Improper motions

[cadoskey]

I asked this question previously in a different form, and am asking again because I only got one response (maybe that’s all it deserved). My question concerns judging a motion to be improper or not.

RONR (10th ed.) p. 332, l. 19-24 states that motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has neither been rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted.

The action cannot be reconsidered at a later meeting if it was a one day session (RONR (10th ed.) p. 305, l. 27-30), and in the case of a resignation, it cannot be rescinded once the resignation has been acted upon (RONR (10th ed.) p. 298, l. 1). Under such circumstances, is it proper to make a motion to condemn the acceptance of a resignation once the resignation has been acted upon? Doesn’t this conflict with the acceptance of the resignation? Isn’t the only legal recourse to re-elect the person who resigned?

This situation has been created by a simple majority who would like to rescind an officer’s resignation and return him to office, but can’t; and they do not possess sufficient votes to re-elect the man (a supermajority of 75% is required). So instead, they want the organization to go on record as publicly condemning its previous action without actually doing anything about it.

[Shmuel Gerber]

Under such circumstances, is it proper to make a motion to condemn the acceptance of a resignation once the resignation has been acted upon? Doesn’t this conflict with the acceptance of the resignation? Isn’t the only legal recourse to re-elect the person who resigned?

...

So instead, they want the organization to go on record as publicly condemning its previous action without actually doing anything about it.

You've answered your own question. The new motion does not conflict with the previous one, since it does not have the effect of "unaccepting" the resignation.

[Guest Conrad]

So condemning an approved action isn't considered to be conflicting? A society can contradict itself by both approving and condemning the same thing, as long as it doesn't try to do something that is inherently impossible (accept and not accept the resignation)? If it has to be inherently impossible, why do we need a rule about it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

So condemning an approved action isn't considered to be conflicting? A society can contradict itself by both approving and condemning the same thing, as long as it doesn't try to do something that is inherently impossible (accept and not accept the resignation)? If it has to be inherently impossible, why do we need a rule about it?

Normally, the correct course would be to rescind the action, but in this case that's not possible. But condemning the action does not violate the rule against making a conflicting motion.

The first motion was to accept the resignation, and the resignation was accepted. That motion has been fully carried out, and there is no motion that remains in effect with which a new motion can conflict.

The new motion is expressing the opinion that accepting the resignation was a mistake.

There is no conflict between having made a mistake and later admitting that it was a mistake.

[Tim Wynn]

Under such circumstances, is it proper to make a motion to condemn the acceptance of a resignation once the resignation has been acted upon?

No. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 99, l. 27-28, along with p. 381, l. 1-6.

Doesn’t this conflict with the acceptance of the resignation?

No.

Isn’t the only legal recourse to re-elect the person who resigned?

For the purpose of getting the person back in office, yes.

[Shmuel Gerber]

No. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 99, l. 27-28, along with p. 381, l. 1-6.

Tim,

What if there is a motion to re-elect this person? Would you say it is improper to say in debate that it was a mistake to accept his resignation?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Under such circumstances, is it proper to make a motion to condemn the acceptance of a resignation once the resignation has been acted upon?

Yes.

A motion to condemn does NOTHING but register an OPINION.

You are free to express all the OPINIONS you wish to express.

It makes no difference what you are condemning.

Doesn’t this conflict with the acceptance of the resignation?

No.

(a.) Accepting a resignation

... is a different act from ...

(b.) expressing the OPINION that the action referred to in #a was improper, immoral, unethical, stupid, or insane.

Isn’t the only legal recourse to re-elect the person who resigned?

Of course not.

• In the marketplace, there is "buyer's regret."

• In the social circles, there is "l'esprit d'escalier" [spirit of the staircase]

It is natural to feel sorry for something you did.

You are under no obligation to gag yourself and to not express that sorrow in a resolution of condemnation.

Let me put it this way:

"You are FREE TO APOLOGIZE, at any time, for any reason."

So instead, they want the organization to go on record as publicly condemning its previous action without actually doing anything about it.

Good. There is nothing wrong with saying, "We blew it."

And leaving it at that.

[Tim Wynn]

Tim,

What if there is a motion to re-elect this person? Would you say it is improper to say in debate that it was a mistake to accept his resignation?

Yes, I would. That reflects adversely on a prior act of the society that is not pending.

"It was a mistake to accept his resignation" is just a passive way of saying, "the society screwed up." I'll allow that the intention of these words could be harmless, but taken at face value, they are improper.

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, I would. That reflects adversely on a prior act of the society that is not pending.

"It was a mistake to accept his resignation" is just a passive way of saying, "the society screwed up." I'll allow that the intention of these words could be harmless, but taken at face value, they are improper.

I disagree. The very act of moving to rescind the resignation is an assertion that accepting it was a mistake. In the debate on the recision, the affirmative will argue that it was a mistake, and the negative will argue that it was not.

Neither of these arguments is improper.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, I would. That reflects adversely on a prior act of the society that is not pending.

"It was a mistake to accept his resignation" is just a passive way of saying, "the society screwed up." I'll allow that the intention of these words could be harmless, but taken at face value, they are improper.

The rule of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 381, lines 1-6 is simply a particular application of the rule that debate must be germane to the pending question. It is not intended to shield the assembly from criticism. RONR speaks of the possibility of condemning an act of the assembly in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 299, lines 24-26. While in that citation it refers to doing so after rescinding the action, the motion to condemn is still a separate motion. In other cases (such as this one) it is not possible to rescind the motion, so only the motion to condemn is appropriate.

[Tim Wynn]

The rule of RONR, 10th ed., pg. 381, lines 1-6 is simply a particular application of the rule that debate must be germane to the pending question. It is not intended to shield the assembly from criticism. RONR speaks of the possibility of condemning an act of the assembly in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 299, lines 24-26. While in that citation it refers to doing so after rescinding the action, the motion to condemn is still a separate motion. In other cases (such as this one) it is not possible to rescind the motion, so only the motion to condemn is appropriate.

I see the rule from p. 381, l. 1-6 to be analogous with the rule on p. 247, l. 26-27: "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision."

In the example on p. 299, l. 24-26, the motion to be criticized has been rescinded.

The rule on p. 381 would seem strangely redundant if it is taken to be merely a restating of the rule from four paragraphs earlier. (I checked four paragraphs later, to make sure there isn't another restating of it. )

Some actions cannot be rescinded, reconsidered, or amended, therefore no member should speak adversely on them, and motions should not be made condemning them.

[Tim Wynn]

The very act of moving to rescind the resignation is an assertion that accepting it was a mistake. In the debate on the recision, the affirmative will argue that it was a mistake, and the negative will argue that it was not.

Once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be rescinded. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 298, l. 1.

[cadoskey]

Thank you all for your replies. I'm sorry that there is no consensus on whether condemning a prior action is an improper motion. My gut feeling (which is not normative and, hence, the question) tells me it is wrong to seek to condemn a prior action of the society if it can't be rescinded. The wording of RONR (10th ed.) p. 332, l. 19-24, combined with p. 99, l. 27-28, and p. 381, l. 1-6 would seem to support this.

Yes, there may always be "l'esprit d'escalier", but it seems clear that individuals are NOT free to apologize at any time, for any reason -- not if it violates p. 381, l. 1-6.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Some actions cannot be rescinded, reconsidered, or amended, therefore no member should speak adversely on them, and motions should not be made condemning them.

I disagree.

Here is a scenario in support.

Assume:

• An old organization, i.e., one which existed in the 19th century.

(One example: the Ku Klux Klan.)

• In 1860, this sample organization takes action (i.e., not a resolution, which would have been subject to "recission, reconsideration, amendment").

For our example, let's assume that the action had something to do with slavery (pro), or the Underground Railroad (con).

For example:

Choose one standard practice of 1860 which would fulfill such an action:

(1.) a lynching.

(2.) a cross burning.

Now, despite the fact that the action so taken is not subject to

(a.) the motion Rescind;

(b.) the motion Reconsider;

(c.) the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted;

Q. Can the organization (i.e., is it in order), in 2010, issue an apology for actions #1 or #2

(i.e., adopt a new resolution, which does neither #a nor #b nor #c)?

A. Yes.

RONR Page 381 does not prevent this.

Q. Would this still be in order even if the new resolution's text criticized (i.e., "spoke adversely") on the 1860 action?

A. Yes.

Q. Would this still be in order if the debate, occurring while the above resolution is pending, likewise spoke adversely on the 1860 action?

A. Yes.

Page 381 does not prevent a new resolution from being adopted, which does neither #a nor #b nor #c, and yet speaks adversely on some past action of the organization.

[Josh Martin]

Some actions cannot be rescinded, reconsidered, or amended, therefore no member should speak adversely on them, and motions should not be made condemning them.

So you are suggesting that a suspension of the rules would be necessary to make such a motion?

[Gary Novosielski]

Once a resignation is accepted, it cannot be rescinded. See RONR(10th ed.), p. 298, l. 1.

Quite true. Replace acceptance with any other action and the point remains.

[Tim Wynn]

So you are suggesting that a suspension of the rules would be necessary to make such a motion?

Yes, since I see rules that prohibit its introduction.

[Tim Wynn]

I disagree. The very act of moving to rescind the resignation is an assertion that accepting it was a mistake. In the debate on the recision, the affirmative will argue that it was a mistake, and the negative will argue that it was not.

Neither of these arguments is improper.

This is proper, in keeping with the provisions of p. 381, l. 1-6.

[Dan Honemann]

My gut feeling (which is not normative and, hence, the question) tells me it is wrong to seek to condemn a prior action of the society if it can't be rescinded. The wording of RONR (10th ed.) p. 332, l. 19-24, combined with p. 99, l. 27-28, and p. 381, l. 1-6 would seem to support this.

But if nothing else is to be gained as a result of this discussion it should be the understanding that what is said on page 332, lines 19-24, has nothing to do with the question raised.

[Tim Wynn]

I disagree.

Here is a scenario in support.

Assume:

• An old organization, i.e., one which existed in the 19th century.

(One example: the Ku Klux Klan.)

• In 1860, this sample organization takes action (i.e., not a resolution, which would have been subject to "recission, reconsideration, amendment").

I'm not sure what you have in mind. An action taken, even by all of the members, without the adoption or approval of the society, is not an act of the society.

For our example, let's assume that the action had something to do with slavery (pro), or the Underground Railroad (con).

While many of us are passionate about parliamentary procedure, its application should be dispassionate. Introducing abhorrent topics in an example does nothing to alter the rules. For example, if an organization had donated money, in 1860, to a fund for the abolition of slavery, and in 2010 a member moved to condemn the act, would you suddenly shift your stance and declare the motion to condemn out of order, based on its merit? I would think not.

(A footnote: I appreciate your optimism that any organization can change, but, even in 2010, I doubt the Ku Klux Klan is looking to condemn cross burnings.)

For example:

Choose one standard practice of 1860 which would fulfill such an action:

(1.) a lynching.

(2.) a cross burning.

Now, despite the fact that the action so taken is not subject to

(a.) the motion Rescind;

(b.) the motion Reconsider;

(c.) the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted;

Q. Can the organization (i.e., is it in order), in 2010, issue an apology for actions #1 or #2

(i.e., adopt a new resolution, which does neither #a nor #b nor #c)?

A. Yes.

RONR Page 381 does not prevent this.

Yes, this motion can be introduced without violating a rule. An apology for a past action is different than condemning a past action. Sometimes an apology precedes an action, in connection with condoning it, such as, "I'm sorry, but it's for your own good."

Q. Would this still be in order even if the new resolution's text criticized (i.e., "spoke adversely") on the 1860 action?

A. Yes.

No. There's a difference in adopting a motion criticizing a previous action and taking action that is different than a previous action. The resolution could say, "Whereas cross burning of any type is inherently cowardly and evil..., " but it couldn't say, "Whereas the cross burning of January 1, 1860 was a decidedly bad idea..."

Q. Would this still be in order if the debate, occurring while the above resolution is pending, likewise spoke adversely on the 1860 action?

A. Yes.

Page 381 does not prevent a new resolution from being adopted, which does neither #a nor #b nor #c, and yet speaks adversely on some past action of the organization.

No. Page 381 directly states that in debate a member cannot reflect adversely on any prior act of the society.

Mr. Martin has introduced the idea of Suspending the Rules (whether he supports the idea or not, i'm not sure), which is valid. It's not that a society cannot condemn past action... it just can't do it without violating a rule. The rules are not expected to be perfect for every society in every situation. The rules are designed to work best for most societies in most situations. For extreme cases, they are suspended.

Suspending the Rules makes perfect sense in this scenario. If the society supports condemning past action, I see no harm in it, and a ghastly transgression of the past wouldn't stand a chance, however, if more than a third of the assembly is opposed to the idea of introducing language that condemns prior action, the rules should govern.

[hmtcastle]

Page 381 directly states that in debate a member cannot reflect adversely on any prior act of the society.

Actually, the relevant paragraph on p.381 suggests that there are two instances in which a member can speak adversely on a prior action. The second instance, which is less interesting, is when a motion to reconsider, rescind, or amend the prior action is pending. The first, more interesting instance, is when the prior action itself is pending.

We then turn to p.31 to determine what it means for something (a motion? a question? an action?) to be pending. I'm inclined to think that making a motion to condemn a prior act of the society causes that question to, once again, be pending and, therefore, fair game for criticism.

[Tim Wynn]

Actually, the relevant paragraph on p.381 suggests that there are two instances in which a member can speak adversely on a prior action. The second instance, which is less interesting, is when a motion to reconsider, rescind, or amend the prior action is pending. The first, more interesting instance, is when the prior action itself is pending.

We then turn to p.31 to determine what it means for something (a motion? a question? an action?) to be pending. I'm inclined to think that making a motion to condemn a prior act of the society causes that question to, once again, be pending and, therefore, fair game for criticism.

I would add to that argument p. 120, l. 5-6, which states that the motion to censure opens the entire question to debate. This has me pirouetting and wanting to take the opposite position. The question being condemned is indeed open for debate (though it's not necessarily pending). Thanks, Mountcastle.

(watch for more spins)

[Josh Martin]

Mr. Martin has introduced the idea of Suspending the Rules (whether he supports the idea or not, i'm not sure), which is valid.

I remain of the opinion that the motion to condemn the prior action is proper to begin with. I was just working to understand your position. Thankfully, it seems that Mr. Mountcastle and the pg. 120 citation have caused you to see reason.