Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motion Out of Order?


Guest Shawn Terris

Recommended Posts

Guest Shawn Terris

I have 2 questions:

1)       Was the motion out of order?  If yes, can you please cite the RONR Article, Section, etc. to support your answer?

2)      If the motion was not out of order, what % of the membership needed to vote in favor of it for it to pass, and please cite the RONR Article, Section, etc. to support your answer?

 

Background: 

Our organization has an Elections Policy, adopted by the governing Board, that states “From October 1 (directly prior to the election) to the end of said election, this policy and procedure may not be altered in any way, by the membership, Executive Board, etc.”  When the Election Committee Chair was giving her report to the membership, she declared that the candidates who filed and ran unopposed were elected by acclamation.  A member interrupted her during the meeting and made the motion:  “Suspend the Elections Policy so that nominations can be made from the floor”, which disregarded the requirements and timeline to file for candidacy. 

Additionally, our organization has Bylaws which states that “All members eligible to attend a meeting shall be informed of that meeting and receive an agenda a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the same.”  No prior notification was made of the request to suspend the Elections policy in order to accept nominations from the floor.  In fact, the only candidates who submitted their candidacy in accordance with the Officer Elections Policy, and were consequently notified they were running unopposed, understood that they would be elected at the meeting by acclamation.

We think that the 2-week notice and two-thirds vote were required in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, 11th Edition, Article VIII, §25, page 265 and Article IX, §35, pages 305, 306, 307, and 312 but we are not sure.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In an ordinary society, the Board is subservient to the membership and any decision it makes is subject to the whim of the membership. So I am skeptical that the rule, if established only by the Board and not by the membership, actually has any effect on the general membership's powers.

Even if we assume that policy to be valid, however, the part of the policy that states that nominations cannot come from the floor is a rule of parliamentary procedure. As such, it is suspendable (p. 265, ll. 19-24). It requires a vote of two-thirds or a majority of the membership (ibid.), but does not require previous notice (if it were required, it would be mentioned on p. 210-211 in the SDCs for the motion to suspend the rules).

The other citations you provided are not applicable. The motion to amend something previously adopted is to "change an action previously taken or ordered." (p. 305, l. 7), but suspending the rule does not change the rule, it only ignores it temporarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2017 at 6:13 PM, Guest Shawn Terris said:

I have 2 questions:

1)       Was the motion out of order?  If yes, can you please cite the RONR Article, Section, etc. to support your answer?

2)      If the motion was not out of order, what % of the membership needed to vote in favor of it for it to pass, and please cite the RONR Article, Section, etc. to support your answer?

 

Background: 

Our organization has an Elections Policy, adopted by the governing Board, that states “From October 1 (directly prior to the election) to the end of said election, this policy and procedure may not be altered in any way, by the membership, Executive Board, etc.”  When the Election Committee Chair was giving her report to the membership, she declared that the candidates who filed and ran unopposed were elected by acclamation.  A member interrupted her during the meeting and made the motion:  “Suspend the Elections Policy so that nominations can be made from the floor”, which disregarded the requirements and timeline to file for candidacy. 

Additionally, our organization has Bylaws which states that “All members eligible to attend a meeting shall be informed of that meeting and receive an agenda a minimum of 2 weeks prior to the same.”  No prior notification was made of the request to suspend the Elections policy in order to accept nominations from the floor.  In fact, the only candidates who submitted their candidacy in accordance with the Officer Elections Policy, and were consequently notified they were running unopposed, understood that they would be elected at the meeting by acclamation.

We think that the 2-week notice and two-thirds vote were required in accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, 11th Edition, Article VIII, §25, page 265 and Article IX, §35, pages 305, 306, 307, and 312 but we are not sure.

I don't think the rule about the agenda is relevant. The motion to suspend the rules is not an agenda item in and of itself. It is germane to the election, which is on the agenda.

I am likewise skeptical that the rule adopted by the board by the board is valid.

Finally, the wording of the rule which prohibits nominations from the floor has not been made clear, and it seems to me that is crucial in answering this question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/4/2017 at 8:51 PM, Josh Martin said:

Finally, the wording of the rule which prohibits nominations from the floor has not been made clear, and it seems to me that is crucial in answering this question.

Would any such rule be invalid on the principle that making nominations is a fundamental right of membership? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Silvertomster said:

ould any such rule be invalid on the principle that making nominations is a fundamental right of membership?

Yes, because of the likelihood that it protects absentees, who would not have otherwise skipped their child's or parents' wedding to attend the meeting if they thought there might be a contested election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/2/2017 at 7:56 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

The other citations you provided are not applicable. The motion to amend something previously adopted is to "change an action previously taken or ordered." (p. 305, l. 7), but suspending the rule does not change the rule, it only ignores it temporarily.

I agree with this opinion, but, before asserting it, I would prefer to ask Guest Shawn Terris how he thinks they are, indeed, applicable.

(O yes indeed I notice that the discussion is a week stale.  Alas.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No. An organization is entirely free to require that nominations be made in advance of the election meeting.

And, it could create an absentee right that could not be suspended.  If there was a properly adopted rule preventing nominations from the floor, this could be a problem. 

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...