New Officer Term with Same Motion as Last Term Being Raised

[Guest Candis]

The local organization that I belong to National bylaws leaves it to each local chapter to decide if they wish to disperse copies of the last meeting minutes. During the last officer term there was a motion and a vote on this matter. There was again a motion and a vote again on this very topic recently.  New officers took over in July.  My question is was the recent motion legal or was the original motion in November to have been rescinded first? 

Thank you for your time to answer and educate.  It it was in the sane term I'd easily have an answer. 

[Joshua Katz]

We don't do legal here, but if you mean parliamentarially appropriate, a motion on a matter that has already been decided is not in order. So what now? (I'm assuming it was the same motion, to do the same thing, and was adopted. That is, the two answers are the same. If it was different, let me know.) The quick answer is, what's done is done. No one objected at the time, so there's nothing to be done. (Not clear what could be done, anyway. The answer is still what it was.) 

But for the future, you are correct, the motion was out of order. You could rescind the old one and then make it at a second session, although I'm not sure why you'd do that.

On 9/23/2023 at 5:38 PM, Guest Candis said:

Thank you for your time to answer and educate.  It it was in the sane term I'd easily have an answer. 

Some organizations have sane terms, some do not. In any case, the answer is the same here regardless of term. Nothing about the motion to distribute the minutes depends on the specific membership of the officer positions. 

[Guest Candis]

That's whet I was thinking. Thanx for the "legal" clarification.  I'm around to many people that like to use that word. I shall pass on what I have learned. 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2023 at 5:38 PM, Guest Candis said:

The local organization that I belong to National bylaws leaves it to each local chapter to decide if they wish to disperse copies of the last meeting minutes. During the last officer term there was a motion and a vote on this matter. There was again a motion and a vote again on this very topic recently.  New officers took over in July.  My question is was the recent motion legal or was the original motion in November to have been rescinded first? 

Thank you for your time to answer and educate.  It it was in the [same] term I'd easily have an answer. 

Well, the same term doesn't matter as much as you think, unless the original motion included an expiration date.  Motions remain in effect until fully carried out (the clubhouse is painted) or until rescinded, whichever is sooner. 

You don't say what the motion "on this matter" said, or whether it was adopted or not, although I assume from your reference to rescinding it, it must have been adopted.  Now the question is what it said.

The new motion on the same topic may or may not conflict with the first one, depending what the first one and the second one said.  If the second motion was an attempt to reverse the first, then you don't need to Rescind the first one and then pass a new one.  There is a motion that accomplishes both at once:  Amend Something Previously Adopted which can change what the old motion says, but in one step.  It has the same requirements as Rescind:

Any one of the following:

• Previous notice and a majority vote; or
• A two-thirds vote, without notice; or
• A vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the body voting).

So if the new motion just confirmed what the first one said, it was technically improper, but no harm was done.  if it failed however, it would not rescind the first motion.  The first one would remain in effect.

If the new motion reversed the meaning of the first one, then a simple majority vote would not be sufficient, unless previous notice was given, as noted above.  But if nobody moved to Amend Something Previously Adoptee, yet the motion passed by a two-thirds vote, which would have been enough to pass A.S.P.A, again, no harm no fould.

However, if the new motion was intended to reverse the first, but got less than a two-thirds vote, then it was improperly passed, and if the chair declared it passed, that was an error. But the things is, if nobody raised a Point of Order at the time, the incorrect announcement by the chair stands.  It's too late to change it (But it's not too late to improve the chair's education). 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/23/2023 at 4:38 PM, Guest Candis said:

The local organization that I belong to National bylaws leaves it to each local chapter to decide if they wish to disperse copies of the last meeting minutes. During the last officer term there was a motion and a vote on this matter. There was again a motion and a vote again on this very topic recently.  New officers took over in July.  My question is was the recent motion legal or was the original motion in November to have been rescinded first? 

What exactly was the wording of the two motions adopted on this subject?

[Guest Candis]

The original was worded to not print the meeting minutes. The new was worded to print the meeting minutes.

[Atul Kapur]

On 9/23/2023 at 8:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

What exactly was the wording of the two motions adopted on this subject?

On 9/23/2023 at 11:58 PM, Guest Candis said:

The original was worded to not print the meeting minutes. The new was worded to print the meeting minutes.

The exact wording of, at least, the first motion would be helpful to determine the duration of its effect.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/23/2023 at 10:58 PM, Guest Candis said:

The original was worded to not print the meeting minutes. The new was worded to print the meeting minutes.

Thank you. I will say, for starters, I am generally somewhat doubtful that a motion to "not print the meeting minutes" is in order to begin with, because by default, no minutes will be printed if no motion is adopted on this subject.

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move “that no response be made” to a request for a contribution to a fund, or “that our delegates be given no instructions,” unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken." RONR (12th ed.) 10:11

It may be, however, that this motion is required under the organization's rules. We are told that "The local organization that I belong to National bylaws leaves it to each local chapter to decide if they wish to disperse copies of the last meeting minutes." I have not seen the exact wording of that rule either, but it may be that the effect of this rule is to require the chapters to affirmatively adopt a rule one way or the other on this matter.

In any event, a main motion was adopted to not print the meeting minutes. Unless the motion states otherwise, it remains in effect indefinitely. As a result, a motion to print the meeting minutes conflicts with that motion. As you say, the proper tool to address this matter was a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. (I'd probably recommend the latter, so this can be completed with one motion instead of two.) The second motion is, as a result of this conflict, null and void... unless it can be established that the second motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the first motion, which is a majority vote with previous notice, a 2/3 vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. See Official Interpretation 2006-17.

The fact that these motions occurred during different "officer terms" is immaterial. The fact that the terms of officers have ended has no effect on the status of adopted motions, unless the motion so provides.

Edited September 24, 2023 at 11:05 AM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

To be clear, given:

On 9/23/2023 at 6:01 PM, Joshua Katz said:

(I'm assuming it was the same motion, to do the same thing, and was adopted. That is, the two answers are the same. If it was different, let me know.)

And subsequent information, I agree with Mr. Martin.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/23/2023 at 11:58 PM, Guest Candis said:

The original was worded to not print the meeting minutes. The new was worded to print the meeting minutes.

The original was probably out of order.  Not printing the minutes could be equally accomplished by voting for that motion, or voting against it.  Since the minutes were already not being printed anyway the motion was frivolous.  So after passage of the motion, there was nothing left of it to be "in effect" (or if you prefer, it was instantly completely carried out.)  So there is nothing left there to Rescind or Amend.

The second motion to begin printing the minutes is therefore in order, and can be adopted by a majority vote.  You still haven't told us whether either of the motions was adopted, which at this point I suppose does not matter to this response.

 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/24/2023 at 4:38 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The original was probably out of order.  Not printing the minutes could be equally accomplished by voting for that motion, or voting against it.  Since the minutes were already not being printed anyway the motion was frivolous.  So after passage of the motion, there was nothing left of it to be "in effect" (or if you prefer, it was instantly completely carried out.)  So there is nothing left there to Rescind or Amend.

Are you certain about this? RONR (12th ed.) 10:11 certainly suggests that it is ill-advised to adopt a motion of this nature, but I don't see anything suggesting it is actually out of order to do so, let alone that such a motion, if adopted, would be null and void.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/24/2023 at 5:45 PM, Josh Martin said:

Are you certain about this? RONR (12th ed.) 10:11 certainly suggests that it is ill-advised to adopt a motion of this nature, but I don't see anything suggesting it is actually out of order to do so, let alone that such a motion, if adopted, would be null and void.

It may not be out of order on its face, but I think a reasonable chair could certainly rule that it was frivolous and disallow it as accomplishing nothing.   But if it were duly "adopted", since it would have no effect distinguishable from rejecting it, I feel justified in saying that nothing has "gone into effect" or "remains in effect" or exists in any way that could be rescinded.   For that matter, if it had passed, rescinding it would be equally frivolous, since adopting or rejecting its rescission would be equivalent.  And requiring previous notice of intent to accomplish nothing in order to lower the voting threshold on not accomplishing it is beyond vacuous.

All of which suggests to me that considering it null and void from the git-go is the least absurd of all the possible absurdities.

 

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/23/2023 at 5:38 PM, Guest Candis said:

The local organization that I belong to National bylaws leaves it to each local chapter to decide if they wish to disperse copies of the last meeting minutes.

 

On 9/23/2023 at 8:27 PM, Josh Martin said:

What exactly was the wording of the two motions adopted on this subject?

 

On 9/23/2023 at 11:58 PM, Guest Candis said:

The original was worded to not print the meeting minutes. The new was worded to print the meeting minutes.

 

On 9/24/2023 at 1:40 AM, Atul Kapur said:

The exact wording of, at least, the first motion would be helpful to determine the duration of its effect.

I agree with Dr. Kapur that more detail with respect to the wording of the first motion is needed, but it would seem that it was a motion to not print and disperse copies of the meeting minutes.  

If this is the case, I think the motion was in order because, if adopted, it prohibits the printing and dispersal of minutes.  Absent its adoption, it appears that the secretary (or any other member) was free to take such action, and perhaps had been doing so.

Assuming the motion was adopted, it remains in effect until rescinded or amended.

If the motion was, in fact, a motion "to not print the meeting minutes", without more, I can understand Mr. Novosielski's concern about it.  🙂

[Guest Candis]

I had to find the passage in the national bylaws regarding why the first vote was taken. It states the manner in which the minutes are read, printed, and/or distributed shall be determined by a vote of the membership. After an thourough investigation of passed minutes no vote could be found on the matter hence the motion as follows " do to cost of printing (paper and ink) only those copies of the minutes necessary would be printed".  A side question: would this be an appropriate standing rules addition instead? Our chapter chair would prefer to settle this the proper way with some education for everyone. 

Thank you again for all the insight. 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/25/2023 at 3:43 PM, Guest Candis said:

A side question: would this be an appropriate standing rules addition instead?

Yes.