Conflicting motions on the agenda

[ramh]

Two motions were presented to the council officers to place on the agenda. One motion was to support a piece of federal legislation and the other was to oppose the same federal legislation. The chair ruled that both motions were out of order since they conflicted. A motion to appeal the decision was made which stated that the chair had no authority to rule the motions out of order and prevent them from being added to the agenda. No bylaw exists to allow the chair to control the agenda in this way. Who is correct? Do the rules of order prevent two conflicting motions from being presented to the body since each motion is presented separately?

[Dan Honemann]

Two motions were presented to the council officers to place on the agenda. One motion was to support a piece of federal legislation and the other was to oppose the same federal legislation. The chair ruled that both motions were out of order since they conflicted. A motion to appeal the decision was made which stated that the chair had no authority to rule the motions out of order and prevent them from being added to the agenda. No bylaw exists to allow the chair to control the agenda in this way. Who is correct? Do the rules of order prevent two conflicting motions from being presented to the body since each motion is presented separately?

Your chair was obviously incorrect when he ruled that these motions could not be placed on the agenda. However, once the first of such conflicting motions is taken up during the meeting, the friends of the other had better move to amend the pending motion (by, for example, striking out "support" and inserting "oppose").

[jstackpo]

And, FWIMBW, neither the "Council officers" nor the chair have any authority, per RONR, to set the (final) version of the agenda - that is up to the assembly when it meets - RONR, p. 360 ff.

If your chair persists, insist that he show you the "rule" giving him that authority. It isn't in RONR, but it might be in your rules, which are your business (and problems).

[Trina]

Your chair was obviously incorrect when he ruled that these motions could not be placed on the agenda. However, once the first of such conflicting motions is taken up during the meeting, the friends of the other had better move to amend the pending motion (by, for example, striking out "support" and inserting "oppose").

However, if the first motion were to fail, then the second would still be in order, wouldn't it?

Suppose the first motion considered is 'that our organization will actively support legislation XYZ.' Suppose that motion is voted down after debate.

Considering a second motion 'that our organization will actively oppose legislation XYZ' would be in order, since it is not substantially the same question that was already considered. It's not a binary situation -- the organization really has three choices: support, oppose, or do nothing either way.

[Trina]

... The chair ruled that both motions were out of order since they conflicted. A motion to appeal the decision was made which stated that the chair had no authority to rule the motions out of order and prevent them from being added to the agenda...

So, what was the assembly's final decision on the appeal? Was the appeal seconded, debated, and eventually carried through to a vote? Did the assembly overrule the chair's erroneous decision? Or did the appeal just die on the vine because people didn't know what to do with it ?

[jstackpo]

Correct, but if the first (support) motion was adopted, then the second would not be in order.

A motion to reconsider the vote on the support motion could lead to a reversal of the position, to oppose. But an "opposer" couldn't make that motion.

Proposing to amending the first (strike "support" & insert "oppose") is perhaps a cleaner way to go about discovering the will of the majority. And gives the "opposers" a fighting chance.

[Dan Honemann]

However, if the first motion were to fail, then the second would still be in order, wouldn't it?

Not during the same session, no. I think the question which the council was called upon to decide was, in effect, "what position, if any, shall the council take concerning this piece of federal legislation?".

[hmtcastle]

No bylaw exists to allow the chair to control the agenda in this way. Who is correct?

See FAQ #14.

[jstackpo]

I don't think so. I think the question which the council was called upon to decide was, in effect, "what position, if any, shall the council take concerning this piece of federal legislation?".

Oh, I dunno. Looks like a judgment call to me - a defeat of the "support" motion still leaves open the question of active ("Go out and makes speeches!") opposition to the legislation.

But in any event, the assembly would make the final decision as to whether the "oppose" motion was in order (following the defeat of the "support" motion) on a ruling and possible appeal.

[Trina]

Not during the same session, no. I think the question which the council was called upon to decide was, in effect, "what position, if any, shall the council take concerning this piece of federal legislation?".

I don't think it's so clear what question was decided 'in effect'. One can only be certain of what question was actually debated and voted upon. Suppose a motion to support the legislation is made, and is rapidly and overwhelmingly voted down. Now the 'no' voters sit there and look at each other, and someone has the thought that perhaps the organization should actually take steps to oppose the legislation (and not just remain on the sidelines). A motion to oppose the legislation is made.

In that situation, I don't see why the second motion should be viewed as a consideration of substantially the same question. I suppose if someone raised a point of order to that effect, the assembly could make the decision, based on the circumstances.

[Dan Honemann]

I don't think it's so clear what question was decided 'in effect'. One can only be certain of what question was actually debated and voted upon. Suppose a motion to support the legislation is made, and is rapidly and overwhelmingly voted down. Now the 'no' voters sit there and look at each other, and someone has the thought that perhaps the organization should actually take steps to oppose the legislation (and not just remain on the sidelines). A motion to oppose the legislation is made.

In that situation, I don't see why the second motion should be viewed as a consideration of substantially the same question. I suppose if someone raised a point of order to that effect, the assembly could make the decision, based on the circumstances.

This incorrectly assumes that application of the rule (p. 106, l. 26-28) depends upon what occurs in debate on the motion which was rejected.

[Trina]

This incorrectly assumes that application of the rule (p. 106, l. 26-28) depends upon what occurs in debate on the motion which was rejected.

The earlier statement that an unstated question was somehow considered 'in effect' seems to make a similar assumption that the content of debate matters. If the question already considered is to be found strictly in the language of the motion that was voted upon, then the defeat of a motion to support legislation XYZ only means what it says -- the organization has decided not to support the legislation. It doesn't mean the organization has decided among its various other possible responses to the legislation, and those other possible responses should still be open for consideration.

[hmtcastle]

It doesn't mean the organization has decided among its various other possible responses to the legislation, and those other possible responses should still be open for consideration.

I think that's like saying the defeat of a motion to paint the clubhouse red doesn't prohibit the consideration of another motion to paint the clubhouse blue. Or to put aluminum siding on the clubhouse.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that if the new motion could have been created by amending the original motion, it's substantially the same.

I think Mr. Stackpole got it right when he said it's a judgment call as to what constitutes a substantial difference. And it's the judgment of the assembly that counts, not the members of this forum.

[Trina]

I think that's like saying the defeat of a motion to paint the clubhouse red doesn't prohibit the consideration of another motion to paint the clubhouse blue. Or to put aluminum siding on the clubhouse.

Perhaps a good rule of thumb is that if the new motion could have been created by amending the original motion, it's substantially the same....

That would be an easy rule of thumb to remember. Before I commit it to memory, however, is that indeed a proper definition of what 'substantially the same question' means??

If your clubhouse example is meant to show that further motions to paint the clubhouse blue, or to put on aluminum siding, are improper, then I clearly have to readjust my thinking. They sound perfectly proper to me , but maybe that's because my thinking is in error...

[Josh Martin]

Before I commit it to memory, however, is that indeed a proper definition of what 'substantially the same question' means??

It is not an absolute rule but it isn't a bad starting point. You might want to read RONR, 10th ed., pg. 130, line 25 - pg. 131, line 2. The paragraph relates to determining whether an amendment is germane, but the principles may also be helpful here.

[Rob Elsman]

However, if the first motion were to fail, then the second would still be in order, wouldn't it?

Suppose the first motion considered is 'that our organization will actively support legislation XYZ.' Suppose that motion is voted down after debate.

Considering a second motion 'that our organization will actively oppose legislation XYZ' would be in order, since it is not substantially the same question that was already considered. It's not a binary situation -- the organization really has three choices: support, oppose, or do nothing either way.

Yes, in my opinion. Notwithstanding Mr. Honemann's view that both motions appear to ask the assembly to decide the same question, I believe the motions are technically different enough that they do not present substantially the same question. As you point out, just because the society decides not to "...actively support legislation..." does not mean that the society has decided to "...actively oppose..." it. How this applies to the original poster's question, though, is less clear to me, since we do not have the actual texts of the motions which are mentioned there.

[ramh]

So, what was the assembly's final decision on the appeal? Was the appeal seconded, debated, and eventually carried through to a vote? Did the assembly overrule the chair's erroneous decision? Or did the appeal just die on the vine because people didn't know what to do with it ?

[ramh]

The body upheld the chair which I maintain was not correct.

[ramh]

That would be an easy rule of thumb to remember. Before I commit it to memory, however, is that indeed a proper definition of what 'substantially the same question' means??

If your clubhouse example is meant to show that further motions to paint the clubhouse blue, or to put on aluminum siding, are improper, then I clearly have to readjust my thinking. They sound perfectly proper to me , but maybe that's because my thinking is in error...

[ramh]

Going back to the original question. A body can't pass a motion to support something and then pass a motion to oppose it without first rescinding the motion of support. So the paint example of red or blue isn't quite the same situation. It would be more like voting to support painting it red then opposing painting it red. You can't do both. The two motions are in direct conflict as a body cannot both support and oppose the same legislative bill. The question remains though who decides what can be on the agenda when this type of conflict occurs? Is it the chair or the body of members? The chair removed the motions from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting claiming he had the authority to do so under Roberts Rules section 10 which is what he pointed to to support his decision. By the chair making the decision he did and by the body upholding his decision, now all anyone who wants to kill a motion that is submitted to be on the agenda has to do to defeat that motion, without even a hearing, is to submit a conflicting motion and the chair will rule both out of order. That is nonsense and I maintain is contrary to Robert's Rules.

When this was pointed out to the chair the chair said the opposing parties needed to get together and work it out prior to submitting the motions. How do you work out painting the barn red and not painting the barn red?

[jstackpo]

As noted previously, the chair has NO power to unilaterally remove potentially conflicting motions from the agenda. Section 10, "The Main Motion" has nothing to do with "Agendas". Ask you chair to cite page and line to back up his claim - he won't be able to.

"Conflicting motions" show up, in my experience, all the time in agendas. The chair could point out that there is a conflict and explain the consequences if one is adopted before the next one is considered. The adoption of the first might well make the second one out of order, but that is a consequence of the adoption, not the fact that they were in conflict in content and both included in the agenda.

[Dan Honemann]

As you point out, just because the society decides not to "...actively support legislation..." does not mean that the society has decided to "...actively oppose..." it.

No, of course it doesn't, but that's beside the point. The point is that, if members had wanted the council to actively oppose the legislation, the time to propose doing so was while the question as to what position the council would take concerning support of the legislation was pending

If, while the motion to support the legislation was pending, a motion to amend it by striking out "support" and inserting "oppose" was offered and rejected, and then the main motion to support the legislation was rejected, would anyone say that a motion to oppose the legislation would then be in order? I doubt it, but again, I do not think that application of the rule depends upon what happens during debate on the rejected motion.

However, I also agree with those who say that this is a judgment call, and I recognize that my views on this particular question may be regarded as somewhat extreme.

[Dan Honemann]

Going back to the original question. A body can't pass a motion to support something and then pass a motion to oppose it without first rescinding the motion of support. So the paint example of red or blue isn't quite the same situation. It would be more like voting to support painting it red then opposing painting it red. You can't do both. The two motions are in direct conflict as a body cannot both support and oppose the same legislative bill. The question remains though who decides what can be on the agenda when this type of conflict occurs? Is it the chair or the body of members? The chair removed the motions from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting claiming he had the authority to do so under Roberts Rules section 10 which is what he pointed to to support his decision. By the chair making the decision he did and by the body upholding his decision, now all anyone who wants to kill a motion that is submitted to be on the agenda has to do to defeat that motion, without even a hearing, is to submit a conflicting motion and the chair will rule both out of order. That is nonsense and I maintain is contrary to Robert's Rules.

When this was pointed out to the chair the chair said the opposing parties needed to get together and work it out prior to submitting the motions. How do you work out painting the barn red and not painting the barn red?

Please accept our apologies for allowing this thread to run off on a tangent.

I think that Dr. Stackpole has answered your specific question, but if more is needed don't hesitate to let us know.

[hmtcastle]

How do you work out painting the barn red and not painting the barn red?

You make a motion to paint the barn red and debate it. If the motion remains unchanged and is adopted, the barn gets painted red. If it's defeated, the barn doesn't get painted red.

A motion not to paint the barn red would not be in order since the same result could be achieved by doing nothing.

[Trina]

... The question remains though who decides what can be on the agenda when this type of conflict occurs? Is it the chair or the body of members? The chair removed the motions from the agenda at the beginning of the meeting claiming he had the authority to do so under Roberts Rules section 10 which is what he pointed to to support his decision.

Unless your own rules (bylaws) give the chair unusual authority over the agenda, it is the body of members (the assembly) that makes the decision when conflict occurs. And, in fact, you say that the assembly did go through the steps of processing an appeal from a ruling of the chair. Unfortunately, the assembly agreed with the chair's erroneous ruling. As Mr. Stackpole pointed out, the chair should be asked exactly where in section 10 he thinks he finds support for his position.

Also note that an agenda, unless explicitly adopted by the assembly, is not binding anyway (per RONR anyway; your own rules may give the agenda greater importance). 'Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day or conforms to the standard order of business...' (RONR p. 363) When an assembly is in the habit of formally adopting an agenda (thereby agreeing to be bound by the agenda), the body is free to amend the agenda prior to adoption -- adopting an agenda is a main motion, which is amendable and debatable. Again, it is the assembly that decides, not the chair.

... By the chair making the decision he did and by the body upholding his decision, now all anyone who wants to kill a motion that is submitted to be on the agenda has to do to defeat that motion, without even a hearing, is to submit a conflicting motion and the chair will rule both out of order. That is nonsense and I maintain is contrary to Robert's Rules.

When this was pointed out to the chair the chair said the opposing parties needed to get together and work it out prior to submitting the motions. How do you work out painting the barn red and not painting the barn red?

This is obviously a foolish position for the chair to take. Although it's nice if people can work out their conflicts prior to the meeting, no such requirement can be imposed by the rules of parliamentary procedure, and it is inappropriate for the chair to suggest that such a requirement now exists in the organization. Working out conflicts is one of the things formal meetings are designed to do -- by debate during the meeting.

The problem you have is convincing/educating enough of your members about proper procedure, so that the assembly doesn't follow the chair down the wrong path the next time this issue comes up. Everyone here agrees that your chair's decision with respect to the agenda was in error (despite the side discussion about whether two opposing motions can be in order at the same meeting); however, no one here has a vote in your organization.

Also, it is too late to formally challenge anything that happened in the sequence of events you described, even though the chair was in error, and the assembly was ill-informed in voting to support his error.