Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Why is Ratify an incidental main motion?


Sean Hunt

Recommended Posts

Why is the motion to Ratify always an incidental main motion? It is not procedural, but substantive. It does not relate to future business of the assembly. It does not necessarily relate to past business of the assembly. Therefore it seems to me that, when applied to any action which is new to the assembly, it is in fact an original main motion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it not sufficient that an incidental main motion  "proposes an action ... described by a particular parliamentary term (p. 101, lines 10 - 12)," and not too much later,  "the italicized word -- ... ratify -- is the parliamentary term that describes the motion (p. 102, ll. 1 - 3)?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the motion to Ratify always an incidental main motion?

 

That's a good question, and I think it may shed some light on the discussion in the other thread about ratifying action improperly taken at an improperly called special meeting.

 

"The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly" (p. 124, ll. 24-27). Since the action was already taken in some form, it couldn't really be said that the motion to ratify "introduces a substantive question as a new subject," as an original main motion does. (p. 100, ll. 12-13).

 

It seems to me that although a motion to ratify may involve a question that is new to the assembly in the sense that the assembly has not itself taken, or even purported to take, a particular action on the subject, ratification will almost always involve something that has happened to put the assembly in the position of needing to follow up on the subject. For example, there may be a rule that requires the assembly's opinion on the question, as when action taken by another body is not valid until approved by this assembly. Or, if an officer has taken action in the name of the organization, a motion to ratify that action is not a new subject, because failure to consider the motion won't mean that the organization isn't involved the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is it not sufficient that an incidental main motion  "proposes an action ... described by a particular parliamentary term (p. 101, lines 10 - 12)," and not too much later,  "the italicized word -- ... ratify -- is the parliamentary term that describes the motion (p. 102, ll. 1 - 3)?"

 

Well, RONR states, "A motion to adopt (or accept or agree to) an officer's or a committee's report or recommendations which the assembly (by means of a main motion) directed the officer or committee to prepare is an incidental main motion. A motion to adopt or accept a report or the recommendations of a standing committee prepared on the committee's own initiative and dealing with a subject that was not expressly referred to the committee, however, is an original main motion." (p. 124, ll. 10-17)

 

So, obviously it's not the use of a particular parliamentary term that will always distinguish between an original main motion and an incidental main motion. But maybe it's the use of an italicized term, so that the motion to ratify is an incidental main motion, but a plain old motion to ratify could be an original main motion. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2015 at 4:08 PM, Sean Hunt said:

By analogy with the motion to adopt (and I had not noticed the italicization distinction!), the motion to ratify an officer's action would be an original main motion, if that action was taken with no prior involvement by the assembly.

 

I disagree. The whole point of ratifying an officer's actions is to make those actions valid when they were taken in excess of the officer's authority or instructions.

 

If a motion "to ratify" truly involves something that the society as a whole has had no previous involvement in and has no possible duty to act on, then it's not probably not the incidental main motion to ratify discussed in RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the assembly itself has not dealt with the subject, even if the organization has. It's no different from a standing committee reporting on its own initiative in that regard, I think.

Nevertheless, RONR clearly states that the motion to ratify is an incidental main motion, and that this procedure of ratification is applicable to actions taken by an officer in excess of his authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Expanding upon Schmuel's post #3, the reason why ratify it is an incidental motion is practical.  The only significant difference between an original main motion and an incidental main motion is that the latter is not subject to 'objection to the consideration of a question' [RONR 11th ed., pp. 102 ll. 4-8, 268 ll. 3-4].   Since the motion to ratify always relates to an action that the society has already taken [sometimes by a prior vote of the assembly itself, but not necessarily), you don't want to allow an objection to prevent the society from either ratifying or expressly rejecting that action.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...