Conflicting Proposals - Robert's Rules

[Guest 123455]

What happens when an organization follows Robert's Rules and two proposals are conflicting and both pass? Which proposal would take effect?

[Guest Puzzling]

20 minutes ago, Guest 123455 said:

What happens when an organization follows Robert's Rules and two proposals are conflicting and both pass? Which proposal would take effect?

Under Robert's rules  that cannot happen after the first proposal is adopted the second or later conflicting proposal is out of order

[Rob Elsman]

Well, Puzzling, so what happens if both were made and adopted? 🙃

[Atul Kapur]

16 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

Well, Puzzling, so what happens if both were made and adopted?

Well, then, as Guest Puzzling said, "the second or later conflicting proposal is out of order." 

If that wasn't caught at the time the motion was made and they were both adopted, that is a continuing breach of the rules and the second proposal / adopted motion continues to be not in order.

23:6(b) says that if "a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force," that second motion is null and void "unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion."

Someone would need to raise a point of order stating that the second motion is out of order.

If it is unclear whether the second motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend, then I would say that you cannot assume that it did.

Edited April 1, 2021 at 10:48 PM by Atul Kapur

[Bruce Lages]

If, as Dr, Kapur notes, the second motion is adopted by a vote sufficient to satisfy the requirement for adopting a motion to amend something previously adopted, the second motion would supercede the first motion.

[Richard Brown]

3 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Well, then, as Guest Puzzling said, "the second or later conflicting proposal is out of order." 

If that wasn't caught at the time the motion was made and they were both adopted, that is a continuing breach of the rules and the second proposal / adopted motion continues to be not in order.

23:6(b) says that if "a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force," that second motion is null and void "unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion."

Someone would need to raise a point of order stating that the second motion is out of order.

If it is unclear whether the second motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend, then I would say that you cannot assume that it did.

I agree with the response by Dr. Kapur, but I have a question concerning his last paragraph.  If the chair declared the second motion adopted and nobody raised a point of  order that it conflicts with something previously adopted, should the presumption be that the second motion was validly adopted?  The general rule is that the announcement of the chair is final unless challenged by a timely point of order or a call for a division per 24.7 and the footnote.  Section 23:6 (b) indicates that a motion which conflicts with a motion previously adopted constitutes a continuing breach unless adopted by the vote necessary to rescind something previously adopted, but who has the burden of proof and what is the presumption when the alleged breach is not raised until a future meeting?  Is the presumption that the second motion was valid or invalid?  RONR doesn't explicitly say.   It seems that if no point of order was raised at the time of the breach and the chair declared the motion adopted, the presumption might be that the second motion was validly adopted and the burden would be on those challenging it to prove that it was not adopted by the  required two thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership).

It seems analogous to an after the fact point of order at a later meeting that a quorum was not present when a motion was adopted.  RONR says it requires clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present when the motion was adopted in order for the assembly to declare it invalid. 40:12. Why would the same rule not apply to a late point of order that a motion which the chair declared adopted conflicts with a motion previously adopted?

[Dan Honemann]

A main motion that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force is not in order. If the chair fails to note this fact and permits its introduction, a point of order concerning this violation of the rules can be raised at any time when this motion remains pending. If such a motion is voted on and declared to have been adopted, this declaration by the chair (and the motion itself) is null and void unless the vote was, in point of fact, sufficient to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion. If an uncounted vote was taken and a point of order is raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, the vote may be retaken as a counted vote. If an uncounted vote was taken and a point of order concerning the matter is not raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, it will not be possible to establish at some later time that the motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion. In such a case, the exception mentioned in RONR, 12th ed., 23:6(b) is inapplicable, and a point of order asserting the invalidity of the motion so adopted can be raised at any time so long as the motion has continuing force and effect.

On the other hand, if the chair, when announcing the result of the uncounted vote, says that "There are two thirds in the affirmative and the motion is adopted", then the motion will have been validly adopted (unless a counted vote subsequently ordered and taken shows less than a two-thirds vote). In such an instance, the chair has obviously treated the motion as being one to amend the previously adopted motion, probably because of the manner in which it was worded.

 

[Rob Elsman]

Thank you, all.  😊