Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Multiple Motions per Agenda Item


Guest Michael McCain

Recommended Posts

I am a college professor.  At a recent department meeting we had an issue come up with interpretation of Roberts Rule's and we can't seem to come to consensus.  I'm looking for help.

 

 

The Agenda Item was:  Individual textbook adoption by teacher vs single adoption for the whole department

Person "A" made a motion that that the length of time required for a new textbook adoption be 4 years.  In discussion I proposed a motion that we accept single adoption texts per teacher which wasn't related to Person "A"'s motion but was immediately relevant to the agenda item.  I was told that we cannot discuss that motion until we vote on Person "A"s motion.  Person "A"'s motion passed with 10 in favor, 3 against, a 2 abstentions as it required 50% majority.  

I was then allowed to propose my motion.  I proposed that we allow single adoption texts with the caveat that the instructor must bring the proposed text to the department and where the particular text can be voted on in a future meeting."  The motion passed 7 in favor, 5 against and 1 abstention.  (Two people had left).  The chair passed it as it was 50% majority even though the chair did like the outcome and was vocal about it.

That night, the chair sent an email to the department stating that my motion did not pass.  The chair said that my motion required 2/3 majority vote. Is the chair correct?  

If so, it would seem that the first person to make a motion has a sizable advantage.  They only requires 50% majority to pass and any 2nd motion made after (even if its not an amendment) requires a 2/3 majority vote.   This doesn't seem right.  If I would have made my motion first instead of being polite then my motion would have passed with 50% majority.  The chair has revised the minutes to say that my motion did not pass.  Any help would be greatly appreciated.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Guest Michael McCain said:

The Agenda Item was: 

     (a.) Individual textbook adoption by teacher, vs.

     (b.) single adoption for the whole department.

***

M1: "That the length of time required for a new textbook adoption be 4 years."

M2: "That we allow single adoption texts with the caveat that the instructor must bring the proposed text to the department and where the particular text can be voted on in a future meeting."  

***

Q. The chair said that my motion required 2/3 majority vote. Is the chair correct?  

Actually, I do not see a conflict.

I see M2 as a specific exception to M1.

If that interpretation makes sense to you, as it does me, then the chair is in error. -- The two rules are complementary, and do not contradict each other. So a majority vote would be sufficient.

***

If your interpretation is that M1 and M2 are mutually exclusive, then the parliamentary solution would be to rescind or amend the first motion, M1, which does indeed imply that the regular parliamentary rules of "Amend Something Previously Adopted" [see RONR section 35] would apply.

That would imply that, (a.) with notice, a majority vote is sufficient, or (b.) without notice, a two-thirds vote is sufficient, or (c.) a majority of the body doing the approving, would be sufficient.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, you had other options available.  While the first motion was pending, you could have moved to amend, or simply stated that, if this motion is voted down, you will offer one which does much the same thing, but with an important exception.  In any event, though, the chair doesn't get to change his ruling outside of the meeting, or, in this case, after the fact.  If he ruled that the motion carried, it carried - he doesn't get to send out an email unilaterally changing his ruling later, anymore than you get to send out an email raising a point of order after a meeting has ended.  (All that is premised on there being an actual conflict between these motions, although I don't really see one.)  

Letting the chair do that would deprive you of various options.  At a meeting, you could appeal the ruling of the chair.  You could move to reconsider the original vote, an option foreclosed to you by the chair making a contrary ruling after the meeting.  If the chair wants to rule that it takes a 2/3 vote to pass your motion, he needs to make that ruling at the meeting, where the body can deal with his ruling, appeal if necessary, and, in any event, adapt their votes to this ruling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Potzbie and Godelfan.  First, I do not see the two motions as being conflicting, but I can see how others, such as the chairman, might disagree. 

Second, it seems that the "four year process" proposed by member A was not really relevant or germane to the agenda item of "Individual textbook adoption by teacher vs single adoption for the whole department", but that is water under the bridge.  No timely point of order was raised and I'm not sure such a point of order should have been sustained even if it had been made.

Third, I wonder if perhaps there was already an existing "rule" that textbooks would be adopted by department rather than by individual instructors.  Something about the motion the OP wanted to propose makes me think that perhaps there was already a rule, or perhaps a custom, that textbooks are adopted by department rather than by individual instructor and the purpose of the motion was to change that.  If so, then the second motion may well have been a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted and should have required a two thirds vote for passage.  However, we don't know if such a formal or informal rule existed.

Fourth, I believe, as Godelfan pointed out, that the second motion could have been proposed as an amendment to the first motion, but that was not done.  That, too, is now water under the bridge.  Also, proposing that motion as a separate motion while the first motion was still under consideration was improper and the chair correctly ruled it out of order unless it was being proposed as an amendment to the first motion.

Fifth, and perhaps most importantly, regardless of whether the second motion was truly a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted, the chair did not treat it as such a motion but treated it as an ordinary motion and declared it passed by majority vote.  As Godelfan pointed, the pronouncement of the chair at the time, in the meting that the motion was adopted controls.  Nobody objected or raised a point of order.  The chair cannot unilaterally, after the meeting, declare that "I was wrong, the motion actually failed".  It's too late. An erroneous statement by the chair that a motion has been adopted (or failed) must be objected to immediately with a timely point of order or the error is waived.

Sixth, when the minutes are up for approval at the next meeting, you should propose a correction to the minutes to reflect that your motion did pass (or that the chair did declare that the motion was adopted).  No mention whatsoever should be made in the minutes of the chair changing his mind after the meeting or directing the secretary to have the minutes reflect that the motion failed.  It passed, the chair declared that it passed and that should be that.   The minutes should reflect what happened... not what the chair now believes should have happened.   The appropriate remedy is for someone to propose to rescind or amend YOUR motion... if they have the votes to do it.   You don't do that by fiddling with the minutes.  You do it by adopting a motion to rescind whatever it was that got adopted.

Edited to add:  Now I'm having second thoughts about my point No 5 above.  If the OP's motion (the one we refer to as the second motion) did indeed conflict with something previously adopted, it would have required a two thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) to be adopted without previous notice.  I believe, based on previous threads in this forum, many of us believe that if the chair made a mistake in the vote count and erroneously stated that the vote was at least two thirds in the affirmative, then a timely point of order as to the error in the count would have been necessary so that there could be a recount if necessary.  However, if the chair mistakenly believed that the motion was not rescinding or amending something previously adopted and could be adopted by a majority vote, then that constitutes a continuing breach as stated on page 251 at exception b and is subject to a point of order being raised at any time... such as at the next meeting.... that it was in fact not adopted by the requisite two thirds vote.  The chair could then (at that meeting....not between meetings) rule the point of order well taken.  His ruling would then be subject to an appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I understand it, the first motion that was adopted was "that that the length of time required for a new textbook adoption be 4 years."

The second motion, moved after adoption of the first, was "that we allow single adoption texts with the caveat that the instructor must bring the proposed text to the department and where the particular text can be voted on in a future meeting."

On the face of it, I don't see how this second motion can be said to conflict in any way with the first. I can't be sure of this for a number of reasons, however, not the least of which being that it appears to be very poorly written (I trust that it has been incorrectly quoted), and It may well be that familiarity with the way this group operates would shed more light on the question.

If in fact the second motion conflicts with the first, I think that a point of order concerning its validity can be raised at a future meeting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 251, ll. 11-15). We are told that the second motion was adopted by a vote of 7 in favor and 5 opposed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Responding to both Mr. Brown and Mr. Honemann above - I would agree that, if in fact the second motion should have been seen as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, then adopting it by a majority vote is a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at a future meeting.  That's not what happened, though.  Instead, the chair decided to fire off an email saying "that motion I declared had carried, didn't carry."  That's not a future meeting.  The chair then decided to tell the secretary to record things in the minutes that didn't happen, and to not record things that did happen.  Those are the issues with which I'm dealing.

Now, what if the motion in question (assuming it actually is in conflict) is something likely to be executed before this future meeting at which a point of order will be raised?  Then, so far as I can tell, when it comes to that future meeting, a point of order can't be raised to what was executed already, only to the unexecuted portion.  It seems to me that it's perfectly fair to take action based on this motion prior to an actual point of order being raised at a real meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

Now, what if the motion in question (assuming it actually is in conflict) is something likely to be executed before this future meeting at which a point of order will be raised?  Then, so far as I can tell, when it comes to that future meeting, a point of order can't be raised to what was executed already, only to the unexecuted portion.  It seems to me that it's perfectly fair to take action based on this motion prior to an actual point of order being raised at a real meeting.

The motion in question doesn't appear to call for any action to be taken outside of a meeting (it appears to address a policy in which particular textbooks would be adopted at a meeting), so I think these questions are moot with respect to this particular motion.

As a general rule, however, I see no reason why the fact that action has been taken on a motion would prevent a member from raising a Point of Order regarding a continuing breach. The assembly still has the power to conclude that the motion is null and void. The assembly certainly cannot undo anything which has happened, but this is more of a practical issue than a parliamentary one.

I don't know about the "fairness" of taking action on the motion in the interim, but if there is legitimate doubt over whether the motions are valid, I believe it would be prudent for officers responsible for carrying out such motions to wait until these issues can be resolved if possible, for their own protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Martin - supposing that action is taken in the meantime, and a point of order is raised (which, I agree, is not prevented by action having been taken), and the point of order is well-taken, what is the status of the actions taken?  They can't be undone from a practical standpoint, as you say, but are those who carried them out liable for the costs?  It doesn't seem to me that this outcome would make sense, but what sense does it make to say that the motion is null and void, but the organization is still on the hook for the costs incurred?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Responding to both Mr. Brown and Mr. Honemann above - I would agree that, if in fact the second motion should have been seen as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted, then adopting it by a majority vote is a continuing breach and a point of order can be raised at a future meeting.  That's not what happened, though.  Instead, the chair decided to fire off an email saying "that motion I declared had carried, didn't carry."  That's not a future meeting.  The chair then decided to tell the secretary to record things in the minutes that didn't happen, and to not record things that did happen.  Those are the issues with which I'm dealing.

You may have this backwards.

If a motion is seen as, and treated as, a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, and is then erroneously declared to be adopted by a majority vote when, without previous notice, a two-thirds vote is required for its adoption, a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. In this connection, see RONR Official Interpretation 2006-18. This sort of violation of the rules will not give rise to a continuing breach.

However, as you say, that's not what happened here. The second motion was seen as, and treated as, an original main motion, most likely because it doesn't seem to conflict in any way with the motion which had just been adopted. But as previously noted, if the second motion does conflict with any motion previously adopted and still in force, a point of order concerning its validity can be raised at any future meeting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 251, ll. 11-15). We are told that the second motion was adopted by a vote of 7 in favor and 5 opposed.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

You may have this backwards.

If a motion is seen as, and treated as, a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, and is then erroneously declared to be adopted by a majority vote when, without previous notice, a two-thirds vote is required for its adoption, a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. In this connection, see RONR Official Interpretation 2006-18. This sort of violation of the rules will not give rise to a continuing breach.

However, as you say, that's not what happened here. The second motion was seen as, and treated as, an original main motion, most likely because it doesn't seem to conflict in any way with the motion which had just been adopted. But as previously noted, if the second motion does conflict with any other motion previously adopted and still in force, a point of order concerning its validity can be raised at any future meeting (RONR, 11th ed., p. 251, ll. 11-15). We are told that the second motion was adopted by a vote of 7 in favor and 5 opposed.  

 

I don't think I have this backwards, since I am at basically the same point as you.  I just would point out that, while a point of order can be raised at a future meeting, that doesn't mean the chair can "raise" his point of order by firing off an email, or that the minutes of this meeting should be falsified to accord with this future determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

I don't think I have this backwards, since I am at basically the same point as you.  I just would point out that, while a point of order can be raised at a future meeting, that doesn't mean the chair can "raise" his point of order by firing off an email, or that the minutes of this meeting should be falsified to accord with this future determination.

I'm sure we all can all agree that the chair's sending out his email stating that the motion did not pass, and his attempt to revise the minutes to say that the motion did not pass, were of no consequence; the minute revision business being rather alarming, as a matter of fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Godelfan said:

Mr. Martin - supposing that action is taken in the meantime, and a point of order is raised (which, I agree, is not prevented by action having been taken), and the point of order is well-taken, what is the status of the actions taken?

They are actions taken by officers (or whoever) in excess of their authority. The officers may well have believed at the time, however, that the actions they took had been properly authorized by the assembly, which is certainly something to take into account when deciding whether to ratify the actions.

20 hours ago, Godelfan said:

They can't be undone from a practical standpoint, as you say, but are those who carried them out liable for the costs?

As a parliamentary matter, that's up to the assembly, by deciding whether to ratify the actions (although if the assembly's decision is to hold those who carried out the actions responsible for the costs, legal issues may also come into play). I imagine this will vary depending on the circumstances.

20 hours ago, Godelfan said:

It doesn't seem to me that this outcome would make sense, but what sense does it make to say that the motion is null and void, but the organization is still on the hook for the costs incurred?

It doesn't make much sense at all, so the assembly should Ratify the actions if it wishes to be responsible for the costs incurred.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...