MOTION TO RECONSIDER

[Guest Terry]

when is a motion to reconsider in order and on what grounds.

[jstackpo]

It is a bit too complicated to type here - see RONR pp. 304 - 324 for all the details.

[Josh Martin]

when is a motion to reconsider in order and on what grounds.

Terry, it may be helpful if you provide some further information on what's going on here. The motion to reconsider has strict time limits, but there are other similar tools which may be of assistance, depending on the situation.

[PastorMarkCary]

Does the maker of a motion to reconsider have to share information as to why the motion is being presented?

[Josh Martin]

Does the maker of a motion to reconsider have to share information as to why the motion is being presented?

No, but it would probably help to get the motion adopted.

[Guest Jim]

Here is my situation using the reconsider motion. My church voted at our annual congregational meeting to merge with another church. New information has come and the council, which meets monthly, voted to call a special congregational meeting to reconsider the vote to merge. Is this right? If not what would be the correct way to reconsider the vote.

[hmtcastle]

Here is my situation using the reconsider motion. My church voted at our annual congregational meeting to merge with another church. New information has come and the council, which meets monthly, voted to call a special congregational meeting to reconsider the vote to merge. Is this right? If not what would be the correct way to reconsider the vote.

The narrowly-defined motion to Reconsider has a very limited application and is not an option in the situation you describe. As long as the merger has not yet taken place, it should be possible to Rescind the adopted motion to merge.

[Trina]

Here is my situation using the reconsider motion. My church voted at our annual congregational meeting to merge with another church. New information has come and the council, which meets monthly, voted to call a special congregational meeting to reconsider the vote to merge. Is this right? If not what would be the correct way to reconsider the vote.

If the call to the special meeting has already gone out, using the word 'reconsider', I don't think you need to worry about that. The colloquial use of 'reconsider' certainly should make the planned item of business clear enough to the members. The proper motion at the meeting, however, is to 'rescind, or amend something previously adopted.' This motion requires a higher vote threshold than a normal main motion (although a vote to merge might already have called for a higher-than-majority vote margin according to your own rules). The motion to rescind (or amend something previously adopted) requires two-thirds vote without notice OR majority vote with notice OR majority vote of the entire membership. See RONR pp. 293-299 for more information.

Also, hopefully your bylaws allow special meetings of the congregation, and describe how to call them (if the bylaws are silent, special meetings are not allowed).

[Guest Pam Slaughter]

Here is my sitution we have had a motion the has been voted on and passed several years ago. It was a color issue with dogs in our breed association. It was voted that we would not allow any soild color dogs. motion was 2nd and passed. A motion was made to never bring this issue up again. The motion was 2nd and passed. Both of these issues were done years ago and the people are no longer with us. And with this there have been several dogs that have had their papers pulled for being solid colored and this cannot be reversed. Cna these motions be resended or change in any way at this time?

[George Mervosh]

Here is my sitution we have had a motion the has been voted on and passed several years ago. It was a color issue with dogs in our breed association. It was voted that we would not allow any soild color dogs. motion was 2nd and passed. A motion was made to never bring this issue up again. The motion was 2nd and passed. Both of these issues were done years ago and the people are no longer with us. And with this there have been several dogs that have had their papers pulled for being solid colored and this cannot be reversed. Cna these motions be resended or change in any way at this time?

Yes. See p. 293ff for the motion to rescind.

[hmtcastle]

there have been several dogs that have had their papers pulled for being solid colored and this cannot be reversed.

I would think not.

[Gary c Tesser]

I'm not sure the motion to never bring this up again is legit, from day one.

[Matt Schafer]

In my effort to learn the ideas in RONR and how to apply them, I'd like to ask some questions of the more experienced folks here in relation to Ms. Slaughter's situation.

We have two motions at issue:

1. Not to allow solid-colored dogs.
   
2. Not to allow a motion to consider solid-colored dogs in the future.
   

Question #1: When the second of these two motions was made, could the chair rule that it is out of order on the grounds that it violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? RONR describes this as a "general principle" that the action taken in one session cannot tie the hands of a future session. [p. 85, l. 14-20] It then states that this principle is qualified (must have previous notice) when taking an action to rescind or amend something done previously. [p. 85, l. 22-29]

Question #2: If the second of these motions does violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law but the motion is adopted anyway, can any member raise a point of order at any future meeting, thereby having the motion declared null and void? [p. 244, l. 4-26]

Question #3: Even though it is likely that the second motion is invalid, is it necessary to actually raise a point of order and have the chair rule the motion null and void? (To state the question the other way around, is it acceptable for the association to act as though it is null and void without a ruling from the chair to that effect?)

I think the answer is "yes" to Questions 1 and 2 and that it is necessary for a ruling from the chair on Question 3, but I'm curious to read what others think, especially their reasoning.

So if I'm right, that disposes of the second motion. As to the first, this would simply be a case of making a motion to rescind or amend the motion forbidding solid-colored dogs. And for that, the association would need either:

1. a two-thirds vote,
   
2. a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or
   
3. previous notice of the motion to rescind or amend, and a majority vote.
   

Do I have all of that right?

[References taken from RONR (10th ed.)]

[hmtcastle]

As to the first, this would simply be a case of making a motion to rescind or amend the motion forbidding solid-colored dogs.

Do I have all of that right?

I think Mr. Tesser, and I, agree with you with regards to the second motion.

With regards to the first, I'm not sure anything had to be rescinded or amended. Whether or not a motion forbidding solid-colored dogs altered an existing rule depends on what the status quo was. For example, a motion to prohibit smoking in the gazebo need not amend or rescind any existing rule. The rules might have simply been silent on the subject.

[Trina]

Mr. Schafer, you, as well as Guest_Pam_Slaughter, may want to look at this previous discussion:

[Trina]

....

With regards to the first, I'm not sure anything had to be rescinded or amended. Whether or not a motion forbidding solid-colored dogs altered an existing rule depends on what the status quo was. For example, a motion to prohibit smoking in the gazebo need not amend or rescind any existing rule. The rules might have simply been silent on the subject.

But, if they now want to change their rules to allow solid-colored dogs, that would require rescinding, or amending the rule they previously adopted to prohibit solid-colored dogs, right?

[hmtcastle]

But, if they now want to change their rules to allow solid-colored dogs, that would require rescinding, or amending the rule they previously adopted to prohibit solid-colored dogs, right?

Well, yes, if they want to rescind or amend something previously adopted they'll have to rescind or amend something previously adopted. But that was not the motion in question, though I think Mr. Schafer may have morphed the motion to forbid solid-color dogs into a motion to rescind that motion.

[Trina]

Here is my sitution we have had a motion the has been voted on and passed several years ago. It was a color issue with dogs in our breed association. It was voted that we would not allow any soild color dogs. motion was 2nd and passed. A motion was made to never bring this issue up again. The motion was 2nd and passed. Both of these issues were done years ago and the people are no longer with us. And with this there have been several dogs that have had their papers pulled for being solid colored and this cannot be reversed. Cna these motions be resended or change in any way at this time?

Well, yes, if they want to rescind or amend something previously adopted they'll have to rescind or amend something previously adopted. But that was not the motion in question, though I think Mr. Schafer may have morphed the motion to forbid solid-color dogs into a motion to rescind that motion.

I may be missing something -- what was the motion in question, as you read Ms. Slaughter's post?

[hmtcastle]

I may be missing something -- what was the motion in question, as you read Ms. Slaughter's post?

The motion, as I understood it, was to prohibit solid-colored dogs. There was no reference to a previous rule allowing them, and no reference to a subsequent motion to remove the restriction.

When Mr. Schafer said, "As to the first [motion], this would simply be a case of making a motion to rescind or amend the motion forbidding solid-colored dogs", I think he may have gotten ahead of himself.

Perhaps he was introducing a third motion?

Of course I could be missing something too. Once the number of replies reach the double digits, it's usually a good idea to call it a day.

[Matt Schafer]

The motion, as I understood it, was to prohibit solid-colored dogs. There was no reference to a previous rule allowing them, and no reference to a subsequent motion to remove the restriction.

When Mr. Schafer said, "As to the first [motion], this would simply be a case of making a motion to rescind or amend the motion forbidding solid-colored dogs", I think he may have gotten ahead of himself.

Perhaps he was introducing a third motion?

Of course I could be missing something too. Once the number of replies reach the double digits, it's usually a good idea to call it a day.

At the risk of further convoluting an already confusing thread. . . .

I was simply going by Ms. Slaughter's post. In it, she wrote:

It was voted that we would not allow any soild color dogs. motion was 2nd and passed. A motion was made to never bring this issue up again. The motion was 2nd and passed. . . . Cna these motions be resended or change in any way at this time?

It seemed to me that Ms. Slaughter was asking if these two motions could be rescinded or amended. So I was just trying to lay out my reasoning for rescinding both motions, to see if I understood the related concepts correctly. That's all.

[hmtcastle]

It seemed to me that Ms. Slaughter was asking if these two motions could be rescinded or amended. So I was just trying to lay out my reasoning for rescinding both motions, to see if I understood the related concepts correctly. That's all.

Not a problem.

I think this demonstrates what can happen when a topic strays too far from the original question. It began with Terry's question about reconsidering a motion. Then Jim asked a question. Then Pam Slaughter. The last two having nothing to do with the motion to reconsider.

This site has long had a sort of "identity crisis" as it has evolved from the "question & answer" forum originally intended to a "discussion" forum with, for example, speculation on what the original poster "might have meant" or "would have asked". Now I'm all for the discussion model but it can sometimes get a little out of hand confusing.

And part of the problem might be simply technical as some choose to use the "Outline" view where "all posts in a topic are shown in tree display, with one thread at a time shown", while others, like myself, stick with the "Standard" straight chronological view which shows all posts without differentiation.

There is also the problem of people assuming, quite reasonably, that if they find an existing topic relating to their particular question, they should ask the question in that topic (the "thread" view). But, as it turns out, it's best if, as we frequently advise, "new questions are asked as new topics".

Anyway, the sun is not yet up and I hesitate to rouse The Wrathful One.