Second Reading Rule and Reconsider

[laser158689]

My municipality has a "second reading rule" in its by-laws (see below).  At the first meeting, we amended (added a clause to) one sentence in a section of the item.  At the second meeting, would we need to Reconsider to further amend that sentence other than what was added?  To remove what was added?

 

 

7. Second Reading A “Second Reading” Procedure shall apply for any resolution that:  Revises the Charter; or  Enacts or revises an ordinance; or  Revises the Rules of the Representative Town Meeting; or  Appears on the Call by way of a petition properly submitted. (all of the above are hereinafter “The Proposed Resolution”). The Proposed Resolution shall be voted upon by the Representative Town Meeting only when it has been subject to the following procedure: a. The Proposed Resolution, upon presentation to the Town Clerk, will be placed on the Call for the next Representative Town Meeting and referred to the appropriate committee(s) for review, revisions, and/or committee voting. b. The Proposed Resolution shall then be presented at that initial Representative Town Meeting, and committee reports shall be given. Discussion on the item will be appropriate. Motions to amend The Proposed Resolution may be voted upon at that meeting. c. The Moderator will then place the item on the Call of the next regularly scheduled Representative Town Meeting. -10- Eff. 4/20/2020 d. The Proposed Resolution, having been placed on the Call for the next regularly scheduled (subsequent) Representative Town Meeting, shall be referred to the appropriate committees for a “second” reading, revisions and/or committee voting. e. The Proposed Resolution may then be considered, committee reports delivered, discussed, amended as desired and voted upon at that subsequent Representative Town Meeting. f. Following standard voting procedure, The Proposed Resolution may be voted upon without a second reading if such motion is made and duly seconded to suspend this rule and move to vote in the initial meeting when presented. (Eff. 12/9/2019)

[Josh Martin]

On 10/12/2021 at 1:59 PM, laser158689 said:

My municipality has a "second reading rule" in its by-laws (see below).  At the first meeting, we amended (added a clause to) one sentence in a section of the item.  At the second meeting, would we need to Reconsider to further amend that sentence other than what was added?  To remove what was added?

I have no idea. This is not a question about RONR, but about your municipality's own rules. I suggest consulting the City Clerk or City Attorney on this matter.

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

The reason that this is not a question about RONR is that its rules were written under the assumption that adopting a motion once is sufficient, and it's out of order to introduce the same motion a second time after it has already been adopted.  The rules for reconsideration in RONR are in that context.  Your organization has created a situation which doesn't exist in RONR, the second reading scenario, and that removes it from the context of the rationale for various rules about reconsideration.  If I were a voting member of this organization, and if the city attorney informed us that there were no applicable laws to inform our interpretation of the rule, I'd argue that reconsideration is not necessary when it comes back again.  It's a mandatory second consideration, and the rule quoted above says that in round 2 it may be "amended as desired" during round 2.

[laser158689]

For my own education, let's say the amended main motion is not decided upon at meeting 1 and carries over to meeting (and session) 2 (tabled/postponed/adjourned/postponed).

What options are there to remove/change the approved amendment?  (Does the method of "carrying it over" affect the answer?)

Reconsider seems out of order as it's a new session.

Amend something previously Adopted?  Other options?

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2021 at 8:58 AM, laser158689 said:

For my own education, let's say the amended main motion is not decided upon at meeting 1 and carries over to meeting (and session) 2 (tabled/postponed/adjourned/postponed).

What options are there to remove/change the approved amendment?  (Does the method of "carrying it over" affect the answer?)

Reconsider seems out of order as it's a new session.

Amend something previously Adopted?  Other options?

You say that the amendment that was adopted was to add a clause to one sentence. At the next session, it will be in order to move to amend this sentence by striking out the clause that was added (or any other change you care to make).

[laser158689]

@Dan Honemann Our Moderator believes that we would need to Amend something previously adopted. 
 

I believe 12:28 is an adequate reference against that, but it would be by implication. Is there a more “direct”reference I can cite?

Another way to ask this would be, what is the basis for striking an amendment added at a previous session?  What rule “allows” this?

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/20/2021 at 7:54 PM, laser158689 said:

Our Moderator believes that we would need to Amend something previously adopted. 

The only thing previously adopted here was a subsidiary motion to Amend, and the main motion as thus amended has been carried over to, and is now pending in, a later session.

Motions to Amend Something Previously Adopted are applicable only to things made or created by the adoption of one or more main motions, and are not at all applicable to situations such as the one you have described here.

On 10/20/2021 at 7:54 PM, laser158689 said:

Another way to ask this would be, what is the basis for striking an amendment added at a previous session?  What rule “allows” this?

There need be no rule specifically allowing it; there must instead be a rule specifically prohibiting it. This is due to the general rule concerning the freedom of each new session, as described in 8:11-16, and as reflected in the more specific principle referred to in 12:25. In conformance with this general principle, 12:28 is limited, as it is, to words inserted or added during the same session.

[laser158689]

Wow!  Thank you so much for such a thorough explanation, especially the citations!

 

[laser158689]

And I received a different view...

 

Robert’s Rules expressly provides that “motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force”, unless made by way of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. RONR (12th ed.) 39:5. (Emphasis added.)

 

Thoughts?

[Dan Honemann]

Well, the only thought that comes quickly to mind is that perhaps my colleagues and I should consider making it even more obvious that 39:5 is referring to main motions.

Although perhaps one might also note (when reading the last sentence) that the vote required to rescind or amend the product of a subsidiary motion to Amend that was adopted at an earlier session and now constitutes a part of a main motion that has been carried over from that session to the current session is simply a majority vote.  🙂

[laser158689]

The motion would be coming out of a committee, so no prior notice.  I believe that's 2/3s or majority of the membership.

Edited October 25, 2021 at 07:55 PM by laser158689

[Dan Honemann]

I'll repeat what I said before: If an amendment is adopted to add a clause to one sentence of a main motion (as you previously described), and that main motion is then carried over to the next session by one of the ways described in 9:9, at this next session it will be in order to move to amend this sentence in the main motion by striking out the clause that was added to it at the previous session (or by any other change you care to make). The vote required to adopt this motion to amend will be a majority vote.

 

 

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/25/2021 at 10:21 AM, laser158689 said:

And I received a different view...

 

Robert’s Rules expressly provides that “motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force”, unless made by way of a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. RONR (12th ed.) 39:5. (Emphasis added.)

 

Thoughts?

I have no idea who gave you the "different view." But I think you would be wise to pay attention to the view expressed by Mr. Honemann, one of the RONR authors.

[laser158689]

Not wasting my time or the body's appealing a ruling from our Moderator of 30+ years, no matter how wrong he is.  And given the language in 39:5 that he will read, I can't win.  I wouldn't for the argument I'd try to make.

[Weldon Merritt]

On 10/25/2021 at 7:23 PM, laser158689 said:

Not wasting my time or the body's appealing a ruling from our Moderator of 30+ years, no matter how wrong he is.  And given the language in 39:5 that he will read, I can't win.  I wouldn't for the argument I'd try to make.

Then why did you even bother to ask the question?

[laser158689]

My own education.  It's nice to know how it's supposed to work, and nice to provide some food for thought to the Moderator.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/26/2021 at 12:15 AM, laser158689 said:

My own education.  It's nice to know how it's supposed to work, and nice to provide some food for thought to the Moderator.

Well, please keep in mind that your original question was about proper procedure under your municipality's "second reading rule."  As Mr. Martin properly noted in his response, this is not a question about RONR, but about your municipality's own rules. He suggested consulting your City Clerk or City Attorney on this matter.

You then followed up by positing a hypothetical question and asked how it should be handled under the rules in RONR. Please keep in mind that this is what we have been discussing.  We have not been discussing proper procedure under your municipality's rules. 

 

[J. J.]

On 10/25/2021 at 1:56 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, the only thought that comes quickly to mind is that perhaps my colleagues and I should consider making it even more obvious that 39:5 is referring to main motions.

Although perhaps one might also note (when reading the last sentence) that the vote required to rescind or amend the product of a subsidiary motion to Amend that was adopted at an earlier session and now constitutes a part of a main motion that has been carried over from that session to the current session is simply a majority vote.  🙂

I kind of think you guys did that in 35.2 2).