Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Failure to rule out of order


Need 2 Learn

Recommended Posts

Our Residential Condo Association and a Commercial Association occupy the same building; commercial units on the bottom floors and the residential units are on the upper floors.  The associations split shared expenses and project costs

 

The residential Association has regularly scheduled monthly meetings and an Executive Board consisting of 7 members.

 

  1. At a regular monthly meeting of the our Residential Condo Association’s Executive Board with six directors attending,  “Mr. A” moved to split costs of a project between the Residential Association and the Commercial Plaza Association in the ratio of 75%/25%, respectively.  The motion was seconded.  After debate, the motion was put to a vote and defeated 4 to 2, “Mr. A” being 1 of the 2 votes for the motion.

     

  2. “Mr. A” immediately then made a motion to split the costs 60%40%.  It was seconded and then debated.  A vote was taken and the motion adopted 4 to 2.

     

  3. At the beginning of the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Residential Association Executive Board and with 6 directors present, “Mr. B” made a motion to amend the agenda to include discussion of the 60/40 distribution split adopted at the previous month's meeting (#2 above).  Motion was seconded and the chair accepted the addition to the agenda.

     

  4. At the proper time, “Mr. B” moved to nullify the previously adopted motion, (#2 above), primarily citing that it was out of order for “Mr. A” on March 27th, 2017, to make the motion since he was not on the prevailing side of defeated first motion (#1 above).  The motion was seconded and debated. 

     

  5. The Chair then ruled that the motion could not be put to a vote until he was satisfied a parliamentary rule had been violated.  No motion, however was made to table, delay or otherwise postpone the question.  

     

  6. “Mr. B” stated that the motion had already been properly brought to the Executive Board, seconded, opened for debate and was on the table for the Board to decide.  Regardless of whether or not “Mr. B’s” reasoning was correct, it has no bearing on the proper next step of procedure, i.e., resolve the question by a vote.   “Mr. B.” proceeded to “call the question”.

     

  7. The chair then made a motion to adjourn.  It was not seconded

     

  8. “Mr B” then stated that the motion to nullify was still pending.  The Chair then put the question to a vote of the Executive Board and it resulted in a 3-3 tie.

     

  9. Since there was a tie, “Mr. B” then asked the Chair to include the question in #4 above, as an item on the next regularly scheduled meeting.  The Chair agreed to do so and also would seek a parliamentarian’s opinion on the motion made in #2 above.  The Chair proceeded to the next item on the agenda

     

Two questions:

Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?

 

Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, Need 2 Learn said:

hwo questions:

Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?

 

Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?

For the first question, no, it should not have. An assembly may not vote on substantially the same question twice in one meeting, but a 75%/25% split is different enough from a 60%/40% to present a meaningfully different question (and this is evidenced by the fact that one was adopted and the other was not. Mr. A could also have proposed to amend the original motion by replacing the 75/25 numbers with 60/40, but either approach is permissible.

For the second question, based on what you said. I would say that Mr. B was indeed correct about the vote on the motion to nullify (rescind) the original motion. Although Mr. B was wrong about Mr. A's motion being out of order, there is no rule against having to be correct about a motion when you make it. Mr. B's motion was in order which means that it must be properly disposed of before the assembly moves on to further business. If a member wanted to put the motion off to a later meeting, the correct way to do this would be with a motion to Postpone.

In general, if there is a point of order made, the chair must rule immediately. Some legislative assemblies have rules allowing the presiding officer to reserve their ruling and make it later, but Robert's Rules does not. The chair would either rule the motion out of order or not. If it is out of order, then the motion is nullified and the meeting continues; otherwise the consideration continues. Note also that a point of order must be timely, so (with a few exceptions) a point of order about the admissibility of a motion must be made right when the motion is moved, not after debate has begun.

Some other notes: a tie vote means the motion is lost. That said, there is nothing preventing Mr. B from moving it again at the next meeting. Additionally, no member has the power to unilaterally "call the question" and force a vote; only a motion can do so with a two-thirds vote. The proper course of action there would be for Mr. B to raise a point of order that there is no more debate on the motion and therefore it must have a vote called.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Need 2 Learn said:

 Canyou clarify if Mr. A's 2nd motion needs to be amended before it is voted on.

No, it did not. What makes you think it needed amending? 

1 hour ago, Need 2 Learn said:

Under what circumstances does Mr. A's 2nd motion require a motion to reconsider?

It doesn't, but someone who voted on prevailing side could have moved to reconsider it. If someone who voted yes on the motion had a change of heart and wanted it to be reconsidered, that person could have moved to reconsider it.

1 hour ago, Need 2 Learn said:

 Should the 2nd motion wait until the rest of the agenda is finished and be brought up as new business?

Perhaps, but not necessarily. You were presumably in new business when his first motion was made. Unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, items of new business do not  have to be listed on an agenda. Any new business is appropriate during new business. Even if you were following unadopted agenda and Mr.. A should have waited until the other items of new business listed on the agenda were completed, it is not such a violation that renders his motion void. Also, a timely point of order would have to have been raised at the time of the violation.

Finally,  as mr. Katz pointed out, at the second meeting Mr. B's motion to rescind Mr. A's motion would have required a two-thirds vote since there was no previous notice of the motion. In the alternative, it could have been adopted by the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board. In a small Board of seven members, if everyone is present, it is easier to get a vote of a majority of the entire board than it is a two-thirds vote.

Edited to add: i see where you corrected your post to say you meant to ask if Mr. A's first motion should have been amended. It could have been amended, but it was not necessary. As we have already told you, Mr. As second motion was proper because it presented a different question than his first motion did.

Edited by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Finally,  as mr. Katz pointed out, at the second meeting Mr. B's motion to rescind Mr. A's motion would have required a two-thirds vote since there was no previous notice of the motion. In the alternative, it could have been adopted by the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board. In a small Board of seven members, if everyone is present, it is easier to get a vote of a majority of the entire board than it is a two-thirds vote.

What constitutes "notice"? 

13 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

At the beginning of the next regularly scheduled monthly meeting of the Residential Association Executive Board and with 6 directors present, “Mr. B” made a motion to amend the agenda to include discussion of the 60/40 distribution split adopted at the previous month's meeting (#2 above).  Motion was seconded and the chair accepted the addition to the agenda.

Does Mr B's  motion in #3 above at the beginning of the meeting  constitute "notice" and lower the threshold of adoption

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Perhaps, but not necessarily. You were presumably in new business when his first motion was made. Unless you have a customized rule to the contrary, items of new business do not  have to be listed on an agenda. Any new business is appropriate during new business. Even if you were following unadopted agenda and Mr.. A should have waited until the other items of new business listed on the agenda were completed, it is not such a violation that renders his motion void. Also, a timely point of order would have to have been raised at the time of the violation.

Our agenda, although not required in the by laws, is

1 Call to order

2 Role Call for quorum

3 Resident Discussion and/or Guest presentation; participation beyond this point is limited to observation

4 Committee reports - This is when Mr. A made his 1st and 2nd motions

5 Approval of Minutes

6 Old Business

7 New Business

8 Adjournment

 

Should we not allow motions at the point Mr. A made his?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

Our Residential Condo Association and a Commercial Association occupy the same building; commercial units on the bottom floors and the residential units are on the upper floors.  The associations split shared expenses and project costs

 

The residential Association has regularly scheduled monthly meetings and an Executive Board consisting of 7 members.

 

"Mr. A” immediately then made a motion to split the costs 60%40%.  It was seconded and then debated.  A vote was taken and the motion adopted 4 to 2.

 

 The Chair then ruled that the motion could not be put to a vote until he was satisfied a parliamentary rule had been violated.  No motion, however was made to table, delay or otherwise postpone the question.  

Two questions:

Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?

 

Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?

 

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

For the first question, no, it should not have. An assembly may not vote on substantially the same question twice in one meeting, but a 75%/25% split is different enough from a 60%/40% to present a meaningfully different question (and this is evidenced by the fact that one was adopted and the other was not. Mr. A could also have proposed to amend the original motion by replacing the 75/25 numbers with 60/40, but either approach is permissible.

 

 

  On this point I disagree with Alexis, partially.  The 75%/25% split could have been amended by striking out 75%25% and inserting 60%/40%. The chair should have properly ruled the motion out of order that it was substantially the same question.  However, a ruling, or a point of order, would have had to have been timely. Once discussion began on the question, it was too late to do anything about it. I do agree with Alexis it does not make a difference. 

 

Mr. B, effectively, moved to Rescind the motion at the next meeting, which was acceptable.  His remark about the motion being out of order, in my view, was improper debateRONR notes that, "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision (p. 256, ll. 4-5)."   It also confused the issue.  Mr. B may move to rescind the motion, and discuss the merits of doing so in debate, but should not enter into if it was technically in order at the March meeting. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, J. J. said:

Mr. B, effectively, moved to Rescind the motion at the next meeting, which was acceptable.  His remark about the motion being out of order, in my view, was improper debateRONR notes that, "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision (p. 256, ll. 4-5)."   It also confused the issue.  Mr. B may move to rescind the motion, and discuss the merits of doing so in debate, but should not enter into if it was technically in order at the March meeting. 

 

And, if Mr. B thought the motion was out of order, and that it was not too late to object, he should have raised a point of order, not moved to 'nullify.' 

I'm not sure I follow your argument on the percentage split not presenting a new question.  Is it your position that, if the original motion could be amended to do what the second does, then the second is not a new question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

What constitutes "notice"? 

Does Mr B's  motion in #3 above at the beginning of the meeting  constitute "notice" and lower the threshold of adoption

No. Notice is given for a motion either at the previous meeting e.g. "At the next meeting, I will move X", or sent out in the call of the meeting (the message that goes out to members saying that there is a meeting).

Once the meeting has started, it is too late to provide notice for a motion at that meeting. Notice can be given for a motion at the next meeting, however. In your example, Mr. B's attempt to explicitly include it in the agenda at the start of the meeting does not count as notice. Asking to have the motion considered at the next meeting could be considered to be notice, however: if everyone at the meeting understands that the motion will be brought forward again at the next meeting, then I would consider that to be a valid previous notice and so it will have the lower threshold of only a majority vote at the next meeting.

It's important also to distinguish between the motion to Rescind, which is a fairly straightforward motion to undo some action taken, and the motion to Reconsider, which is a much more complex motion to undo a vote and resume consideration of a question that was decided earlier at the same meeting. In this case, Mr. B's motion was a motion to Rescind, not Reconsider.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

On this point I disagree with Alexis, partially.  The 75%/25% split could have been amended by striking out 75%25% and inserting 60%/40%. The chair should have properly ruled the motion out of order that it was substantially the same question.  However, a ruling, or a point of order, would have had to have been timely. Once discussion began on the question, it was too late to do anything about it. I do agree with Alexis it does not make a difference. 

It would also be in order to amend a motion to donate a million dollars into a motion to donate a hundred dollars, but I think we can both agree that those are substantially different questions. So the fact that it could have been amended, in and of itself, does not mean that the new motion was not a substantially different question.

I can see reasonable arguments on both sides for whether a 75%/25% split and a 60%/40% split are substantially different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is fascinating to hear such eloquent and lucid opinions...  It seems obvious to me now that timely action is the best solution as it keeps the deliberative process on a much less nebulous path.  So how can we fix our process so motions are not allowed at the time of the committee reports and without notice? By-law change? Standing rule, if there is such a thing?  This is what started the whole mess?

4 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

Our agenda, although not required in the by laws, is

1 Call to order

2 Role Call for quorum

3 Resident Discussion and/or Guest presentation; participation beyond this point is limited to observation

4 Committee reports - This is when Mr. A made his 1st and 2nd motions

5 Approval of Minutes

6 Old Business

7 New Business

8 Adjournment

 

Should we not allow motions at the point Mr. A made his?

Thanks! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Motions which arise from committee reports can properly be made during the portion of the agenda or order of business on committee reports. It is proper and customary to make a motion which is related to a committee report immediately after the report is given. Such a motion can also be made later in the meeting during new business, but I believe it is more common to make such a motion immediately following the relevant committee report. 

I also agree with those who believe that Mr A's second motion was sufficiently different from his first motion as to have been appropriate and in order. A point of order that it was not in order would have to have been made immediately and would have been a judgement call on the part of the chair.  However, it is now too late to object on that basis. The breach, if there was one, has been waived. Mr. A's second motion has been validly adopted based on the information provided and RONR. 

Edited to add: even if Mr A's motion was not related to a committee report, any objection would have to been made timely. it's too late to object now and it was also too late at the second meeting. Mr. A's second motion was validly adopted.

Edited by Richard Brown
Added and amended last paragraph
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to changing your rules or bylaws to do (or prevent) the things you suggested, such as not allowing motions related to committee reports and not allowing motions without previous notice, i personally think both suggestions are not usually wise. The rules of order in RONR are time tested over more more than 100 years. They were well thought out and work very well for most organizations. when people start tinkering with them, adverse results and unintended consequences usually follow. 

I think it is far better for you and the members of your organization to actually familiarize yourselves with the rules in RONR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

This is fascinating to hear such eloquent and lucid opinions...  It seems obvious to me now that timely action is the best solution as it keeps the deliberative process on a much less nebulous path.  So how can we fix our process so motions are not allowed at the time of the committee reports and without notice? By-law change? Standing rule, if there is such a thing?  This is what started the whole mess?

Your organization may, if it wishes, adopt special rules of order on this subject, which requires a 2/3 vote with notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Whether or not to do this, however, I think is a separate question, and I would not make that decision based on the outcome of this issue. Even if it was correct that the motion should have been ruled out of order on the basis that the new motion did not constitute a substantially different question, a member who voted on the prevailing side could have moved to reconsider the motion, and then could have moved to amend it. Since the new motion was adopted, it is also quite likely that the motions to reconsider, to amend, and the amended motion would have also been adopted. So this doesn't really seem like that big a deal. In the end, the motion which was supported by the majority was adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah the rub.!     As with any sufficiently compelling mystery novel, I have a plot twist, 

Mr.. A's original motion #1 was that both the capital expense portion of the project and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25%. 

Motion seconded . Defeated 4-2.

Mr. A's 2nd motion was that the capital expense be split 60%/40% and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25% as in the original motion.

Motion seconded and approved 4-2.

Does this change anyone's thoughts?  Would it have been more appropriate to have a motion to split the question?

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2017 at 8:20 PM, Need 2 Learn said:
  • At a regular monthly meeting of the our Residential Condo Association’s Executive Board with six directors attending,  “Mr. A” moved to split costs of a project between the Residential Association and the Commercial Plaza Association in the ratio of 75%/25%, respectively.  The motion was seconded.  After debate, the motion was put to a vote and defeated 4 to 2, “Mr. A” being 1 of the 2 votes for the motion.

     

  • “Mr. A” immediately then made a motion to split the costs 60%40%.  It was seconded and then debated.  A vote was taken and the motion adopted 4 to 2.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Need 2 Learn said:

Mr.. A's original motion #1 was that both the capital expense portion of the project and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25%. 

Motion seconded . Defeated 4-2.

Mr. A's 2nd motion was that the capital expense be split 60%/40% and the ongoing and future maintenance expense be split 75%/25% as in the original motion.

The same effect could have been achieved, as you note, by dividing the question and then amending the portion that was changed.  I am closer to seeing this as presenting substantially the same question, but in the end, I come down on the side of it being a different question, albeit one that would have more gracefully been handled through division.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2017 at 1:53 PM, Josh Martin said:

It would also be in order to amend a motion to donate a million dollars into a motion to donate a hundred dollars, but I think we can both agree that those are substantially different questions. So the fact that it could have been amended, in and of itself, does not mean that the new motion was not a substantially different question.

I can see reasonable arguments on both sides for whether a 75%/25% split and a 60%/40% split are substantially different.

I would rule it to be the essentially the same question.   Now, as always, the assembly is free to appeal that ruling.  However, this still an academic question as there was no point of order or appeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...