Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motion to "Never reconsider or discuss again"


Laptop Ronin

Recommended Posts

Greetings,

 This may seem a bit silly, but I need to be sure.. Is it even possible to decide to "never reconsider" (meaning never discuss)  a topic?

Scenario:

A motion is made to declare the organisation's property a "No Smoking" area.  This motion passes (by a 2/3 vote, coincidentally)

Two meetings later, a motion is made to allow smoking on premises.  This motion fails (this time by a 3/4 vote).

The next time this is brought up, a member makes a motion that "we never discuss this again".  This "motion" passes.

 

My question:  Was the motion to "never discuss again"  a valid motion in the first place? Can a motion be made to "Never again Discuss an Issue:?

If not, is the concept of "never discussing this topic again" simply null and void?

If so, can it be reconsidered?

Note:  All voting was done by "show of hands".  No records exist as to who voted, and as to which side they supported.

This was apparently done once before, over 25 years ago, relating to a topic the members simply tired of arguing about.  Would a similar motion left unchallenged for that period of time be valid?  If, indeed, it ever was a valid motion?

As always, I appreciate any and all assistance in this matter.

 

Respectfully,

 Hal

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Laptop Ronin said:

 This may seem a bit silly, but I need to be sure.. Is it even possible to decide to "never reconsider" (meaning never discuss)  a topic?

The assembly may adopt motions which will make it a great deal more difficult to discuss a topic again. Preventing it entirely would require a bylaws amendment with very specific language.

59 minutes ago, Laptop Ronin said:

Was the motion to "never discuss again"  a valid motion in the first place?

I suppose a society could adopt a special rule of order that motions relating to a particular subject may not be introduced. If such a rule is adopted, a motion relating to the subject could not be introduced without first suspending the rules, which would require a 2/3 vote.

Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

1 hour ago, Laptop Ronin said:

Can a motion be made to "Never again Discuss an Issue:?

It's not easy, but yes. See above.

1 hour ago, Laptop Ronin said:

If not, is the concept of "never discussing this topic again" simply null and void?

Maybe. It seems previous notice was not given, so the rule could have been adopted only by a vote of a majority of the entire membership. If a vote of a majority of the entire membership was not present, this is a violation of the rights of absentees and constitutes a continuing breach.

1 hour ago, Laptop Ronin said:

If so, can it be reconsidered?

The motion to Reconsider has very strict time limits which have most likely passed. The rule could, however, be rescinded or amended, or it could be suspended in a particular instance. Amending or rescinding a special rule of order has the same requirements as adopting one. Suspending a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote.

1 hour ago, Laptop Ronin said:

Note:  All voting was done by "show of hands".  No records exist as to who voted, and as to which side they supported.

This is irrelevant at this point. The time limits for Reconsider have most likely passed, and any member may move to rescind, amend, or suspend the rule, regardless of how (or if) they voted on the original motion.

1 hour ago, Laptop Ronin said:

This was apparently done once before, over 25 years ago, relating to a topic the members simply tired of arguing about.  Would a similar motion left unchallenged for that period of time be valid?  If, indeed, it ever was a valid motion?

A continuing breach does not have a set expiration date. It continues for as long as the breach is in effect. In the case of the adoption of a rule, that would be for as long as the rule is still in effect. So a Point of Order could still potentially be raised regarding a rule adopted 25 years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

The assembly may adopt motions which will make it a great deal more difficult to discuss a topic again. Preventing it entirely would require a bylaws amendment with very specific language.

And, even then, that would be a bylaw provision that is clearly in the nature of a rule of order and, therefore, suspendible.

Another way to prevent discussion on the motion is to object to its consideration once it is moved. If there is 2/3 in support of the objection, it doesn't get heard at all. You would have to do this every time it is moved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

And, even then, that would be a bylaw provision that is clearly in the nature of a rule of order and, therefore, suspendible.

Yes, that's why I said "with very specific language." The rule in the bylaws could require a higher threshold for suspension and/or amendment or even provide that the rule could not be suspended and/or amended at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes, that's why I said "with very specific language." The rule in the bylaws could require a higher threshold for suspension and/or amendment or even provide that the rule could not be suspended and/or amended at all.

But if they simply put a rule in the bylaws saying that the organization's property will be a "No Smoking" area, this rule could not be suspended, and nothing could change it but an amendment to the bylaws.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But if they simply put a rule in the bylaws saying that the organization's property will be a "No Smoking" area, this rule could not be suspended, and nothing could change it but an amendment to the bylaws.  

Fair point. That would seem like a better solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Laptop Ronin said:

The next time this is brought up, a member makes a motion that "we never discuss this again".  This "motion" passes.

 

My question:  Was the motion to "never discuss again"  a valid motion in the first place?

I don't see where that question was directly answered.  Unless it can be shown that a majority of the entire membership voted for the motion, it seems the motion is null and void if it was not adopted by a majority of the entire membership.  I do understand, though, that matters may be more complicated if the chair declared that the motion was adopted.

@Josh MartinIs it your opinion that the motion was validly (although improperly) adopted because of the chair's declaration (assuming he made such  a declaration)?

Edited by Richard Brown
Edited to tag Josh Martin, who I had intended to be respondding to
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I don't see where that question was directly answered.  Unless it can be shown that a majority of the entire membership voted for the motion, it seems the motion is null and void if it was not adopted by a majority of the entire membership.  I do understand, though, that matters may be more complicated if the chair declared that the motion was adopted.

@Josh MartinIs it your opinion that the motion was validly (although improperly) adopted because of the chair's declaration (assuming he made such  a declaration)?

It depends on whether a majority of the entire membership was present. If a majority of the entire membership was present, then while the chair's declaration that the motion was adopted would be in error if there was not a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative, there would be no continuing breach. If a majority of the entire membership is present, a rule which requires a majority of the entire membership for adoption offers no protection to absentees.

If a majority of the entire membership was not present, then the adoption of the rule would be a continuing breach.

Edited by Josh Martin
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...