New Motion that Affects a Previously Adopted Motion

[Guest Vivi]

Hi! I'm pretty new to Robert's Rules so please bear with me.  My question is as follows: What should happen if a motion is passed at one meeting; however, at a second meeting someone makes a new motion of which the outcome would negate the 1st motion? Should the presiding officer kindly remind the member that the body voted a specific way previously and that they would either have to vote for an amendment, rescind or reconsideration?

[puzzling]

On 1/18/2023 at 4:50 AM, Guest Vivi said:

Hi! I'm pretty new to Robert's Rules so please bear with me.  My question is as follows: What should happen if a motion is passed at one meeting; however, at a second meeting someone makes a new motion of which the outcome would negate the 1st motion? Should the presiding officer kindly remind the member that the body voted a specific way previously and that they would either have to vote for an amendment, rescind or reconsideration?

the motion at the second meeting is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA in short).

There are special rules for this kind of motion, the most important one being that without previous notice it requires a 2/3 vote in favour for adoption. see the section of RONR dedicated to this kind of motion. (section 35)

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/17/2023 at 9:50 PM, Guest Vivi said:

Hi! I'm pretty new to Robert's Rules so please bear with me.  My question is as follows: What should happen if a motion is passed at one meeting; however, at a second meeting someone makes a new motion of which the outcome would negate the 1st motion? Should the presiding officer kindly remind the member that the body voted a specific way previously and that they would either have to vote for an amendment, rescind or reconsideration?

It appears that you are talking about a new motion that occurs at a subsequent session so that the motion to reconsider is not relevant for it must be moved on either the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held (37:8(b))

If the new motion was adopted and in conflict it could be a continuing breach for which a point of order would not have been raised at the time - the new motion is null and void and a point of order can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach if…. a main motion  has been adopted that conflict with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion (23:6(b)).

In order to rescind or amend something previously adopted the vote required would be any one of these:  2/3 vote, majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion stating the complete substance of the proposed change has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting or, a vote of a majority of the entire membership. (35:2(7))

So unless it passed within these strictures, a point of order can be raised at any time.  If the Chair was aware of these conflict, he should have advised the assembly of the vote thresholds and procedure required, but if he did not (or was not aware of it), a point of order can still be raised that the action is null and void presuming it is still in force and effect.

Edited January 18, 2023 at 05:16 AM by Caryn Ann Harlos

[Richard Brown]

On 1/17/2023 at 11:13 PM, puzzling said:

the motion at the second meeting is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA in short)

I agree with Ms. Harlos that this does not appear to have been made as a motion to amend something previously adopted. It appears to have been made as a motion which conflicts with something previously adopted.

As such, it was out of order and its adoption would be null and void unless it is adopted by the same vote as would be required to adopt the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted as outlined by Ms. Harlos.

On 1/17/2023 at 10:50 PM, Guest Vivi said:

My question is as follows: What should happen if a motion is passed at one meeting; however, at a second meeting someone makes a new motion of which the outcome would negate the 1st motion? Should the presiding officer kindly remind the member that the body voted a specific way previously and that they would either have to vote for an amendment, rescind or reconsideration?

As stated in the original post, it does not appear that the motion was made as a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. Therefore, the chair should have ruled the motion out of order on the basis that it conflicts with a motion previously adopted. In addition, he could have explained to the member that if the intent was to change the effect of the motion previously adopted, the motion should be made as a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted.

A motion to reconsider would not be in order for the reason stated by Ms. Harlos.

 

 

Edited January 18, 2023 at 07:40 AM by Richard Brown
Typographical corrections

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:13 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

It appears that you are talking about a new motion that occurs at a subsequent session so that the motion to reconsider is not relevant for it must be moved on either the same day the original vote was taken or on the next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held (37:8(b))

If the new motion was adopted and in conflict it could be a continuing breach for which a point of order would not have been raised at the time - the new motion is null and void and a point of order can be raised at any time during the continuance of the breach if…. a main motion  has been adopted that conflict with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion (23:6(b)).

In order to rescind or amend something previously adopted the vote required would be any one of these:  2/3 vote, majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion stating the complete substance of the proposed change has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting or, a vote of a majority of the entire membership. (35:2(7))

So unless it passed within these strictures, a point of order can be raised at any time.  If the Chair was aware of these conflict, he should have advised the assembly of the vote thresholds and procedure required, but if he did not (or was not aware of it), a point of order can still be raised that the action is null and void presuming it is still in force and effect.

I agree, except that if clear and convincing proof is available that the new motion was adopted by a vote threshold sufficient to carry a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, that there is effectively no continuing breach.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/18/2023 at 11:13 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree, except that if clear and convincing proof is available that the new motion was adopted by a vote threshold sufficient to carry a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, that there is effectively no continuing breach.

Yes absolutely agreed.  

[Richard Brown]

On 1/18/2023 at 12:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree, except that if clear and convincing proof is available that the new motion was adopted by a vote threshold sufficient to carry a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, that there is effectively no continuing breach.

I believe that is what both Ms. Harlos and I said in our initial responses.

23:6 (b) of RONR (12th ed.) is the controlling provision.  The rule actually does not say that "clear and convincing proof" is required, although that might be a good standard to go by.

23: 6 The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach— that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect— regardless of how much time has elapsed. Instances of this kind occur when:

a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly,

b) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion, (Emphasis added).  (Remainder of section omitted).

Edited to add:  See also 39:5:

Motions that conflict with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws of a society, or with procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local laws, are not in order, 1 and if any motion of this kind is adopted, it is null and void. Likewise, apart from motions to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted. (Emphasis added).

 

 

Edited January 19, 2023 at 12:16 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[puzzling]

On 1/18/2023 at 6:13 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I agree, except that if clear and convincing proof is available that the new motion was adopted by a vote threshold sufficient to carry a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, that there is effectively no continuing breach.

not so sure about this.

It hinges on the point if the members knew about the earlier adopted motion.

If they were not knowledgeable about the old motion  I do think a new vote is necessary. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

That is just not correct.  At all.  

[Richard Brown]

On 1/19/2023 at 5:39 AM, puzzling said:

not so sure about this.

It hinges on the point if the members knew about the earlier adopted motion.

If they were not knowledgeable about the old motion  I do think a new vote is necessary. 

No, @puzzling, that is not correct. The rule in RONR is clear. I referred to it and quoted from twice in my post immediately above yours. Ms. Harlos and Mr. Novosielski also correctly referred to the rule. It DOES NOT hinge on whether members knew about the earlier adopted motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 1/19/2023 at 6:39 AM, puzzling said:

not so sure about this.

It hinges on the point if the members knew about the earlier adopted motion.

If they were not knowledgeable about the old motion  I do think a new vote is necessary. 

No, that does not matter.  See the bolded section of @Richard Brown's response above.  As long as the vote count is known to be high enough, then the motion stands adopted.

What sort of proof might be necessary is not specified in the rule. What's less certain is how we are to know what the vote count was if the vote was not counted but to the best of members' memories it was a significantly robust majority.  People's recollection of how loud the Ayes seemed to be, relative to the Noes is not that clear and convincing, if you ask me.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/19/2023 at 2:03 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No, that does not matter.  See the bolded section of @Richard Brown's response above.  As long as the vote count is known to be high enough, then the motion stands adopted.

What sort of proof might be necessary is not specified in the rule. What's less certain is how we are to know what the vote count was if the vote was not counted but to the best of members' memories it was a significantly robust majority.  People's recollection of how loud the Ayes seemed to be, relative to the Noes is not that clear and convincing, if you ask me.

Pig entrails do it every time.

[Guest Vivi]

Thank you so much. This is exactly what I needed