Special Meeting

[Guest BBQ]

A properly noticed special meeting is called to vote on a motion from a committee. The motion is amended and voted down. Does RORNR allow for a second motion, on the same subject, be made in the same meeting? Thanks!

[Chris Harrison]

Maybe. It would depend on the exact wording of what was to be considered in the Call of hte Special Meeting and the wording of the motions.

[Robert B Fish]

No, except by way of the motion to reconsider.

The principle is that the assembly may not be required to decide essentially the same question more than once in a meeting (technically: session).

-Bob

[Chris Harrison]

No, except by way of the motion to reconsider.

The principle is that the assembly may not be required to decide essentially the same question more than once in a meeting (technically: session).

-Bob

Even though without knowing the details it could be possible that the 2nd motion is not substantially the same question as the rejected one.

[hmtcastle]

No, except by way of the motion to reconsider.

Or, yes, by way of the motion to reconsider. But it would be the same motion, not "a second motion on the same subject". Of course, once pending again, it might be amended into something like a second motion on the same subject.

[Guest BBQ]

Notice is to vote on a committee recomendation for a severance package for employee. Short version, motion made to provide severance for a specific number of months. It is anticipated the motion will be amended to change the # weeks, seconded, debated and pass. The amended motion is debated, voted and fails (unlikely, but possible). Is another motion, changinging only the # weeks, in the same meeting out of order?

[hmtcastle]

Notice is to vote on a committee recomendation for a severance package for employee. Short version, motion made to provide severance for a specific number of months. It is anticipated the motion will be amended to change the # weeks, seconded, debated and pass. The amended motion is debated, voted and fails (unlikely, but possible). Is another motion, changinging only the # weeks, in the same meeting out of order?

Any changes must fall within the "scope of the notice".

For example, if the current severance package is for two weeks and the proposal is for five weeks, any length of time greater than two weeks and less than five weeks would fall within the scope of the notice. If there was no severance package and the proposal was two weeks, I'd say anything short of two weeks would be acceptable.

But note that the motion to reconsider has some unique restrictions. So read the fine print.

[Dan Honemann]

Any changes must fall within the "scope of the notice".

For example, if the current severance package is for two weeks and the proposal is for five weeks, any length of time greater than two weeks and less than five weeks would fall within the scope of the notice. If there was no severance package and the proposal was two weeks, I'd say anything short of two weeks would be acceptable.

But note that the motion to reconsider has some unique restrictions. So read the fine print.

It appears that you may be confusing the rules relating to previous notice of motions with those relating to notice of a special meeting.

[hmtcastle]

It appears that you may be confusing the rules relating to previous notice of motions with those relating to notice of a special meeting.

And, I fear, not for the first time. Would it be safe to say that notice of a special meeting is less restrictive than the scope of the notice of a motion?

If "a properly noticed special meeting is called to vote on a motion from a committee" and that motion is mentioned in the notice (but the motion does not, itself, require previous notice), does the language of the motion impose any restriction on what can be considered? If one wanted to take advantage of the lower voting threshold that previous notice affords, would that impose a scope-of-the-notice restriction?

[Trina]

Notice is to vote on a committee recomendation for a severance package for employee. Short version, motion made to provide severance for a specific number of months. It is anticipated the motion will be amended to change the # weeks, seconded, debated and pass. The amended motion is debated, voted and fails (unlikely, but possible). Is another motion, changinging only the # weeks, in the same meeting out of order?

Changing 'only' the number of weeks does have the effect that it is NOT substantially the same motion, so I think it would be in order at the same meeting. I suppose there is a fine line somewhere -- 12 weeks is substantially different than 8 weeks; perhaps 42 weeks would not be considered substantially different than 41 weeks. That would be for the assembly to decide. For example, if the assembly feels its time is being wasted by motions that are not different enough from the one already defeated, the assembly could vote to adjourn the special meeting.

[Josh Martin]

Would it be safe to say that notice of a special meeting is less restrictive than the scope of the notice of a motion?

Yes.

If "a properly noticed special meeting is called to vote on a motion from a committee" and that motion is mentioned in the notice (but the motion does not, itself, require previous notice), does the language of the motion impose any restriction on what can be considered?

No additional restrictions are imposed. That is, any amendment that would be in order at a regular meeting would also be in order at a special meeting.

If one wanted to take advantage of the lower voting threshold that previous notice affords, would that impose a scope-of-the-notice restriction?

In such a case, the effect of previous notice would be destroyed if the motion was amended beyond the scope of the notice, and the motion could not be adopted by the lower voting threshold. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 295, lines 12-18)

As for this situation, I think Trina has it exactly right. Whether the question is substantially a different question is a judgment call.

Given that the primary difference of opinion here appears to be the number of weeks, I would also suggest that the original poster consider the procedure of filling blanks as a method to resolve this debate. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 155-160)

[Guest BBQ]

Yes.

No additional restrictions are imposed. That is, any amendment that would be in order at a regular meeting would also be in order at a special meeting.

In such a case, the effect of previous notice would be destroyed if the motion was amended beyond the scope of the notice, and the motion could not be adopted by the lower voting threshold. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 295, lines 12-18)

As for this situation, I think Trina has it exactly right. Whether the question is substantially a different question is a judgment call.

Given that the primary difference of opinion here appears to be the number of weeks, I would also suggest that the original poster consider the procedure of filling blanks as a method to resolve this debate. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 155-160)

[Guest BBQ]

Thanks for all the comments....they are helpful. However, I do not believe my main question has been addressed (if I overlooked it, I apologize).

Special Meeting Proceeding:

1. Main motion is put to the assembly. The Personnel Committe recomends a weekly severance of $$$$ for employee "A" for "X" weeks.

2. Anticipated action: Motion to be amended changing the number of weeks, seconded, debated, voted and passes

3. Then amended main motion is then debated, voted (ballot) and fails. Sounds unlikely but is possible if the vote is by ballot.

Question:

1. Can another motion, changing only the # weeks, come before the assembly, in the same meeting? I understand it is a judgement call as to "substantially different".

2. Should the motion be ruled out of order, am I correct that the motion for severance,for the time being, is lost.

[Chris Harrison]

I think we did answer your questions earlier but let me try it again.

1. Can another motion, changing only the # weeks, come before the assembly, in the same meeting? I understand it is a judgement call as to "substantially different".

The answer depends on 2 things:

1) The EXACT wording of what is to be considered at the Special Meeting as spelled out in the Call of the meeting, and

2) Whether the assembly decides if the 2nd motion is so substantially different from the first one as to pose a new question.

2. Should the motion be ruled out of order, am I correct that the motion for severance,for the time being, is lost.

That answer also depends on the answers to question #1.

[Trina]

Thanks for all the comments....they are helpful. However, I do not believe my main question has been addressed (if I overlooked it, I apologize).

Special Meeting Proceeding:

1. Main motion is put to the assembly. The Personnel Committe recomends a weekly severance of $$$$ for employee "A" for "X" weeks.

2. Anticipated action: Motion to be amended changing the number of weeks, seconded, debated, voted and passes

3. Then amended main motion is then debated, voted (ballot) and fails. Sounds unlikely but is possible if the vote is by ballot.

Question:

1. Can another motion, changing only the # weeks, come before the assembly, in the same meeting? I understand it is a judgement call as to "substantially different".

2. Should the motion be ruled out of order, am I correct that the motion for severance,for the time being, is lost.

I think I see your point. If the notice was for 'a meeting to vote on the recommendation of the Personnel Committee regarding XYZ', then once the motion has been amended, and disposed of by vote, at that point the stated purpose of the special meeting has been accomplished.

Although I'm not an expert on these nuances, I think that may be an overly narrow interpretation. It IS possible, at the same meeting, to move to reconsider the motion that was defeated, and, in that case, it could end up being amended into the form of your hypothetical 'another motion'. True, there are some intermediate steps, but the end result could be exactly the same, with no question of anything being out of order. That inclines me to think that raising the second motion directly should not be summarily ruled out of order, but, rather, that the consideration of the second motion should be up to the decision of the assembly.

There is also RONR's comment about the reason for holding a special meeting in the first place: 'to deal with important matters that may arise between regular meetings and that urgently require action by the society before the next regular meeting.' (RONR p. 89). Perhaps the need to take urgent action should not be derailed by a technicality of this sort.

[hmtcastle]

Perhaps the need to take urgent action should not be derailed by a technicality of this sort.

As a recently born-again special-meeting latitudinarian, I agree. All the usual parliamentary options (e.g. reconsideration) remain available.

[Rob Elsman]

Yes, provided the second main motion does not present substantially the same question as the main motion previously rejected. RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 1-6.

[Guest BBQ]

Yes, provided the second main motion does not present substantially the same question as the main motion previously rejected. RONR (10th ed.), p. 327, ll. 1-6.

[Guest BBQ]

Thanks.....I can see clearly now.