no real chance that there will be a 2/3 vote to rescind the same main motion. 

This is different from giving notice that at the next meeting there will be a motion to rescind (the normal use of the motion to rescind). 

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

4 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

In this case is the motion to rescind not improper, and is out of order?

No. The motions have different purposes.

As well, there may be a variety of reasons why the assembly may wish to, later in the same session, rescind a motion adopted earlier.

4 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

It's goal is broadly the same as the motion to reconsider

This is not necessarily true. Reconsider may be moved and adopted for other reasons than to defeat an adopted main motion.

[J. J.]

15 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

This is not necessarily true. Reconsider may be moved and adopted for other reasons than to defeat an adopted main motion.

Technically, so may rescind, because it can be amended into Amend Something Previously Adopted.

[Atul Kapur]

Nevertheless, the goal of moving to rescind is solely to defeat an adopted motion (the assembly may amend rescind, but the mover's intent in moving rescind is to rescind). This is not necessarily the goal of moving to reconsider, so the motion to rescind should not be ruled out of order, which was the question I was responding to. 

[R.S.M]

On 2/23/2021 at 6:58 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Nevertheless, the goal of moving to rescind is solely to defeat an adopted motion (the assembly may amend rescind, but the mover's intent in moving rescind is to rescind). This is not necessarily the goal of moving to reconsider, so the motion to rescind should not be ruled out of order, which was the question I was responding to. 

Let's say a motion is made to discipline someone, it is carried out and later found out you could not do it. Do you rescind or just consider it being out of order and it never happened?

[Dan Honemann]

10 minutes ago, R.S.M said:

Let's say a motion is made to discipline someone, it is carried out and later found out you could not do it. 

Apparently you could.

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, R.S.M said:

Let's say a motion is made to discipline someone, it is carried out and later found out you could not do it. Do you rescind or just consider it being out of order and it never happened?

If what is meant by "you could not do it" is that the disciplinary action violated something in the organization's rules (including the parliamentary authority) and the violation was of such a nature that it constituted a continuing breach, then a Point of Order may be raised that the action is null and void. If this point is ruled to be well taken (or is ruled not well taken, but the chair's ruling is overturned on appeal), then the action is invalidated.

If the violation was of such a nature that it did not constitute a continuing breach, then the appropriate course of action may depend upon what exactly the disciplinary action was. Expelling a member, for example, is not something that can be rescinded, although the member could be admitted anew under the organization's procedures to admit new members. For other disciplinary actions, a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted may be appropriate.

It would be helpful if we had additional facts as to exactly what action was taken and what is believed to have been improper about the action.

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, R.S.M said:

Let's say a motion is made to discipline someone, it is carried out and later found out you could not do it. Do you rescind or just consider it being out of order and it never happened?

I agree with the response immediately above by Josh Martin. Although rescinding  an order of expulsion might not be in order, if the expulsion is found to have violated the bylaws, I believe that the expulsion would likely constitute a continuing breach and that a Point of Order could be raised at a later meeting and the expulsion motion/order could be declared null and void.

Edited to add: I was involved in a situation several years ago when a business organization had expelled a member with what I would describe as a complete lack of due process. The “expelled“ member threatened to sue for wrongful expulsion. The situation was resolved by the organization declaring the expulsion null and void on a Point of Order and appeal at a later meeting and reinstating the member retroactively. The matter was resolved and everyone lived happily thereafter. Well, for a while, at least. 

Edited February 24, 2021 at 08:04 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the response immediately above by Josh Martin. Although rescinding  an order of expulsion might not be in order, if the expulsion is found to have violated the bylaws, I believe that the expulsion would likely constitute a continuing breach and that a Point of Order could be raised at a later meeting and the expulsion motion/order could be declared null and void.

It depends on in exactly what way the expulsion "is found to have violated the bylaws."

I certainly agree that if the violation constitutes a continuing breach, then a Point of Order regarding this matter may be raised at a later meeting and the expulsion could be declared null and void.

[George Mervosh]

I'm lost.  What expulsion?

[Richard Brown]

8 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

I'm lost.  What expulsion?

J.J. first mentioned it in the first response to the original post, then Mr. Martin and I both followed up on it as did the original poster (who made reference to “discipline“ but not specifically to expulsion). So, it’s been mentioned in at least four responses.

[George Mervosh]

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

J.J. first mentioned it in the first response to the original post, then Mr. Martin and I both followed up on it as did the original poster (who made reference to “discipline“ but not specifically to expulsion). So, it’s been mentioned in at least four responses.

Okay.  R.S.M tacked onto this thread with a different question with almost no facts and didn't mention it.  So that's why I asked.

[R.S.M]

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If what is meant by "you could not do it" is that the disciplinary action violated something in the organization's rules (including the parliamentary authority) and the violation was of such a nature that it constituted a continuing breach, then a Point of Order may be raised that the action is null and void. If this point is ruled to be well taken (or is ruled not well taken, but the chair's ruling is overturned on appeal), then the action is invalidated.

If the violation was of such a nature that it did not constitute a continuing breach, then the appropriate course of action may depend upon what exactly the disciplinary action was. Expelling a member, for example, is not something that can be rescinded, although the member could be admitted anew under the organization's procedures to admit new members. For other disciplinary actions, a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted may be appropriate.

It would be helpful if we had additional facts as to exactly what action was taken and what is believed to have been improper about the action.

The attorney stated you can not discipline a member unless the rule being violated is in either the By-laws or a Personell Policy, He may have also meant the rule in Roberts would have to be in the By-Laws or policy. That's what has me confused, because I made mention to the organization and refered them to 61:3 61:22 and 63:2 RONR 12th edition. Im not a parliamentarian by no means, I just understand something the way it's written.

[R.S.M]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree with the response immediately above by Josh Martin. Although rescinding  an order of expulsion might not be in order, if the expulsion is found to have violated the bylaws, I believe that the expulsion would likely constitute a continuing breach and that a Point of Order could be raised at a later meeting and the expulsion motion/order could be declared null and void.

Edited to add: I was involved in a situation several years ago when a business organization had expelled a member with what I would describe as a complete lack of due process. The “expelled“ member threatened to sue for wrongful expulsion. The situation was resolved by the organization declaring the expulsion null and void on a Point of Order and appeal at a later meeting and reinstating the member retroactively. The matter was resolved and everyone lived happily thereafter. Well, for a while, at least. 

Punishment was only a 1 year probation.

[R.S.M]

46 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Okay.  R.S.M tacked onto this thread with a different question with almost no facts and didn't mention it.  So that's why I asked.

Sorry, I should have started a new question but this conversation kinda was the same as to rescind a motion. Our situation was action already taken on the motion that may need rescinded. Member placed on probation but didn't violate any By-laws.

 

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

I'm lost.  What expulsion?

 

[R.S.M]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If what is meant by "you could not do it" is that the disciplinary action violated something in the organization's rules (including the parliamentary authority) and the violation was of such a nature that it constituted a continuing breach, then a Point of Order may be raised that the action is null and void. If this point is ruled to be well taken (or is ruled not well taken, but the chair's ruling is overturned on appeal), then the action is invalidated.

If the violation was of such a nature that it did not constitute a continuing breach, then the appropriate course of action may depend upon what exactly the disciplinary action was. Expelling a member, for example, is not something that can be rescinded, although the member could be admitted anew under the organization's procedures to admit new members. For other disciplinary actions, a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted may be appropriate.

It would be helpful if we had additional facts as to exactly what action was taken and what is believed to have been improper about the action.

Member was charged for misconduct that did not violate any of our Bylaws, We used RONR 12th addition 61:3 where is states at bottom of paragraph starting at the fourth line. Conduct brought embarassment to organization.  examples in paragraph doesn't mention that just "Tending to injure good name, Disturb it's well being, Hamper it in it's work". We felt embarassament to the organization could be included in that. Then it states" Wheather the Bylaws make mention of it or not". Our Bylaws makes no mention of charging someone of embarassment but something has to keep us from having our hands tied.

Edited February 24, 2021 at 10:35 PM by R.S.M

[Atul Kapur]

If someone "brought embarrassment to organization" that sounds like they did something "tending to injure the good name of the organization" (61:3)

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, R.S.M said:

The attorney stated you can not discipline a member unless the rule being violated is in either the By-laws or a Personell Policy, He may have also meant the rule in Roberts would have to be in the By-Laws or policy. That's what has me confused, because I made mention to the organization and refered them to 61:3 61:22 and 63:2 RONR 12th edition. Im not a parliamentarian by no means, I just understand something the way it's written.

I agree that, as a parliamentary matter, the organization is not limited to disciplining members for violating rules which are explicitly stated in the organization's bylaws or a personnel policy, unless there is a rule in the organization's bylaws or in applicable law providing as much. Perhaps there is such a rule and that is what the attorney's opinion is based upon. As you say, the rules in RONR grant an organization broad latitude to discipline members and do not limit the society in this manner.

"If there is an article on discipline in the bylaws (56:57), it may specify a number of offenses outside meetings for which these penalties can be imposed on a member of the organization. Frequently, such an article provides for their imposition on any member found guilty of conduct described, for example, as “tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not." RONR (12th ed.) 61:3

If it is in fact correct that some rule in the bylaws or in applicable law provides that members may only be disciplined if "the rule being violated is in either the By-laws or a Personell Policy," and a member is disciplined for some other reason, then this would be a continuing breach and a Point of Order could be raised regarding the matter.

If there is no rule limiting the organization's discretion in disciplinary actions in this manner, then the disciplinary action is valid (or at least, it is not invalid on this basis). The organization may still choose to amend or rescind the action if it wishes to do so, assuming the probationary period has not already ended (in which event there is nothing left to rescind or amend).

Edited February 24, 2021 at 11:49 PM by Josh Martin