Guest Kiwi Posted March 28, 2017 at 03:16 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 at 03:16 PM A motion was made and second while in discussion of a topic placed on the agenda, the motion makes a change of direction from a previous vote held by all members. All members are now being asked to vote on this motion changing the direction of the original vote. Only the members present at the meeting are privy to this motions discussion, should they have not Layed this motion to the table until all members had the right to understand the reasoning for the change before being asked to vote? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 28, 2017 at 04:02 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 at 04:02 PM 45 minutes ago, Guest Kiwi said: A motion was made and second while in discussion of a topic placed on the agenda, the motion makes a change of direction from a previous vote held by all members. All members are now being asked to vote on this motion changing the direction of the original vote. Only the members present at the meeting are privy to this motions discussion, should they have not Layed this motion to the table until all members had the right to understand the reasoning for the change before being asked to vote? Can you explain what you mean by a motion which "makes a change of direction from a previous vote"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 28, 2017 at 04:04 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 at 04:04 PM A member could have moved to postpone consideration of the question until the next meeting so all members could be made aware of and have a chance to participate in the decision but there is no obligation on the assembly to do so. With a few exceptions (which would be located in your bylaws) a member who is not at a meeting is entrusting the members who showed up to make decisions in the name of the organization and no prior notice of what is going to happen is required. However, in cases such as Amend Something Previously Adopted (which is what your situation is) the assembly pays a price for making a decision without giving absent members previous notice. Instead of the normal majority vote required to adopt the motion they would need a 2/3 vote or a majority of the ENTIRE membership to adopt it (see RONR pp. 305-310). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted March 28, 2017 at 05:14 PM Report Share Posted March 28, 2017 at 05:14 PM 1 hour ago, Guest Kiwi said: Should they have not Laid this motion to the Table until all members had the right to understand the reasoning for the change before being asked to vote? No. That would not be necessary under Robert's Rules of Order. It might be nice, it might be courteous. But it is not required. Anyone who does not understand X has the opportunity to clarify his understanding during the debate period. -- Raising a Request for Information, for example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Clarification Posted March 29, 2017 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 at 12:55 AM 8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said: Can you explain what you mean by a motion which "makes a change of direction from a previous vote"? Clarification: the committee previously voted to borrow money from another entity to be paid back within 1 calendar year. At the past meeting during the time the program whom borrowed the money was being discussed a member made motion to dismiss the need to pay back the funds without prior discussion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 29, 2017 at 01:11 AM Report Share Posted March 29, 2017 at 01:11 AM Your narrative is a bit confusing so let me see if I have this correct. 1)The Committee (A) previously had voted to borrow money from the other entity (B) and would pay B back within a calendar year. AND... 2) In a later meeting of A a member made a motion to renege on the money A owed B. Or is the money being borrowed coming from A so the motion in controversy is to forgive B's debt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts