flip flop

[Guest jeff weaver]

A motion is made, seconded, voted upon and passed. The motion is than, in the same meeting/session, "reconsidered" and voted upon in an attempt to lock the motion against further attemps revisit it. The motion remains passed. Can this motion be revistied again at a later meeting/session or is there a time frame so that motions are not passed and failed every meeting?

[George Mervosh]

It might be possible to rescind it or amend it as long as it remains applicable. (RONR, p. 293ff) I also find no rule that would have stopped that from happening at the initial meeting, though whether it could have garnered the votes is another matter.

[Guest jeff weaver]

I guess the question is... by "reconsidering" a motion (to change the way something is done) during a meeting and revoting on it, is the motion dead from further discussions later. Must the motion be followed for a certain timeframe (a year) before you can bring it up for discussion again. (2 strikes and you're out). Is there anything from preventing an old way and a new way from being voted upon every month and flip flopping back and forth?

[George Mervosh]

No, as long as it's applicable, an attempt to rescind it or amend it can be made anytime (and multiple times)......see the pages cited earlier.

[Trina]

I guess the question is... by "reconsidering" a motion (to change the way something is done) during a meeting and revoting on it, is the motion dead from further discussions later. Must the motion be followed for a certain timeframe (a year) before you can bring it up for discussion again. (2 strikes and you're out). Is there anything from preventing an old way and a new way from being voted upon every month and flip flopping back and forth?

Easy oscillation between decisions (the flip flopping you mention) is discouraged by the fact that the motions to rescind, or amend something previously adopted (see RONR pp. 293-299, as suggested) have a higher voting threshold than a plain vanilla motion. Rescind, or amend something previously adopted, needs two-thirds vote without notice OR majority vote with notice OR majority vote of the entire membership. Thus, the vote is unlikely to swing back and forth simply because one member changes his mind, or because attendance varies somewhat from meeting to meeting, etc.

[hmtcastle]

Is there anything from preventing an old way and a new way from being voted upon every month . . .

There are ways to avoid bringing up the same motion at every meeting. The motion to commit comes to mind. There are also ways to limit debate. Calling the previous question comes to mind.

[Rob Elsman]

A motion is made, seconded, voted upon and passed. The motion is than, in the same meeting/session, "reconsidered" and voted upon in an attempt to lock the motion against further attemps revisit it. The motion remains passed. Can this motion be revistied again at a later meeting/session or is there a time frame so that motions are not passed and failed every meeting?

If the main motion was adopted upon reconsideration without having been materially amended, another motion to Reconsider is not in order except by unanimous consent. However, during debate on a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, the merits of the previously-adopted main motion are able to be fully debated. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 295, ll. 5,6; p. 309, ll. 33-35.

[Gary Novosielski]

A motion is made, seconded, voted upon and passed. The motion is [then], in the same meeting/session, "reconsidered" and voted upon in an attempt to lock the motion against further [attempts to] revisit it. The motion remains passed. Can this motion be [revisited] again at a later meeting/session or is there a time frame so that motions are not passed and failed every meeting?

It sounds like someone has been watching C-SPAN. This is a favorite parliamentary gimmick in the House of Representatives.

Almost without exception, whenever anything passes the House, the chair will announce: "The Yeas are X, the Nays are Y; the resolution is adopted and without objection the motion To Reconsider is laid upon the table." There is never objection so by unanimous consent the motion to reconsider, assumed by the chair, is in one breath moved and instantly tabled, where it dies. And since congressional sessions are two years long, it can't be revisited till the next session of Congress.

This works in Congress, because tabling anything is tantamount to killing it. It is quite difficult to take anything from the table, so it's just not done. The table is actually a sinkhole for dead resolutions, and countless motions to reconsider.

But in ordinary societies, that's not true. It only takes a majority vote to take something from the table and put it before the assembly again, and "sessions" typically end with each meeting, so a failed motion can be renewed (reintroduced) at the next meeting, and a passed one can be amended or rescinded by a 2/3 vote or, with prior notice a mere majority. So it's pretty hard to keep something locked against being revisited.

You could try committing it to a committee that will agree to keep it under consideration for a long time. But even so, if the society really wants to revisit it every month, they could move "to discharge the Select Committee on Indecision from further consideration of the motion to FlipFlop", and bring it back from the dead.

It's possible that a special rule of order, properly crafted, might keep things from being reintroduced so readily, but if your members really enjoy bouncing this matter around once every month or two, I wouldn't think such a rule would stand much chance of passing, or if it did, that it would survive being suspended as soon as someone wanted to talk about the FlipFlop motion again.

[Tim Wynn]

If the main motion was adopted upon reconsideration without having been materially amended, another motion to Reconsider is not in order except by unanimous consent.

From my understanding, if it wasn't materially amended during its first reconsideration, it cannot be reconsidered again (even with unanimous consent). The rule you cited applies to the renewal of a motion to reconsider that was lost.

[hmtcastle]

. . . since congressional sessions are two years long . . .

Each term of Congress comprises two one-year sessions. The current, 111th Congress, is in its second session.

[Rob Elsman]

From my understanding, if it wasn't materially amended during its first reconsideration, it cannot be reconsidered again (even with unanimous consent). The rule you cited applies to the renewal of a motion to reconsider that was lost.

If no one objects, what's going to stop it? You're surely not suggesting that the rule is unsuspendable, are you?

[Gary Novosielski]

Each term of Congress comprises two one-year sessions. The current, 111th Congress, is in its second session.

Oops. Come to think if it, it sure is, isn't it? Thanks.

[Tim Wynn]

If no one objects, what's going to stop it?

The rules... and logic.

You're surely not suggesting that the rule is unsuspendable, are you?

Yep. Suspend the Rules and Reconsider share an interesting characteristic.

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules..." - p. 252, l. 7-9

Reconsider "Can be applied to the vote on any motion except... ...(f) when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion." - p. 307-308

If an assembly wants to revisit a motion that has been adopted after a reconsideration without a material amendment, it's time to break out Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. Suspending the Rules by a two-thirds vote to allow another reconsideration is not appropriate, because the same result can be obtained, without violating a rule, by a motion to R/ASPA (with the same vote requirement).

[Rob Elsman]

The rules... and logic.

Yep. Suspend the Rules and Reconsider share an interesting characteristic.

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules..." - p. 252, l. 7-9

Reconsider "Can be applied to the vote on any motion except... ...(f) when practically the same result as desired can be obtained by some other parliamentary motion." - p. 307-308

If an assembly wants to revisit a motion that has been adopted after a reconsideration without a material amendment, it's time to break out Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. Suspending the Rules by a two-thirds vote to allow another reconsideration is not appropriate, because the same result can be obtained, without violating a rule, by a motion to R/ASPA (with the same vote requirement).

Well, you answered "yep", but you failed to indicate which of the five categories of continuing breaches you think this would fall into. I'm not claiming liceity, either, but I'm also not claiming invalidity; I don't think the breach falls into any of the five categories on p. 244. Which one do you think applies?

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, you answered "yep", but you failed to indicate which of the five categories of continuing breaches you think this would fall into. I'm not claiming liceity, either, but I'm also not claiming invalidity; I don't think the breach falls into any of the five categories on p. 244. Which one do you think applies?

I think it's going to be difficult to establish that a continuing breach would exist solely on the basis that an improper motion was used to reach practically the same parliamentary situation (placing something again before the assembly) as could have been properly reached by a different motion having no greater a voting threshold.

That would truly be putting style over substance.

[Tim Wynn]

Well, you answered "yep", but you failed to indicate which of the five categories of continuing breaches you think this would fall into. I'm not claiming liceity, either, but I'm also not claiming invalidity; I don't think the breach falls into any of the five categories on p. 244. Which one do you think applies?

Rob,

None of them apply, and that fact is not proof that the rule can be suspended.

I believe if you were the chair and a member made any of the numbered motions listed below, you would not allow them, and I hope that after digesting the following arguments, you wouldn’t allow a motion to Suspend the Rules to Reconsider the vote on the same adopted motion a second time.

“When an assembly wishes to do something it cannot do without violating one or more of its rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules...” If the assembly wants to revisit an adopted main motion again (after one reconsideration), it can, without violating a rule, use the motion to Rescind/ASPA. Since this avenue is open to the assembly, it makes no sense to Suspend the Rules, which takes an extra step to place the matter before the assembly. Furthermore, the motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be used, since this does not present a situation where a society wishes to do something “it cannot do without violating one or more of its rules.”

Let’s assume the qualification contained in the first sentence of Section 25 can be suspended (a topic for another time). In this case, I believe you’re looking at the matter from a purely technical sense. There are other factors that need to be taken into consideration. Some rules cannot practically be suspended. Some rules appear to be susceptible to suspension, but their suspension would be illogical, impractical, detrimental to the transaction of business, or would serve no purpose.

1. If a member moves to Suspend the Rules to allow a motion to Lay on the Table to prevent the main motion from being considered for the remainder of the session, such a suspension would not be in order. It should be stated by the chair as a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, if in order at the time, much like the examples given on p. 176, l. 15-24. However, if two thirds (the requirement to suspend the rules) vote to supress the motion for the remainder of the session, no continuing breach would occur.

2. If a member moves to Suspend the Rules to allow a Recess to end the meeting, the chair should not allow it. The chair should advise that a motion to adjourn should be used or state the motion as such. This is not a suspension of the rules as much as it would be an amendment of the rules of order. In this way, it cannot be done. The rules cannot be suspended to allow this. However, if two thirds (the requirement to adopt the motion to Suspend) had voted to close the session, by any name, no continuing breach would have occurred, because regardless of what they thought they did, they simply adjourned. If we heard of a chair who allowed a motion to Suspend the Rules to allow a recess to end a meeting, I don’t think we would be saying, “wow, that chair really knows the rules.” I think it would be just the opposite.

3. If a member moves to Suspend the Rules so that a motion can be introduced without a second, the chair should not allow this. If another member of the assembly wants the motion to be introduced, that member can simply second it. If no second member wants the motion introduced, the motion to Suspend the Rules would be futile. On the other hand, if two thirds of the assembly (the requirement to adopt the motion to Suspend) wants it to be introduced and there has been no second to the motion, I’d say the chair is doing a poor job of informing the assembly of the proper procedure. Due to the situation, I would say logic dictates that the rule requiring a second is “unsuspendable.” However, if the motion is introduced without a second, no continuing breach occurs.

4. What about a motion to Suspend the Rules to allow a pending motion for the Previous Question to be adopted by a majority vote? What an incredible waste of time. The vote requirement to suspend it would be sufficient to pass the motion. I proudly say the vote requirement on the Previous Question is “unsuspendable.” However, if the Previous Question were to be adopted by a majority vote, a continuing breach would not occur.

[Josh Martin]

I believe if you were the chair and a member made any of the numbered motions listed below, you would not allow them, and I hope that after digesting the following arguments, you wouldn’t allow a motion to Suspend the Rules to Reconsider the vote on the same adopted motion a second time.

Mr. Wynn, while I applaud your dedication to common sense, the simple fact is that the motion to Suspend the Rules suspends all rules which interfere with its intended purpose, with the exceptions detailed on pgs. 254-256, and "because it would be silly" is not one of those exceptions. So while I might calmly and briefly inform the assembly that their desired goal could be met by another motion, I would find myself hard-pressed to rule the motion out of order.

“When an assembly wishes to do something it cannot do without violating one or more of its rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules...” If the assembly wants to revisit an adopted main motion again (after one reconsideration), it can, without violating a rule, use the motion to Rescind/ASPA. Since this avenue is open to the assembly, it makes no sense to Suspend the Rules, which takes an extra step to place the matter before the assembly. Furthermore, the motion to Suspend the Rules cannot be used, since this does not present a situation where a society wishes to do something “it cannot do without violating one or more of its rules.”

In the hypothetical scenario provided, the assembly does wish to do something (reconsider again without material amendment) that it cannot do without violating a rule. The fact that it could meet the same end through another means is immaterial for the purposes of the rule. Additionally, since Suspend the Rules is frequently combined with other motions, it would not necessarily be "an extra step."

Additionally, to what purpose would you rule the motion to Suspend the Rules out of order? Your argument seems to be that in doing so, you would save the assembly time. Since the motion to suspend the rules is neither debatable nor amendable, it seems to me it would actually be much quicker to simply process the motion, rather than to rule it out of order, provide your reasoning, and possibly face an appeal. An education on the finer points of parliamentary procedure might be better spent in a private discussion with the member after the meeting.

Considering that the theoretical example here involves unanimous consent, the disparity in the amount of time required for these two processes appears to be even greater.

[Tim Wynn]

Mr. Martin, I accept your arguments. In the hypothetical case, the motion to Reconsider and R/ASPA are so similar that it really doesn't make a difference, and no harm would be done. It would only be in cases such as allowing a member to ask for unanimous consent to introduce a motion without a second that I believe the assembly would actually be harmed, by learning bad habits that lead to confusion about procedure.