Guest Jackie Posted January 24, 2011 at 02:40 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 02:40 PM recently our organization has been successful at amending a previously adopted motion by striking out and substituting a new sentence. It has now come to light that by adopting that new motion, another motion that passed 2 years ago will be affected, meaning that the motion adopted 2 years ago can never come to be becasue the newer adopted amended motion takes our organization on a different path. My question is this: Do we need to go back and make changes to the older adopted motion to keep it in line with the new motion or is it understood that by adopting the new motion we understand that the other one no longer stands? I would love some feedback on this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 24, 2011 at 02:43 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 02:43 PM We don't have the exact wording (and don't post it here), but it's entirely possible a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted can have an effect on more than one adopted main motion.Unless there is something about that really old motion you want to retain, just let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:16 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:16 PM recently our organization has been successful at amending a previously adopted motion by striking out and substituting a new sentence. It has now come to light that by adopting that new motion, another motion that passed 2 years ago will be affected, meaning that the motion adopted 2 years ago can never come to be becasue the newer adopted amended motion takes our organization on a different path. My question is this: Do we need to go back and make changes to the older adopted motion to keep it in line with the new motion or is it understood that by adopting the new motion we understand that the other one no longer stands? I would love some feedback on this issue.It is not in order to adopt something that conflicts with something previously adopted (and not yet completed) unless that conflict is resolved by amending or rescinding the earlier motion. If you forgot one, and have created a conflict, you should go back and rescind or amend that earlier motion, to bring it in line with what you want, and then, if necessary renew the recent motion that now no longer conflicts with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:46 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:46 PM It is not in order to adopt something that conflicts with something previously adopted (and not yet completed) unless that conflict is resolved by amending or rescinding the earlier motion. If you forgot one, and have created a conflict, you should go back and rescind or amend that earlier motion, to bring it in line with what you want, and then, if necessary renew the recent motion that now no longer conflicts with it.GPN, I would think that the more-recently adopted motion was what violated p. 244 (, and consequently is not in force. Why not?[Edited to remove typo] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:51 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:51 PM GPN, I would think that the more-recently adopted motion was what violated p. 244 (, and consequently is not in force. Why not?I agree. That's why, if they do want to accomplish what it said, they need to go back, resolve the conflict, then renew the new motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:57 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 05:57 PM GPN, I would think that the more-recently adopted motion was what violated p. 244 (, and consequently is not in force. Why not?I think the significant fact is that the latest motion was adopted by a vote sufficient to amend a previously adopted motion. Mr. Mervosh seems to be saying (and I trust he'll correct me if I'm mistaken) that this covers all affected previously adopted motions, not just the one to which the amendment was directed. I initially found that troubling but I seem to recall discussions here to the effect that any motion adopted with a vote sufficient to amend a previously adopted motion supersedes any previously adopted motion with which it conflicts. And any point of order would have to have been timely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 24, 2011 at 08:31 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 08:31 PM I think the significant fact is that the latest motion was adopted by a vote sufficient to amend a previously adopted motion. Mr. Mervosh seems to be saying (and I trust he'll correct me if I'm mistaken) that this covers all affected previously adopted motions, not just the one to which the amendment was directed. I initially found that troubling but I seem to recall discussions here to the effect that any motion adopted with a vote sufficient to amend a previously adopted motion supersedes any previously adopted motion with which it conflicts. And any point of order would have to have been timely.I'd be more likely to agree to that if it were true that the assembly was doing so with their eyes open. But apparently they passed this without being aware of the existence of the older motion, or how this new one might affect it. Yes, they could have passed it with a 2/3 vote, but they could not pass it if they were unaware of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted January 24, 2011 at 08:42 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 08:42 PM Yes, they could have passed it with a 2/3 vote, but they could not pass it if they were unaware of it.Assemblies frequently adopt motions without being aware of the implications of their decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:16 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:16 PM I'd be more likely to agree to that if it were true that the assembly was doing so with their eyes open. But apparently they passed this without being aware of the existence of the older motion, or how this new one might affect it. Yes, they could have passed it with a 2/3 vote, but they could not pass it if they were unaware of it.I don't buy your argument that the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted needs to specifically refer to all the motions it is intended to amend, but even if you're right, Official Interpretation 2006-17 suggests that the motion stands. The members' ignorance of the earlier motion has no parliamentary significance. If they really like the older motion they can always use ASPA again, but since everyone forgot about it I suspect it's not a high priority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:23 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:23 PM I don't buy your argument that the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted needs to specifically refer to all the motions it is intended to amend, but even if you're right, Official Interpretation 2006-17 suggests that the motion stands.Yes, and absent a timely point of order this one may well stand too. I would withhold judgment on whether a continuing breach exists, without knowing the contents of the motions.But I would not agree that such a motion does not "need to" specifically refer to all the motions it is intended to amend. It certainly does, and if it does not, or it is not preceded by other motions to Rescind or Amend, as appropriate, then it is plainly out of order, and should be so ruled by the chair.Just because it's possible to use improper procedure, out of order motions, and untimely points of order to accomplish something, doesn't make it okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:28 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2011 at 09:28 PM Yes, and absent a timely point of order this one may well stand too. I would withhold judgment on whether a continuing breach exists, without knowing the contents of the motions.The contents of the motions are irrelevant. The fact that the motion was adopted by the vote required by ASPA heals the breach.But I would not agree that such a motion does not "need to" specifically refer to all the motions it is intended to amend. It certainly does, and if it does not, or it is not preceded by other motions to Rescind or Amend, as appropriate, then it is plainly out of order, and should be so ruled by the chair.It's not uncommon for such motions to be worded so that they supersede all motions with which they conflict rather than targeting specific motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted January 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM Report Share Posted January 25, 2011 at 12:33 AM I don't buy your argument that the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted needs to specifically refer to all the motions it is intended to amend, but even if you're right, Official Interpretation 2006-17 suggests that the motion stands. The members' ignorance of the earlier motion has no parliamentary significance. If they really like the older motion they can always use ASPA again, but since everyone forgot about it I suspect it's not a high priority.I think it is quite clear that any main motion that conflicts with one previously adopted and still in force is validly adopted if it was adopted by the vote that is required to adopt a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, whether or not the previously adopted main motion is referenced in the subsequently adopted one. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 12-16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.