Suspend implementation of previously passed motions???

[jcolletteiii]

Hey, previous faculty senate president here, and I have a question on previously ratified motions.

Let's say a previous senate voted to adopt a measure, but because of the complexity of that measure, there was a timetabled implementation required. Implementation of that approved action had begun a year ago by a committee.

Now, let's suppose that a competing motion was proposed by an entirely different faculty senate body (2 years after the first motion was adopted)... 

Can the current faculty senate vote to rescind the previously approved motion to consider the new competing motion, and what would the pathway to such a pause or rescind look like? 

I've found some information, but not enough. Hopefully some parliamentarian here can help detangle this one!

Please advise!

 

[puzzling]

Do I understand it correctly?

 

There was a main motion A adopted some years ago.

Then recently? (2 years after motion A) on the same matter  a different main motion B was adopted. 

And now the senate wants to rescind one of them. (Unclear which one)

My analysis:

Motion B was out of order. (Only a motion to "rescind" or " amend something previously adopted" would be in order. Not a main motion (a different rules apply to these motions see RONR Section 35)

You can amend or rescind something previously adopted if you follow the rules in section 35.

Maybe best is to make a motion that does it for both motions at the same time (although motion B  is in principle null and void, unless motion B was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously  adopted motion (RONR 23:6 b and RONR  35:2 point 7,not even sure if you can prove or disprove this)

I think it is all a bit complicated so try to make a motion that is not to confusing

Hopes this helps

[Josh Martin]

On 5/5/2023 at 11:58 AM, jcolletteiii said:

Can the current faculty senate vote to rescind the previously approved motion to consider the new competing motion, and what would the pathway to such a pause or rescind look like? 

It could. It may also be possible to phrase the new motion as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

When a main motion with continuing force and effect has been adopted, the motion continues in effect indefinitely (unless otherwise provided in the motion) unless and until the motion is amended or rescinded. It is not in order to simply move a new main motion which conflicts with the original motion. Instead, a member could move to Rescind the original motion, which would have the effect of canceling the motion completely, or could move to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if it is instead desired to modify the original motion in some manner.

The motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted requires for its adoption a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

[jcolletteiii]

Not my motion, not my senate, not my circus, or my monkeys. 

Your reading is close.

Motion A was adopted two years ago, and work toward implementing it had already begun. This actually occurred before my tenure as president.

Motion B is a competing model to motion A. There was relatively little hope of motion B passing, but because adopted motion A was already, well, in-motion, and we could not have two of this particular kind of model operating simultaneousely, this year's senate held a vote to suspend implementation of Motion A to consider Motion B (because we can only have one of these models in operation at one time).

That motion to postpone started out as having an automatic expiration date (so as to be after the vote on Motion B). But I can't figure out from reading the minutes how it happened, but the motion to postpone was somehow amended to take out the automatic expiration, and it became a potpone indefinitely - which did pass. I suspect this motion was out of order because implementation of the adopted Motion A had already begun, but I am not sure about this.

Long story short, motion B was considered and rejected. However, the body then reconsider the postponment of passed Motion A, and that motion to reconsider failed. 

Sorry if I was unclear above. I hope I have the situation more clearly outlined now.

[puzzling]

On 5/5/2023 at 8:26 PM, jcolletteiii said:

Not my motion, not my senate, not my circus, or my monkeys. 

Your reading is close.

Motion A was adopted two years ago, and work toward implementing it had already begun. This actually occurred before my tenure as president.

Motion B is a competing model to motion A. There was relatively little hope of motion B passing, but because adopted motion A was already, well, in-motion, and we could not have two of this particular kind of model operating simultaneousely, this year's senate held a vote to suspend implementation of Motion A to consider Motion B (because we can only have one of these models in operation at one time).

That motion to postpone started out as having an automatic expiration date (so as to be after the vote on Motion B). But I can't figure out from reading the minutes how it happened, but the motion to postpone was somehow amended to take out the automatic expiration, and it became a potpone indefinitely - which did pass. I suspect this motion was out of order because implementation of the adopted Motion A had already begun, but I am not sure about this.

Long story short, motion B was considered and rejected. However, the body then reconsider the postponment of passed Motion A, and that motion to reconsider failed. 

Sorry if I was unclear above. I hope I have the situation more clearly outlined now.

Still unclear,  (even more :) )

The motion to postpone motion A should have been a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted , not a normal main motion. Just because motion A had continuing force.

The rest is still a bit unclear to me. 

You seem to use terms from RONR in a wrong way, ( under RONR a reconsideration can only  happen at the meeting it was decided  not months or years later)

And was the reconsideration on 1) motion A or

2) the motion to postpone motion A?

Maybe it doesn't make to much difference, just make a new motion to Amend motion A and the postponement of motion A that makes very clear what the new way forward  is.

Hopes  this helps ( a bit)

 

[Atul Kapur]

Sounds like there was at least two errors made. In any event, it appears that your current situation is that the activities to implement Model A are suspended. The model in motion B is not relevant because it was defeated.

The supporters of Model A can make a motion at a future meeting to resume implementation of Model A. There is no need to use Reconsider because this is a separate session. This would just be a new main motion. 

 

If this motion is defeated, then the question is whether you have to have a model? If not, then nothing needs to be done and you can continue with neither A nor B in effect.

If you must have a model in place, then hopefully someone can make a proposal that the majority can support. At this future meeting, Model B could be proposed again ("renewed").