Condemning a previous action

[cadoskey]

Our society has adopted RONR for all officers' meetings. We are a church and most of our business is conducted by the officers (the elders). Our constitution requires a supermajority of the officers (and the membership) in order to elect a new officer as well as to remove an officer. We voted to remove an officer earlier this year and the action took effect. Now, months later, a simple majority of the officers no longer supports the previous decision. That is not a sufficiently large number to reinstate the man who had been removed (they lack the necessary supermajority to do that). Since they cannot reinstate him, they want to simply declare the previous action wrong - a symbolic gesture. In light of the rules governing debate, refraining from speaking adversely on a prior action not pending, (RONR p. 381), is this motion out of order?

[Rob Elsman]

Our society has adopted RONR for all officers' meetings. We are a church and most of our business is conducted by the officers (the elders). Our constitution requires a supermajority of the officers (and the membership) in order to elect a new officer as well as to remove an officer. We voted to remove an officer earlier this year and the action took effect. Now, months later, a simple majority of the officers no longer supports the previous decision. That is not a sufficiently large number to reinstate the man who had been removed (they lack the necessary supermajority to do that). Since they cannot reinstate him, they want to simply declare the previous action wrong - a symbolic gesture. In light of the rules governing debate, refraining from speaking adversely on a prior action not pending, (RONR p. 381), is this motion out of order?

The rules for speaking in debate, particularly RONR (10th ed.), p. 381, ll. 1-6, do not, in my opinion, preclude the consideration of a main motion condemning some action previously taken by the assembly.