notice for ASPA

[Trina]

RONR p. 295 says that 'if a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted is amended so that the change proposed by the amended motion then exceeds the scope of a previous notice that was given, the effect of the previous notice is destroyed and the motion can no longer be adopted by a majority vote.'

Is this destruction a one-way gate, or can one return (by further amendment) to a version of the motion which is back within the scope of notice, and thereby regain the possibility of passing the motion by majority vote?

In other words, suppose the motion is amended beyond the scope of notice, the supporters of the motion start to realize they won't get a two-thirds vote, and then try to retreat to a version of the motion covered by the notice -- does that get them back in a position of needing only a majority vote?

I'm assuming that 'destroyed' is a one-way thing, given the unusually dramatic use of language... but one could argue the other way too, I suppose -- if the motion that is finally put to a vote is inside the scope of the notice, why wouldn't it fall under the proper conditions for majority vote with notice?

[Josh Martin]

RONR p. 295 says that 'if a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted is amended so that the change proposed by the amended motion then exceeds the scope of a previous notice that was given, the effect of the previous notice is destroyed and the motion can no longer be adopted by a majority vote.'

Is this destruction a one-way gate, or can one return (by further amendment) to a version of the motion which is back within the scope of notice, and thereby regain the possibility of passing the motion by majority vote?

In other words, suppose the motion is amended beyond the scope of notice, the supporters of the motion start to realize they won't get a two-thirds vote, and then try to retreat to a version of the motion covered by the notice -- does that get them back in a position of needing only a majority vote?

I'm assuming that 'destroyed' is a one-way thing, given the unusually dramatic use of language... but one could argue the other way too, I suppose -- if the motion that is finally put to a vote is inside the scope of the notice, why wouldn't it fall under the proper conditions for majority vote with notice?

It's quite likely that accomplishing this will require a motion to reconsider or a suspension of the rules, but yes, so long as the final form of the motion is within scope, I see no reason that it would not fall under the conditions for majority vote with notice.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm assuming that 'destroyed' is a one-way thing, given the unusually dramatic use of language... but one could argue the other way too, I suppose -- if the motion that is finally put to a vote is inside the scope of the notice, why wouldn't it fall under the proper conditions for majority vote with notice?

RONR never gives a "deadline" or a "method" where previous notice is somehow "exhausted" (or, to use the cited term, "destroyed").

Notice "lasts" throughout the meeting.

Previous notice is meeting-based, not session-based, so it is unlike other parliamentary rules.

In theory, if later in the meeting, a motion is moved which falls within notice, that motion does not lose access to the previous notice given for that meeting just because an earlier motion was moved and was adopted (or, was rejected).

Example:

Indeed, it would nonsensical if at 8:05 p.m., an appropriate motion (fitting the previous notice given earlier) were to be voted down, and then, after some business has intervened, at 8:33 p.m., the chair were to rule "out of order" a new attempt at amending the targeted policy/rule, where the new language uses no wording of the defeated 8:05 p.m. motion, and thus presents a new question.

To use computer programming terminology, I think the verb, "destroys," is "local," to the specific amendment, and not "global" to 100% all follow up motions which present new questions, in that same meeting.

[Trina]

RONR never gives a "deadline" or a "method" where previous notice is somehow "exhausted" (or, to use the cited term, "destroyed").

Notice "lasts" throughout the meeting.

Previous notice is meeting-based, not session-based, so it is unlike other parliamentary rules.

In theory, if later in the meeting, a motion is moved which falls within notice, that motion does not lose access to the previous notice given for that meeting just because an earlier motion was moved and was adopted (or, was rejected).

Example:

Indeed, it would nonsensical if at 8:05 p.m., an appropriate motion (fitting the previous notice given earlier) were to be voted down, and then, after some business has intervened, at 8:33 p.m., the chair were to rule "out of order" a new attempt at amending the targeted policy/rule, where the new language uses no wording of the defeated 8:05 p.m. motion, and thus presents a new question.

To use computer programming terminology, I think the verb, "destroys," is "local," to the specific amendment, and not "global" to 100% all follow up motions which present new questions, in that same meeting.

Are you saying there could be multiple (differently worded) ASPA motions under the same notice, without a need to move to reconsider the motion voted down earlier in the meeting? Since notice for ASPA requires 'stating the complete substance of the proposed change' (p. 295), I'm having trouble seeing how reconsider is to be avoided. Perhaps it's a judgement of when something becomes a 'substantially different question.'

Also, since your hypothetical case includes the possibility that an earlier motion was adopted (rather than defeated), no further motion on the subject would be in order in that case, would it? ...since Standard Descriptive Characteristic #8 (p. 296) says that an affirmative vote on an ASPA motion cannot be reconsidered...

[Trina]

It's quite likely that accomplishing this will require a motion to reconsider or a suspension of the rules, but yes, so long as the final form of the motion is within scope, I see no reason that it would not fall under the conditions for majority vote with notice.

Thank you, that does make sense. However, the finality of 'destroyed' still bothers me, so I'm not 100% convinced that the effect of the previous notice can be resurrected after it is 'destroyed'. Perhaps it is just local destruction, as Mr. Goldsworthy suggests .