Make a Motion at a Special Meeting not on the Agenda

[Winni]

Can a member make a motion to move discussion to a committee when there is a motion of the floor to vote on that item?

[Chris Harrison]

That depends on what you mean by "a motion of the floor to vote on that item."  Generally speaking a motion to refer a motion to committee can be made up until the time a vote is taken.  However, there are cases when a motion to Commit would not be in order under certain circumstances.  If you can supply more detail on what the situation was we may be of more assistance.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The title of this thread indicates a special meeting.

 

"The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. This rule, however, does not preclude the consideration of privileged motions, or of any subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting." (RONR 11th ed., p. 93, ll. 3-8)

 

So a motion may be made to refer an item of business at a special meeting to a committee.

[Winni]

Our HOA had a special meeting to vote on one item; that was the only item on the Agenda.  The motion was made and 2^nd at the beginning of the meeting and then it went into discussion for 90 minutes.  Certain members that were not in favor of going forward with the vote came to the meeting with the intent to use RR’s as a weapon in order to delay. 

During the discussion, a member made a motion to table the vote and the resulting vote was to go forward with the original motion to vote.  Then another member made a motion to move the discussion to a committee (a way of delaying the vote) and the President said that we were at the meeting to vote, not move to a committee and he was told that was wrong.  Our President is not up to speed on RR, but was bullied by certain members and then told that when there is a motion to committee, you can’t discuss it, but the committee members are chosen and then voted on.  Then this member told him that was RR’s – do your homework.  Another member told the President that some things are not debatable, and motion to committee is one of them.  So they picked members for the committee even though one of the officers said we need to go forward with the original motion to vote and was told again that a motion to committee is non-debatable (this was a special meeting, not an annual meeting). 

Is this correct?  It was my understanding that only the President could form a committee. 

[Hieu H. Huynh]

In RONR, decisions are generally made by majority vote. So if the majority wanted to "delay" an item of business, then that is what the assembly decided to do.

 

A motion to commit is a debatable motion. The debate can extend only to the desirability of committing the main question and to the appropriate details of the motion to commit, including the committee's composition and manner of selection. See Section 13 starting on page 168 of RONR for the full details on the motion to commit.

[Dan Honemann]

Our HOA had a special meeting to vote on one item; that was the only item on the Agenda.  The motion was made and 2^nd at the beginning of the meeting and then it went into discussion for 90 minutes.  Certain members that were not in favor of going forward with the vote came to the meeting with the intent to use RR’s as a weapon in order to delay. 

During the discussion, a member made a motion to table the vote and the resulting vote was to go forward with the original motion to vote. 

 

This business about tabling "the vote", and going forward with the original "motion to vote", is rather confusing.

 

There is no such thing as a motion to table a vote. There is such a thing as a motion to lay a pending main motion on the table (see RONR, 11th ed., pp. 209-218, for the rules relating to the motion to Lay on the Table). At a special meeting, it is out of order to move to lay on the table the matter for which the meeting has been called (RONR, 11th ed., p. 215, l. 22 to p. 216, l. 2). However, I gather that this motion to "table the vote" was defeated, so none of this matters much at this point.

[Gary Novosielski]

Our HOA had a special meeting to vote on one item; that was the only item on the Agenda.  The motion was made and 2^nd at the beginning of the meeting and then it went into discussion for 90 minutes.  Certain members that were not in favor of going forward with the vote came to the meeting with the intent to use RR’s as a weapon in order to delay. 

During the discussion, a member made a motion to table the vote and the resulting vote was to go forward with the original motion to vote.  Then another member made a motion to move the discussion to a committee (a way of delaying the vote) and the President said that we were at the meeting to vote, not move to a committee and he was told that was wrong.  Our President is not up to speed on RR, but was bullied by certain members and then told that when there is a motion to committee, you can’t discuss it, but the committee members are chosen and then voted on.  Then this member told him that was RR’s – do your homework.  Another member told the President that some things are not debatable, and motion to committee is one of them.  So they picked members for the committee even though one of the officers said we need to go forward with the original motion to vote and was told again that a motion to committee is non-debatable (this was a special meeting, not an annual meeting). 

Is this correct?  It was my understanding that only the President could form a committee. 

 

 

Your understanding is incorrect on a number of counts.

 

When holding a special meeting to consider a single item, you can't confine member's rights to voting on the item alone.  The nature of a motion is that it is not a proposal to take a vote on doing something, but rather a proposal to do something.    

 

Approving or rejecting the motion by voting on it are only two possible outcomes.  Members have the right to debate it, amend it, postpone consideration of it, or refer it to a committee for its recommendation, among other possibilities.

 

Unless your bylaws give the president the sole power to establish new committees, the assembly may do so at any time.  Even if the bylaws grant the president the sole power to appoint committees, that only means power to name the members.  It does not prevent the assembly from referring any matter to a committee if it chooses to do so, and does not confer upon the president the power to create committees on his own initiative.

 

It sounds like the people who wish to refer the question to a committee are using RONR the way it was intended, rather than as a "weapon".  In my view, people who use RONR as a weapon are those who seek to restrict the rights of other members, such as attempting to force an up-or-down vote rather than a full and open debate.

[Josh Martin]

It sounds like the people who wish to refer the question to a committee are using RONR the way it was intended, rather than as a "weapon". In my view, people who use RONR as a weapon are those who seek to restrict the rights of other members, such as attempting to force an up-or-down vote rather than a full and open debate.

The members who proposed to refer the main motion to a committee, however, also sought to force an up-or-down vote rather than a full and open debate, since they (incorrectly) insisted that the motion to Refer was not debatable. It seems to me that there's plenty of blame to go around, and neither side was entirely in the right.

[Winni]

Hi,

Thank you for all of your comments and feedback; I appreciate the time you took to think on this issue and offering a response. 

 

After looking through my notes from that Special Meeting, the main motion (to vote on an issue) was on the floor and 2nd.  Then went the 90 minutes of grueling debate.  During the debate, there was a motion to "lay on the table" the main motion to vote.  We voted and the number of votes to go forward with the main motion (to vote on an issue) outnumbered the votes to "lay on the table."  Then the debate continued and someone brought up the idea of forming a mediation committee and offered to "make a motion" to form this mediation committee.  It was then discussed that they tried to table the vote, but that was still on the table and would have to go back and Table the other motion, which never happened.  A few people mentioned that they wanted to go forward with the vote and were ignored, but the people interested in going to committee then said, there is no discussion on move to committee, there was a motion and it's been 2nd, so now we vote on it.    It was a cluster and after 2.5 hours of heated debate on the issue, people just gave in to vote for the committee to bring an end to the meeting.  It is still not clear to me that this committee was formed according to Robert's Rules.  I'm sure there is blame on both sides, but just need clarification. 

Thanks again for your help.

[Josh Martin]

During the debate, there was a motion to "lay on the table" the main motion to vote.  We voted and the number of votes to go forward with the main motion (to vote on an issue) outnumbered the votes to "lay on the table." 

 

This motion should have been ruled out of order. The motion to Lay on the Table is used to set aside a motion temporarily in order to take up some other pressing business. A special meeting can only consider the business included in the call. Therefore, because the meeting was called for this specific issue, there was no other business to take up. Since this motion was defeated, however, it appears that no harm was done.

 

It's quite possible the member had a different motion in mind. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13 for information on Postpone to a Certain Time and Postpone Indefinitely.

 

Then the debate continued and someone brought up the idea of forming a mediation committee and offered to "make a motion" to form this mediation committee.  It was then discussed that they tried to table the vote, but that was still on the table and would have to go back and Table the other motion, which never happened.

 

This is incorrect. A subsidiary motion to refer the pending main motion to a committee was entirely proper. Another motion to Lay on the Table was unnecessary and out of order.

 

A few people mentioned that they wanted to go forward with the vote and were ignored, but the people interested in going to committee then said, there is no discussion on move to committee, there was a motion and it's been 2nd, so now we vote on it.    It was a cluster and after 2.5 hours of heated debate on the issue, people just gave in to vote for the committee to bring an end to the meeting.  It is still not clear to me that this committee was formed according to Robert's Rules.  I'm sure there is blame on both sides, but just need clarification. 

 

The members were mistaken. The motion to Commit was in order, but it was debatable. The assembly apparently ignored this advice and debated the motion to Commit, so it seems to me the committee was formed entirely properly.

 

Considering that the debate on the motion to Commit lasted for 2.5 hours, however, here are some things to keep in mind for the next lengthy debate.

• Members can only speak in debate twice per day on each debatable motion for up to ten minutes each time. It's not clear whether this rule was enforced.
• In larger assemblies, debates may go on forever even when this rule is enforced. The assembly may limit debate further with a motion to Limit Debate or immediately end debate and proceed to a vote on the pending motion with the motion for the Previous Question. Either motion requires a 2/3 vote for adoption and is not debatable.

[Dan Honemann]

After looking through my notes from that Special Meeting, the main motion (to vote on an issue) was on the floor and 2nd. 

 

I didn't want to dwell on this, but I really do not understand what you mean when you say that the main motion was a motion "to vote on an issue." In post # 4 you also referred to going forward with "the original motion to vote."

 

One hopes that the motion made at the outset of this special meeting, debated for some time, and then eventually referred to a committee, was a main motion of some sort, and not literally a motion "to vote on" a motion of some sort.

[Gary Novosielski]

Hi,

Thank you for all of your comments and feedback; I appreciate the time you took to think on this issue and offering a response. 

 

After looking through my notes from that Special Meeting, the main motion (to vote on an issue) was on the floor and 2nd.  Then went the 90 minutes of grueling debate.  During the debate, there was a motion to "lay on the table" the main motion to vote.  We voted and the number of votes to go forward with the main motion (to vote on an issue) outnumbered the votes to "lay on the table."  Then the debate continued and someone brought up the idea of forming a mediation committee and offered to "make a motion" to form this mediation committee.  It was then discussed that they tried to table the vote, but that was still on the table and would have to go back and Table the other motion, which never happened.  A few people mentioned that they wanted to go forward with the vote and were ignored, but the people interested in going to committee then said, there is no discussion on move to committee, there was a motion and it's been 2nd, so now we vote on it.    It was a cluster and after 2.5 hours of heated debate on the issue, people just gave in to vote for the committee to bring an end to the meeting.  It is still not clear to me that this committee was formed according to Robert's Rules.  I'm sure there is blame on both sides, but just need clarification. 

Thanks again for your help.

 

You should probably stay away from the motion to Lay on the Table altogether.  In ordinary societies it is rarely in order, and none of the uses you've mentioned so far has even come close to one of those instances.

 

Also, since the entirety of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief could easily be read and digested in much less than 2.5 hours, purchasing a copy and reading it would, I think, be an investment with a guaranteed payoff.   You need to get a firm grasp on the concept of just what a motion is, and what it is not.