annul

[Guest robert Maulden]

Our organization properly notified the members, a quorum was present, a motion was made seconded and debate ensured. a vote was taken. a member who does not like the outcome states that the motion can be annuled citing "you always have the right to annul or amend something already adopted." This annulment or amendment would have to be during the same meeting correct? It cannot be amended or annuled in between meetings, correct?

[hmtcastle]

This annulment or amendment would have to be during the same meeting correct? It cannot be amended or annuled in between meetings, correct?

What could have been done during the same meeting is called "reconsideration".

What can be done at the next regular meeting, or any regular meeting after that, is called "rescinding" or "amending something previously adopted".

What can be done in between meeting is: Nothing.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our organization properly notified the members, a quorum was present, a motion was made seconded and debate ensured. a vote was taken. a member who does not like the outcome states that the motion can be annuled citing "you always have the right to annul or amend something already adopted." This annulment or amendment would have to be during the same meeting correct? It cannot be amended or annuled in between meetings, correct?

You can Amend Something Previously Adopted or Rescind [or Repeal or Annul] it. It would not have been proper to do so at the same meeting, because at that point it still could have been Reconsidered.

But now it can be done at any later meeting, as long as the thing voted on has not already been done, making the matter moot. If prior notice is given, it requires only a majority vote; without prior notice, a 2/3 vote or a majority of the entire membership.

[David A Foulkes]

You can Amend Something Previously Adopted or Rescind (not annul) it. It would not have been proper to do so at the same meeting, because at that point it still could have been Reconsidered.

I found this point interesting, wondering why a motion (previously) adopted early in the meeting couldn't be rescinded or amended by these motions later in the meeting, since as noted on page 294, lines 24-26, those motions "can be applied to anything... which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions."

So I did some reading. The only thing I could find to support this is page 297, lines 29-31 where it says if it "has previously been moved to reconsider....." then the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is not in order.

But what if the motion to Reconsider has not been moved? What if a member simply wants to Rescind the previously adopted motion?

What am I missing? (and on what pages would this be found, if you please).

[Gary Novosielski]

I found this point interesting, wondering why a motion (previously) adopted early in the meeting couldn't be rescinded or amended by these motions later in the meeting, since as noted on page 294, lines 24-26, those motions "can be applied to anything... which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions."

So I did some reading. The only thing I could find to support this is page 297, lines 29-31 where it says if it "has previously been moved to reconsider....." then the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is not in order.

But what if the motion to Reconsider has not been moved? What if a member simply wants to Rescind the previously adopted motion?

What am I missing? (and on what pages would this be found, if you please).

My book is not next to me (shame on me), so don't take this as gospel. But if the matter can be reached by the motion to Reconsider, it is my understanding that RASPA is not in order. Nothing is lost by this rule, since Reconsidering the vote also reopens the entire question to debate, to further amendment, and even to being voted down entirely, so there is nothing that can be done by RASPA that cannot be done by Reconsider, when the latter is available.

[David A Foulkes]

My book is not next to me (shame on me), so don't take this as gospel. But if the matter can be reached by the motion to Reconsider, it is my understanding that RASPA is not in order. Nothing is lost by this rule, since Reconsidering the vote also reopens the entire question to debate, to further amendment, and even to being voted down entirely, so there is nothing that can be done by RASPA that cannot be done by Reconsider, when the latter is available.

This I understand, it just seemed that RASPA was still available as long as no one had moved to reconsider. And since Reconsider can only be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side, RASPA would be available to any member regardless of their vote. So a member who voted against a motion that was adopted can't Reconsider, but could Rescind or Amend, although probably would not be able to muster the 2/3 votes anyway. Just a curiosity is all.

(And I'm often sans livre myself, so no shame)

[Gary Novosielski]

This I understand, it just seemed that RASPA was still available as long as no one had moved to reconsider. And since Reconsider can only be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side, RASPA would be available to any member regardless of their vote. So a member who voted against a motion that was adopted can't Reconsider, but could Rescind or Amend, although probably would not be able to muster the 2/3 votes anyway. Just a curiosity is all.

(And I'm often sans livre myself, so no shame)

Well, now you've got me interested. I will have to search when I can. Anyone else want to weigh in? As you say, the 2/3 requirement would an obstacle, unless nearly the entire membership is already present. But even then, if you're not on the prevailing side to begin with, where do you get the 2/3?

Heck, if you have 2/3 with you, you can suspend the rule and rescind anyway (if we discover the rule even exists).

---

UPDATE: Well, I'm still livre-less, but I consulted RONRIB and ROR, both of which I have here on my laptop, and I suspect you may be correct.

RONRIB strongly implies that Reconsider is for use in the same meeting, and Rescind etc. is for use after that. But RONRIB doesn't say it with sufficient force to make it sound hard-and-fast. And ROR, in the only place I can find that seems relevant, said that Rescind was out of order if the question could be reached by "calling up" the motion to Reconsider, which does imply that it had already been moved--presumably at a time when reconsideration might properly be moved but not immediately taken up.

[Josh Martin]

And ROR, in the only place I can find that seems relevant, said that Rescind was out of order if the question could be reached by "calling up" the motion to Reconsider, which does imply that it had already been moved--presumably at a time when reconsideration might properly be moved but not immediately taken up.

That's what it says in RONR as well. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 297, lines 29-31) It is in order to use Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted at the same meeting the motion was adopted, even if the motion to Reconsider is in order at that time, although Reconsider will almost always be the better option.

[Weldon Merritt]

. . . Reconsider will almost always be the better option.

But only if the member who wants to rescind or amend voted on the prevailing side (which, for an adopted motion, obviously would have been for the motion).

[Gary Novosielski]

But only if the member who wants to rescind or amend voted on the prevailing side (which, for an adopted motion, obviously would have been for the motion).

It's almost always going to be better to try to convince someone who voted on the prevailing side to move to Reconsider. You only need to convince one person to move it, and get the much more favorable vote requirement.

[Weldon Merritt]

It's almost always going to be better to try to convince someone who voted on the prevailing side to move to Reconsider. You only need to convince one person to move it, and get the much more favorable vote requirement.

Good point, of course. And if you can't do that, good luck in getting the vote needed to rescind or amend. I supose it is possible that a well-reasoned argument in debate could convince enough members, but perhaps not too likely.

[Gary Novosielski]

Good point, of course. And if you can't do that, good luck in getting the vote needed to rescind or amend. I supose it is possible that a well-reasoned argument in debate could convince enough members, but perhaps not too likely.

Yes, but if you're that highly skilled as a persuasive orator, how come you couldn't convince just one of the majority to make the motion in the first place?

[Josh Martin]

Yes, but if you're that highly skilled as a persuasive orator, how come you couldn't convince just one of the majority to make the motion in the first place?

It's not always possible to sneak in a private conversation with a member of the majority. I quite agree, however, that the instances in which Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is a better choice than Reconsider are quite rare. The former motion is more likely to be used in instances when the motion to Reconsider is not in order, such as when the time limits have passed or if a motion to Reconsider has already been defeated.