Postponing a vote.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

 

In the instant case, the assumption is that we are concerned with the adoption, at a special meeting, of a motion constituting the business specified in the call of the meeting.  The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that, in such instances, motions to Reconsider are not in order at all. This is for the same reason that affirmative votes on motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be reconsidered.

That would violate the reasons for having the motion to reconsider (37:1). Making an "erroneous" decision can still happen.  

[Rob Elsman]

On 1/16/2023 at 8:28 AM, J. J. said:

That would violate the reasons for having the motion to reconsider (37:1). Making an "erroneous" decision can still happen.  

Keep in mind that the meeting is quorate. Sufficient members are present to transact business, and assemblies are allowed to make decisions that the minority regrets.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:25 AM, Rob Elsman said:

 

For much the same reason, if a main motion has been adopted, and a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes has been made (and seconded) at the meeting on account of an "unrepresentative" attendance, new information may indicate that it is urgent to do what the main motion proposes. In my opinion, a motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the main motion immediately is in order (the maker of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes not being willing to withdraw his motion), the two-thirds vote being sufficient to protect against any misuse by an "unrepresentative" convocation.

Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider and enter on the minutes exist at all? 

As designed, REM exists to protect against "an unrepresentative attendance" from acting against the wishes of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership."  It says that, even if a quorum is present, this rule exists to protect a broader group of members (37:46).  

The rule could not be suspended if its suspension, in that instance, violates the wishes of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership." 

To remedy your particular situation, and protect the rights of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership," sufficient members could be contacted and could attend so that a majority of the membership could act. 

[Rob Elsman]

On 1/16/2023 at 9:01 AM, J. J. said:

Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider Is this not an argument against having the motion reIs this not an argument against having the motion reconsider Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider and enter on the minutes exist at all? and enter Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider Is this not an argument against having the motion reIs this not an argument against having the motion reconsider Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider and enter on the minutes exist at all? and enter on the minutes exist at all? consider and enter on the minutes exist at all? and enter on the minutes exist at all? on the minutes exist at all? consider and enter on the minutes exist at all? and enter on the minutes exist at all? 

As designed, REM exists to protect against "an unrepresentative attendance" from acting against the wishes of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership."  It says that, even if a quorum is present, this rule exists to protect a broader group of members (37:46).  

The rule could not be suspended if its suspension, in that instance, violates the wishes of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership." 

To remedy your particular situation, and protect the rights of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership," sufficient members could be contacted and could attend so that a majority of the membership could act. 

I opine that the answer to your question is "no". I do not hold that the motion protects a minority too small to defeat a motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the main motion immediately by a two-thirds vote.

Edited January 16, 2023 at 03:19 PM by Rob Elsman

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:01 AM, J. J. said:

Is this not an argument against having the motion reconsider and enter on the minutes exist at all? 

As designed, REM exists to protect against "an unrepresentative attendance" from acting against the wishes of the "majority of a society's or a convention's membership."  It says that, even if a quorum is present, this rule exists to protect a broader group of members (37:46).  

I agree. The existence of the motion acts as a sort of extra quorum or extra notice requirement, which is why I think its effect cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I am having trouble seeing how the fact that a quorum exists or that notice of the meeting or of the main motion has already been given would change how the motion to Reconsider and Enter works. If the rule preventing taking up the motion the same day could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, the protection afforded by the rule would essentially be lost in many cases. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:31 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I agree. The existence of the motion acts as a sort of extra quorum or extra notice requirement, which is why I think its effect cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. I am having trouble seeing how the fact that a quorum exists or that notice of the meeting or of the main motion has already been given would change how the motion to Reconsider and Enter works. If the rule preventing taking up the motion the same day could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, the protection afforded by the rule would essentially be lost in many cases. 

So I gather you do not agree with my suggestion that, in instances such as we have here, motions to Reconsider are not in order at all for the same reason that affirmative votes on motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be reconsidered.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:31 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the rule preventing taking up the motion the same day could be suspended by a two-thirds vote, the protection afforded by the rule would essentially be lost in many cases. 

Emphasis added.  I think there are cases where the rule could be suspended and that protection would not be lost, because the rule, in those circumstances, does not provide that protection. 

This is an interesting question, whatever the ultimate answer.

Edited January 16, 2023 at 04:15 PM by J. J.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/16/2023 at 10:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

So I gather you do not agree with my suggestion that, in instances such as we have here, motions to Reconsider are not in order at all for the same reason that affirmative votes on motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be reconsidered.

You gather correctly. 🙂

I don't know if I understand your reasoning, but in any event that rule you refer to is a very specific one, and I don't think it is easily extended even to other cases where the same or similar reasons might apply. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:52 AM, J. J. said:

The rule that is being suspended is that REM can be made at this special meeting.  What would be reconsidered is the vote on the noticed motion.

Even with REM's characteristics, I think that if all 19 members are present, 2/3 could suspend the rules and prevent REM from being adopted.  The effect of REM. however, is that it protects the total of all absentees, plus those members voting against suspending the rules in order to prevent REM from being adopted.  

As I understand it, REM is not "adopted", it is simply moved, seconded, and entered on the minutes.  There is no vote on whether or not it is entered on the minutes, so the question of vote threshold is not applicable.

Quote

If the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is seconded, all action required by the vote proposed to be reconsidered is suspended, and there is time to notify absent members of the proposed action. [37:49]

 

Edited January 16, 2023 at 05:06 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/16/2023 at 11:56 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You gather correctly. 🙂

I don't know if I understand your reasoning, but in any event that rule you refer to is a very specific one, and I don't think it is easily extended even to other cases where the same or similar reasons might apply. 

Well, the same rule applies with respect to the adoption of a special rule of order.  I think it has to do with the fact that notice has been given, which is also the case with respect to business to be transacted at a special meeting.

[Rob Elsman]

What we have here are two competing—for lack of a better word—rights. On the one hand, a member (and seconder) has a parliamentary right to delay consideration of a motion to Reconsider to another day; on the other hand, provided that the meeting is properly called or scheduled and a quorum is present, an assembly has the right to take action to prevent serious harm or the loss of an important opportunity to the society. In the extreme case, I opine that the latter must be protected, if necessary, at the expense of the former.

 

Edited January 16, 2023 at 05:13 PM by Rob Elsman

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Wouldn't this also apply to all tens at a regular meeting that were noticed?  I don't see how a special meeting this suddenly different.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:05 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

As I understand it, REM is not "adopted", it is simply moved, seconded, and entered on the minutes.  There is no vote on whether or not it is entered on the minutes, so the question of vote threshold is not applicable.

 

Which makes no difference as the rule protects both people voting against the motion, and absentees (who do not vote). 

This rule, effectively, protects a majority of the entire membership.  Therefore a majority of the entire membership is needed to suspend it. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

But if they were given notice how are they aren't already protected?  Notice was their protection with a special meeting no?

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:11 PM, Rob Elsman said:

What we have here are two competing—for lack of a better word—rights. On the one hand, a member (and seconder) has a parliamentary right to delay consideration of a motion to Reconsider to another day; on the other hand, provided that the meeting is properly called or scheduled and a quorum is present, an assembly has the right to take action to prevent serious harm or the loss of an important opportunity to the society. In the extreme case, I opine that the latter must be protected, if necessary, at the expense of the former.

 

Well, one of those rights is the right to have the matter reconsidered by a majority of the membership on a different day (37:46).  That rule could be suspended if a majority of the majority of the membership agrees to the suspension as per 25: 2 #7.  (It would also require a 2/3 vote.)

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:17 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

But if they were given notice how are they aren't already protected?  Notice was their protection with a special meeting no?

No, because the rule, as constructed creates a right protecting a majority of the membership.  Notice for rescind and expunge would not change the vote needed, for example.  

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:09 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, the same rule applies with respect to the adoption of a special rule of order.  I think it has to do with the fact that notice has been given, which is also the case with respect to business to be transacted at a special meeting.

If notice was given to rescind and expunge, would that change the requirement for a majority of the entire membership? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:33 PM, J. J. said:

If notice was given to rescind and expunge, would that change the requirement for a majority of the entire membership? 

No. What is relevant here, however, is the fact that the adoption of such a motion cannot be reconsidered.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:45 PM, Dan Honemann said:

No. What is relevant here, however, is the fact that the adoption of such a motion cannot be reconsidered.

What actually is relevant is that, like a motion to rescind and expunge, a motion to REM also protects a majority of the entire membership. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:09 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, the same rule applies with respect to the adoption of a special rule of order.  I think it has to do with the fact that notice has been given, which is also the case with respect to business to be transacted at a special meeting.

But at a special meeting, any motion relating to the purpose of the meeting can be considered; it doesn't have to be a particular motion for which notice is given. A motion to Reconsider might be made, for example, for the purpose of offering an amendment to an adopted motion, or for the purpose of considering again one alternative that was defeated earlier in the meeting, after the assembly is unable come to agreement on any other alternative. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:02 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

But at a special meeting, any motion relating to the purpose of the meeting can be considered; it doesn't have to be a particular motion for which notice is given. A motion to Reconsider might be made, for example, for the purpose of offering an amendment to an adopted motion, or for the purpose of considering again one alternative that was defeated earlier in the meeting, after the assembly is unable come to agreement on any other alternative. 

But we are concerned here only with the adoption of the (or "a") main motion for which the requisite notice has been given.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Okay at least on this topic, JJ and Mr. Gerber have convinced me.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/15/2023 at 9:58 PM, Phil D said:

Doesn’t 25:13 apply to prevent the temporary majority from nullifying the effect of reconsidering and entering on the minutes? “Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended.”

I don't think 25:13 is applicable here, because it is not necessarily the case that the motion to Reconsider must be taken up at a future session. It can be taken up at a different meeting in the same session.

On 1/16/2023 at 11:13 AM, J. J. said:

This rule, effectively, protects a majority of the entire membership.  Therefore a majority of the entire membership is needed to suspend it. 

I concur with this. This seems to be the most logical interpretation of the rule.

"Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is a special form of the motion to Reconsider that has a different object from the regular motion. Its purpose is to prevent a temporary majority from taking advantage of an unrepresentative attendance at a meeting to vote an action that is opposed by a majority of a society's or a convention's membership." RONR (12th ed.) 37:46

I also concur with Mr. Carlson that if the concern here is that the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes will be abused, RONR has provisions concerning next steps in the event such a situation arises, and that if the assembly desires further protections, it is free to adopt its own rules limiting or even prohibiting the use of this motion.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/16/2023 at 1:56 PM, Josh Martin said:

I don't think 25:13 is applicable here, because it is not necessarily the case that the motion to Reconsider must be taken up at a future session. It can be taken up at a different meeting in the same session.

I concur with this. This seems to be the most logical interpretation of the rule.

"Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes is a special form of the motion to Reconsider that has a different object from the regular motion. Its purpose is to prevent a temporary majority from taking advantage of an unrepresentative attendance at a meeting to vote an action that is opposed by a majority of a society's or a convention's membership." RONR (12th ed.) 37:46

I also concur with Mr. Carlson that if the concern here is that the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes will be abused, RONR has provisions concerning next steps in the event such a situation arises, and that if the assembly desires further protections, it is free to adopt its own rules limiting or even prohibiting the use of this motion.

Mr. Martin, I would be interested in learning your view of this rather novel idea of mine that in instances such as we have here, motions to Reconsider are not in order at all for the same reason that affirmative votes on motions to adopt special rules of order and motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be reconsidered at all. As I indicated, I think this has something to do with the fact that requisite notice has been given, which is also the case with respect to business to be transacted at a special meeting.  If this is not the case, why do you think that affirmative votes on these motions cannot be reconsidered?

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:13 PM, J. J. said:

Which makes no difference as the rule protects both people voting against the motion, and absentees (who do not vote). 

This rule, effectively, protects a majority of the entire membership.  Therefore a majority of the entire membership is needed to suspend it. 

But there is no vote of any kind, high threshold or low.   How do you propose moving to suspend the rules?  Scenario:

I move to REM, and it is seconded and recorded.  I certainly am not going to move to suspend the rules that protect my motion. As I see it, it is now a done deal.  It's entered.

You can't move to reconsider the REM [37:9(2)(f)], you can't ASPA, you can't Rescind, so what's your next move? 

Unless you have anticipated this situation in advance and passed a special rule preventing REM, you're going to have to wait until the next day to do anything. No?