motion to never bring up again

[Guest mike bertrand]

hunting dog organization having a color issue...at one time in the past there was a motion brought forward and passed to never bring up the subject again[table the subject] i was to understand this could not be done.....my question is was this a legal procedure and if so what and if anything can we do to get rid of it[at present there will be a vote on it to allow the subject to be brought up again/rescend the previous motion.2/3 vote needed] if not legal to have been done at the time it was what if anything can we do about to get rid of it.....many of us would like to somehow go directly to the process of accepting certain colors of dogs or not and bypass the previous motion altogether....all info would be greatly appreciated!!!!

[Tim Wynn]

hunting dog organization having a color issue...at one time in the past there was a motion brought forward and passed to never bring up the subject again[table the subject] i was to understand this could not be done.....my question is was this a legal procedure and if so what and if anything can we do to get rid of it[at present there will be a vote on it to allow the subject to be brought up again/rescend the previous motion.2/3 vote needed] if not legal to have been done at the time it was what if anything can we do about to get rid of it.....many of us would like to somehow go directly to the process of accepting certain colors of dogs or not and bypass the previous motion altogether....all info would be greatly appreciated!!!!

Such a motion is a rule prescribing what motions are in order in a meeting, and it would deprive members of the right to make certain motions. It would be a special rule of order, so it would have required notice and a two-thirds vote to adopt. On that grounds, I have doubts that it was properly adopted.

Even if it were properly adopted as a special rule of order, it could be suspended by a two-thirds vote (previous notice and a two-thirds vote being required to rescind it).

If the organization wants to ban dogs of a certain color, that's different than banning members from making motions on the topic.

[Guest bert52]

Such a motion is a rule prescribing what motions are in order in a meeting, and it would deprive members of the right to make certain motions. It would be a special rule of order, so it would have required notice and a two-thirds vote to adopt. On that grounds, I have doubts that it was properly adopted.

Even if it were properly adopted as a special rule of order, it could be suspended by a two-thirds vote (previous notice and a two-thirds vote being required to rescind it).

If the organization wants to ban dogs of a certain color, that's different than banning members from making motions on the topic.

notice and two-thirds vote to adopt---if done at annual meeting do u mean 2/3's vote of members present or of all members in assoc[contacted w/ballots etc.]

[Gary Novosielski]

Such a motion is a rule prescribing what motions are in order in a meeting, and it would deprive members of the right to make certain motions. It would be a special rule of order, so it would have required notice and a two-thirds vote to adopt. On that grounds, I have doubts that it was properly adopted.

Even if it were properly adopted as a special rule of order, it could be suspended by a two-thirds vote (previous notice and a two-thirds vote being required to rescind it).

If the organization wants to ban dogs of a certain color, that's different than banning members from making motions on the topic.

As I understand it, a special rule of order should be a rule relating to the orderly conduct of business, and not one that judges the content of a motion.

I'd be tempted to rule such an attempt out of order, as it seeks to regulate not how subjects can be discussed, but rather what subjects can be discussed.

(Subject to appeal, of course)

[Tim Wynn]

As I understand it, a special rule of order should be a rule relating to the orderly conduct of business, and not one that judges the content of a motion.

I'd be tempted to rule such an attempt out of order, as it seeks to regulate not how subjects can be discussed, but rather what subjects can be discussed.

(Subject to appeal, of course)

I appeal from the decision of the responder.

I would argue that RONR contains rules of order that discriminate the content of motions, so special rules should be allowed to do the same (ex: a motion that conflicts with the object of the society; a motion that seeks to thwart; a motion that commends or censures the chair... a motion regarding dogs of a funny color).

[Gary Novosielski]

I appeal from the decision of the responder.

I would argue that RONR contains rules of order that discriminate the content of motions, so special rules should be allowed to do the same (ex: a motion that conflicts with the object of the society; a motion that seeks to thwart; a motion that commends or censures the chair... a motion regarding dogs of a funny color).

A motion that conflicts with the objects of the society would conflict with the bylaws; this prohibition is not in the nature of a rule of order--it cannot be suspended. This would appear to support my view, not refute it.

A motion that seeks to thwart would actually be a pretty good description of this motion to "never bring up again," wouldn't it?

And a motion that commends or censures the chair is yet another class of motions that is scrupulously non-judgmental as to the content, be it positive or negative. If it referred to chairs of a certain color, it would surely not be in order.

[Tim Wynn]

A motion that conflicts with the objects of the society would conflict with the bylaws; this prohibition is not in the nature of a rule of order--it cannot be suspended. This would appear to support my view, not refute it.

The rule is that it requires a two-thirds vote to introduce business outside the object of the society. See p. 554, l. 5-9. That's a rule of order. It would make no sense to try to suspend it, though.

[Tim Wynn]

A motion that seeks to thwart would actually be a pretty good description of this motion to "never bring up again," wouldn't it?

Okay, I see the problem. We're talking about two different things. I concur that a motion "that this never be brought up again" is not proper. I converted it to a special rule of order similar to "expenditures over $1,000 require a two-thirds vote."

[Tim Wynn]

notice and two-thirds vote to adopt---if done at annual meeting do u mean 2/3's vote of members present or of all members in assoc[contacted w/ballots etc.]

A special rule of order requires notice and a two-thirds vote. A two-thirds vote means two thirds of those present and voting. Abstentions don't have an effect.

[Tim Wynn]

Bert,

Your best bet is to make your motion, and if the chair rules it out of order, appeal on the grounds that without a rule to the contrary your motion is in order. The assembly will decide the appeal, with a majority required to overturn the decision of the chair.

[Gary c Tesser]

Bert,

Your best bet is to make your motion, and if the chair rules it out of order, appeal on the grounds that without a rule to the contrary your motion is in order. The assembly will decide the appeal, with a majority required to overturn the decision of the chair.

'Cause we can't figure it out?? C'mon, Tim!

[Tim Wynn]

'Cause we can't figure it out?? C'mon, Tim!

... because we're not there and don't know the details, and because no matter what we figure out, Bert's organization is still going to have the final word.

I would confidently bet (as I imagine Gary I and Gary II would) that there is no legitimate mechanism in place for ruling that Bert can't make his motion. To be clear, it is my understanding that Bert just wants to make a main motion about some dog and other members are trying to say that he can't because a motion was adopted not to bring it up again. To me, that sounds equivalent to adopting a motion that we all vote yes to the motion next month to cancel the picnic. Members' votes cannot be controlled in this way. It seems clear that the assembly agreed to not bring it up again, but that doesn't dictate parliamentary procedure.

I never felt nor contended that there was any legitimacy to this "never bring up again" motion. I was merely trying to dream up circumstances under which it could be legitimate and analyze the ramifications. After all, we don't know the exact wording of the motion. It could have been a bylaw amendment that no brown dogs are to be allowed in field number 3; and Bert could be trying to move that his brown dog be allowed in field number 3.

[bert52]

will get better information for u later today as to who, what, when, where, and how......thanks for all your help...really appreciated and time is of the essence for us.

[bert52]

our standard officially states no solid colored dogs....this is what i discovered...several yrs ago the issue of buckskin dogs came into play and was sent out on a ballot to all members as to whether or not buckskins should be allowed..the vote was 271-212 against buckskins so they were not allowed to be registered at that time and carries through to the present day...the motion 'to never bring up color again' was according to the pres at the time and the bod was made a motion and voted on at the meeting supposedly.....there is nowhere in the minutes of the meetings for any of these yrs that can be found anything about this. what i am asking is what can be done at this point? can the bod have a special meeting before the general meeting on this issue since it cannot be found anywhere in the minutes...if there is not any ref to this we would have been voting on our next ballots at the first of the yr as to whether or not to allow solid colors in and change the standard....and as i understand it if this is the case could we have voted on this issue at the general meeting to allow or not to allow sloid colors w/maj of people present...do we need to put it on a paper ballot and send to all membership and if so what majority of people do we need in each situation? i know this sounds probably trivial but i really appreciate your help in this because i am just a dummy out here lost in all this w/little time to figure it all out....really do thank u for all your responses and help in this issue....

[hmtcastle]

do we need to put it on a paper ballot and send to all membership and if so what majority of people do we need in each situation?

Nothing is carved in stone.

The motion to amend something previously adopted (ASPA) requires either a two-thirds vote, the vote of a majority of the entire membership or, if previous notice is given, a majority vote.

[J. J.]

I appeal from the decision of the responder.

I would argue that RONR contains rules of order that discriminate the content of motions, so special rules should be allowed to do the same (ex: a motion that conflicts with the object of the society; a motion that seeks to thwart; a motion that commends or censures the chair... a motion regarding dogs of a funny color).

I think I agree with Tim.

A special rule could be adopted that says: "No motion shall be considered [or "shall be adopted"] to permit X colored dogs to be entered into contests." It would be a special rule, because it limits the procedural activity of the assembly, i.e. the ability to consider or adopt a motion. It would take a 2/3 vote with notice or a majority of the entire membership. I am not sure the adoption threshold was achieved.

Such a rule could be suspended (by a 2/3 vote) to permit such a motion to be introduced and the may be rescinded or amended (by the same vote needed to adopt).

[J. J.]

A motion that seeks to thwart would actually be a pretty good description of this motion to "never bring up again," wouldn't it?

And, the assembly may tie the hands of a future session, and may legitimately "place a question beyond the reach of such a majority (p. 85, l. 14-20)," if it does so by a special rule. A "motion to thwart," i.e. to prevent a future session from taking action would be in order, if such a motion is a special rule.

[hmtcastle]

And, the assembly may tie the hands of a future session, and may legitimately "place a question beyond the reach of such a majority (p. 85, l. 14-20)," if it does so by a special rule. A "motion to thwart," i.e. to prevent a future session from taking action would be in order, if such a motion is a special rule.

This "tying the hands" business never made much sense to me. Anything that's parliamentarily tied can be parliamentarily untied. No?

[Weldon Merritt]

This "tying the hands" business never made much sense to me. Anything that's parliamentarily tied can be parliamentarily untied. No?

Yes; but if it is done through the bylaws or a special rule of order, then it takes a little more effort.

[Trina]

Here a previous thread attempting to beat a similar topic to death discuss a similar topic in depth:

And, I though I remembered a previous visit from the solid colored dogs (start at post #9) -- I haven't re-read it to see if it adds anything not already mentioned in the current thread:

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

bert52 (is this the same, or a relative, of Guest mike bertrand?), you can see that there is some disagreement on the basic issue here -- and further, other issues arise. For example, paper ballots are all well and good -- but that's at meetings. If you want any ballots to be mailed in, your club will have to allow that in your bylaws. Which means that if the bylaws don't allow this absentee voting, the rule against solid-color dogs is a nullity. (But note the can of worms: it would also make a nullity of everything else that was enacted by absentee balloting.)

Another important thing to know is whether your board has the authority to make the decisions you allude to. (bert52, you ask -- there in Post 14 -- "can the bod have a special meeting ...?" So what might the board do at a special meeting?)

It looks to me as if you're now not even sure if these motions, to ban solid dogs and to ban mentioning solid dogs, were ever really adopted. Well, if your side can convince the membership -- by which I mean, generally, a majority at a meeting, not all of them -- that it never happened, then you can forget about it, and credential your buckskin dogs all you people want. (to dot the i's and cross the t's, your might want to adopt a resolution affirming that the rumors of the banning motions are unfounded. But that might be trouble.)

If you can't do that, or if you prefer to attack the problem head-on, then, as has been said here, simply rescind the no-talking rule, and then rescind the no-solid--dogs rule, and you're done. You can even combine the two motions into one, if no one objects, so as to only have to vote once.

I have said it this way to simplify. As is clear from the discussion here, and in the two or three threads that Trina linked to, the regular posters here are not in agreement about a couple of issues.

[bert52]

i posted my previous info while still half asleep and just reread it and it even confused me...let me try to make it simpler--- 1.our standard: solid color dogs are not to be reg 2.wanted standard changed to allow solid color dogs this Aug annual meeting 3.bod says we have to have a motion to have a statement'never dissuss the color issue again' rescinded[this was done] 4.bod said it would be put on the ballots first of year w/other voting issues such as for new officers; said also all members had to vote on this issue and 2/3 majority had to be reached for it to be rescinded 5.since then we have discovered when this took place originally-1981, and the only documentation on anything is in the minutes which states that a motion was made but it doesn't say it was seconded, voted on nor the results if it was....the pres at the time says it was voted on but if there is no documentation then i feel it does not exist and making us vote on something that is not there is stupid and completely against procedure. this is my question: can there be a motion made at the next meeting[in aug] to have the standard changed to allow solid colored dogs in registry and be voted on there and then and results by simple majority [OR] if can get bod to do so[they have conference calls during the yr on different items which come up] can they notify members in the spring newsletter that a voting will be taking place at the annual meeting on the color issue w/simple majority vote for or against? from what i gather the second would be the best for us....what do u think? thanks again and any other suggestions u might have for me would greatly help.....oh yea by the way bert52 is my log on everywhere and my name is mike bertrand...when i first went on here i did so as a guest then next time i registered and used my standard bert52 which everybody i deal w/on the internet knows me by.

[bert52]

Here a previous thread attempting to beat a similar topic to death discuss a similar topic in depth:

And, I though I remembered a previous visit from the solid colored dogs (start at post #9) -- I haven't re-read it to see if it adds anything not already mentioned in the current thread:

Thank you for your input. Yes the previous visit actually refers to the situation I am talking about here. I know the person and they were trying to find out basically the same as I am.

[Guest Nancy N.]

Mike, see earlier posts: to change a standard that is in place, you have to RESCIND it, or AMEND it. By a majority vote ONLY if previous notice has been given. If publishing the notice in the newsletter is good enough, that will suffice.

Or, the board (PLEASE stop writing "bod," it makes me giggle) can make the change, IF the board has the authority to do so. (That is very doubtful, if the membership adopted the standard in the first place.)

Exceptions:

If the standard, banning solid-color dogs, is only a CUSTOM, then a new, WRITTEN, ADOPTED standard can be put in place by a simple majority vote.

If the board has EXCLUSIVE control of things like banning solid-color dogs, then the membership can do nothing about it.

If the board is not AUTHORIZED in the bylaws to conduct business by conference-call, then the board CANNOT do it. (That also goes for conducting business by e-mail, or any other method of absentee participation.)

If the hunting-dog organization's bylaws do not allow absentee balloting, it's not allowed, either. Which means that the 271-212 vote against buckskins is null and void.

[Guest bert52]

Thanks everyone for your input. The issue is being settled as I type this. Nancy N.---sorry 'bout bod but they like to be called 'Board of directors'. This BOD was a funny on my part because at the last annual meeting they were all running around wearing hats w/BOD on them.....won't use it again for your benefit...LOL!