Motions.....

[Quietstorm]

A friend of mine beongs to an organization and told me that a motion was passed in December. On February 15th a different motion kind of opposite to the December motion was brought forward. They followed "some" of Roberts Rules but not all. So does any vote on the new motion make it valid or invalid?

[Rob Elsman]

Unless the "new" motion that conflicts with the earlier motion was adopted by the vote necessary to amend or rescind the earlier motion, the adoption of the "new" motion is null and void. A Point of Order can be raised about this breach of the rules as long as the "new" motion has force and effect. RONR (12th ed.) 23:6.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/11/2023 at 4:22 PM, Quietstorm said:

a different motion kind of opposite to the December motion was brought forward

I agree with @Rob Elsman but only where the February motion conflicts with the December motion. The parts of the February motion that are not in conflict — if there are any — are valid. The parts that are in conflict are null and void unless previous notice was given or, if notice was not given, it was adopted by either a 2/3 vote or the affirmative votes of a majority of the entire membership (which are the requirements to rescind or amend something previously adopted).

[Richard Brown]

On 3/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Quietstorm said:

A friend of mine beongs to an organization and told me that a motion was passed in December. On February 15th a different motion kind of opposite to the December motion was brought forward. They followed "some" of Roberts Rules but not all. So does any vote on the new motion make it valid or invalid?

Agreeing with my colleagues, we really need more information in order to give you a more definitive answer.  Supplementing the response by Dr. Kapur, if the new motion was adopted by unanimous consent (also known as "without objection"), it would be valid unless invalid for some other reason we don't know about.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/11/2023 at 4:22 PM, Quietstorm said:

A friend of mine beongs to an organization and told me that a motion was passed in December. On February 15th a different motion kind of opposite to the December motion was brought forward. They followed "some" of Roberts Rules but not all. So does any vote on the new motion make it valid or invalid?

What sort of a motion was this?  Who is "they" in the second sentence?  

[Rob Elsman]

I disagree with my colleague, @Atul Kapur, that parts of the February motion not in conflict with the December motion are validly adopted (and have force and effect). RONR (12th ed.) does not provide for severing a motion into parts and considering the validity of each part separately. If one part of a motion is adopted invalidly, the whole motion is adopted invalidly.

[Richard Brown]

On 3/12/2023 at 9:45 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree with my colleague, @Atul Kapur, that parts of the February motion not in conflict with the December motion are validly adopted (and have force and effect). RONR (12th ed.) does not provide for severing a motion into parts and considering the validity of each part separately. If one part of a motion is adopted invalidly, the whole motion is adopted invalidly.

This presents an intriguing question.... one which RONR seems to not answer.  I agree that the letter of the rules in RONR regarding the adoption of a motion without notice that conflicts with a motion previously adopted states that the newly adopted motion is null and void unless adopted by a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  However, as a practical matter, it seems to me that only the provisions of the new motion which conflict with provisions in the previously adopted motion should be invalid.  I think the parts of the new motion that do not conflict with the previously adopted one should be valid.  Those provisions do not conflict with anything.

The applicable rules seem to be 10:26(4), 23:6(b), 37:13 and 39:5 (RONR, 12th ed.).

I'm anxious to see the opinions of our colleagues and, hopefully, of the authorship team. 

[Josh Martin]

On 3/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Quietstorm said:

A friend of mine beongs to an organization and told me that a motion was passed in December. On February 15th a different motion kind of opposite to the December motion was brought forward... So does any vote on the new motion make it valid or invalid?

The new motion is valid if the motion was:

a) Properly made as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA)

b) Was not made as a motion to ASPA, but was adopted by a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership

Otherwise, the motion was not valid.

On 3/11/2023 at 3:22 PM, Quietstorm said:

They followed "some" of Roberts Rules but not all.

Please elaborate on what is meant by this.

On 3/12/2023 at 5:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

This presents an intriguing question.... one which RONR seems to not answer.  I agree that the letter of the rules in RONR regarding the adoption of a motion without notice that conflicts with a motion previously adopted states that the newly adopted motion is null and void unless adopted by a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.  However, as a practical matter, it seems to me that only the provisions of the new motion which conflict with provisions in the previously adopted motion should be invalid.  I think the parts of the new motion that do not conflict with the previously adopted one should be valid.  Those provisions do not conflict with anything.

I concur with Mr. Elsman on this. RONR does not have a "severability" provision. I am not aware of any mechanism by which the chair can declare only part of a motion null and void.

The applicable citations provides that a main motion is out of order if the motion conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force and that such a motion is null and void if adopted. The text does not provide that only portions of the motion are out of order or null and void.

In the event such a motion is ruled out of order or null and void, a member would certainly be free to make a new main motion which contained only the portions which are not in conflict. In the alternative, the member could include the conflicting portions, but properly make the motion in the form of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.