Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

postpone vote to date


lipets

Recommended Posts

Your post from 3:16PM is simply laughable, since the original poster never obstinately said that was his motion. He wants to postpone the pending question, nothing more (which postpones the final vote on it as well). And if you obstinately didn't help the member phrase the motion correctly, shame on you, as the chair.

I think the intention was to finish debate and amendment at one session and then have the vote at the next session. There is no proper procedure in the general parliamentary law to decide all this up front, so to speak. I'm not doubting that a main motion can be postponed to the next session held within the quarterly time interval, but such a postponement does not decide when, if ever, the main motion will be put to a vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I'm in the chair when a member obstinately insists on making a motion in the form, "that the vote be held at the next meeting [session]", I will have no option but to rule the motion out of order on account that the motion to postpone is improperly formed and violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law by infringing on the freedom of the next session.

If I am in the chair, I believe I would have an option like this:

Chair: Does the chair understand correctly that the member is moving to postpone further consideration of, and voting on, this question until the next meeting?

Member M: Yes.

Chair: Is there a second?

Member S: Second!

Chair: It has been moved and seconded that the motion to adopt the bylaws revision be postponed until the next meeting. The question is on the motion to postpone. Are you ready for the question?

From what I understand of the scenario described by the OP, this would violate no rule. Part of the duty of the chair--an important part--is to help members who seem to be having trouble forming their motion in a way that would be in order, by suggesting the correct form of the correct motion in keeping with what the member is trying to accomplish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am in the chair, I believe I would have an option like this:

Chair: Does the chair understand correctly that the member is moving to postpone further consideration of, and voting on, this question until the next meeting?

Member M: Yes.

Chair: Is there a second?

Member S: Second!

Chair: It has been moved and seconded that the motion to adopt the bylaws revision be postponed until the next meeting. The question is on the motion to postpone. Are you ready for the question?

From what I understand of the scenario described by the OP, this would violate no rule. Part of the duty of the chair--an important part--is to help members who seem to be having trouble forming their motion in a way that would be in order, by suggesting the correct form of the correct motion in keeping with what the member is trying to accomplish.

I tried my best to give the impression that we were already past this point. The member said, instead, "No, sir! If I had meant that, I would have said that! I made my motion the way I wanted it, and that's what I move!" wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the intention was to finish debate and amendment at one session and then have the vote at the next session. There is no proper procedure in the general parliamentary law to decide all this up front, so to speak. I'm not doubting that a main motion can be postponed to the next session held within the quarterly time interval, but such a postponement does not decide when, if ever, the main motion will be put to a vote.

First I would like to say that I couldn't join in earlier, I can't long in from any other computer, strange software you're using.

I used the name mike out of frustration.

To clarify it's not my motion but I'm on the committee that wrote the Revision, so it's kinda my baby.

All were trying to do is have the all amendments voted on in seriatim as to the revised constitution with out the final vote,

since the bylaws were difficult to complete not knowing what amendments to the revised constitution would be adopted.

At the completion of this annual meeting having the revised amendments in hand the revised bylaws can be completed over the course of the next few months and be presented for debate and possible amendments to only the bylaws.

then have a complete vote at the next annual meeting.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your post from 3:16PM is simply laughable, since the original poster never obstinately said that was his motion. He wants to postpone the pending question, nothing more (which postpones the final vote on it as well). And if you obstinately didn't help the member phrase the motion correctly, shame on you, as the chair.

Correct not my motion, once I know the amendments the motion I think should be postponed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All were trying to do is have the all amendments voted on in seriatim as to the revised constitution with out the final vote,

since the bylaws were difficult to complete not knowing what amendments to the revised constitution would be adopted.

At the completion of this annual meeting having the revised amendments in hand the revised bylaws can be completed over the course of the next few months and be presented for debate and possible amendments to only the bylaws.

then have a complete vote at the next annual meeting.

It's perfectly in order to postpone the motion to the next meeting (if that meeting is within a quarterly interval), but at that meeting, the motion will be open to debate, amendment, and other subsidiary motions. It cannot be determined in advance that only the vote will be taken at that meeting.

It seems like you're trying to postpone the motion for a year, though, which is not in order. The assembly could, however, Refer the motion back to the committee. It still doesn't prevent amendments and debate at the next meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct not my motion, once I know the amendments the motion I think should be postponed.

Well, the thing is, you can't postpone only the vote. You can get it in as good a shape as you can, and then postpone the question to the next meeting, but no longer than that. And no longer than a quarterly interval. But that doesn't prevent the meeting at which it then comes up as unfinished business from making another amendment to the revision before it's voted on. The entire question as amended, in the form it was when it was postponed, is placed before the next meeting, and they have as much freedom to change it then as the prior meeting did.

If you want to hold it off for longer than a quarterly interval, you'd need to Refer it to a committee, with instructions to report it back at the AGM. The committee could also be instructed to distribute copies or hold hearings to discuss it, or whatever other useful tasks you can dream up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We thought about that issue that if happens we feel there would be so few, if any, they can be decided at that time.

Okay. I agree with Mr. Martin that the main motion will be as fully debatable and subject to secondary motions as it was in the first meeting. You really cannot say for sure that the main motion will be voted on at the second session, either. It will come to a vote when the deliberative process plays itself out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tried my best to give the impression that we were already past this point. The member said, instead, "No, sir! If I had meant that, I would have said that! I made my motion the way I wanted it, and that's what I move!" wink.gif

But that's not what the OP asked. He asked if the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time would be applicable. And it certainly would.

Why are you insisting on twisting the situation into one that would be out of order, when the original question was about a motion that surely would be in order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are you insisting on twisting the situation into one that would be out of order, when the original question was about a motion that surely would be in order?

Well, I don't know about "surely would be in order." Based upon further information, it seems quite possible the motion may violate the "quarterly interval" rule.

And out of fairness to Mr. Elsman, the original question was about a motion to "vote on several amendments, but hold the final vote off until the next meeting." I can see how this could be interpreted as a motion to postpone only the "final vote."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I don't know about "surely would be in order." Based upon further information, it seems quite possible the motion may violate the "quarterly interval" rule.

And out of fairness to Mr. Elsman, the original question was about a motion to "vote on several amendments, but hold the final vote off until the next meeting." I can see how this could be interpreted as a motion to postpone only the "final vote."

Yeah, I wasn't able to tell for certain if the quarterly interval would be exceeded, based on the question. It appeared not, and I was giving it the benefit of the doubt. The question seemed to involve postponing it TO the annual meeting, but that could mean postponing it FROM a regular meeting a month before. Postponing it from one AGM to the next would, naturally, be out of order, and that's when the committee can be used. Mr. Elsman's objection did not presume a greater than quarterly interval anyway. It was based on violation of a basic principle by tying the hands of a future meeting. Of course Postpone to a Certain Time does not do that.

The original question did say "hold off the vote" but then, after researching it, the OP asked whether Postpone could be the motion to use. And if its conditions are satisfied, that is exactly the right motion. It only needs to be stressed that the vote, in isolation, may not be postponed, but rather the whole question in its exact parliamentary status may be. And that's how it comes back.

Since then, the OP has confirmed that amendments could be offered at the later meeting, but if they have played their political and educational cards right, they believe it won't create a problem that can't be solved in real time. I tend to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could refer to an (appropriate) committee that is established in the bylaws (a "Standing Committee") or you could move to refer to a committee that is newly established with a defined task, in the very motion to refer (a "Special Committee"), with people named to ("appointed") in the same motion.

I am not at all clear what your feedbacker was talking about. Can you get him/her to explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could refer to an (appropriate) committee that is established in the bylaws (a "Standing Committee") or you could move to refer to a committee that is newly established with a defined task, in the very motion to refer (a "Special Committee"), with people named to ("appointed") in the same motion.

I am not at all clear what your feedbacker was talking about. Can you get him/her to explain?

Ok, the Revision Committee was a special committee appointed by the EC, what I think I'm being told is that because it is a delegates meeting they can't referrer it to the special committee.

tks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I brought that idea up and the feedback I received was the committee was not the delegates but the EC and that wouldn't work?????

Why not? And where did "delegates" come from? I thought this was a membership meeting.

Anyway, you can refer it to a special committee that the membership elects on the spot. It certainly does not have to be the Executive Committee (which really isn't a committee in the true sense). The members of the committee can be any persons you think can do the job you want done. They don't even have to be members, but of course in this case it would make more sense. You can instruct them to take under consideration the pending motion on revision of the bylaws, publicize it among the membership in its current form if that's one of your goals, make recommendations for corrections in case you missed some inconsistencies--that's always worth a good hard look by fresh eyes--and then report it back for further action whenever you're planning to adopt it.

By "you" above, I mean whatever group is actually authorized to consider and act upon bylaws revisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, the Revision Committee was a special committee appointed by the EC, what I think I'm being told is that because it is a delegates meeting they can't referrer it to the special committee.

Once it is placed before the assembly for action, the assembly can refer it wherever they want to. It doesn't matter where it came from before it got to them. Once a special committee delivers its report (what's known as "rise and report") it doesn't retain control over it. In fact, it goes out of existence, unless the assembly feels it needs to recommit the question to them for some reason, which is uncommon. This new committee would presumably have quite a different mission than the Revision Committee had.

I'm still not clear who these "delegates" are. You've mentioned the membership (at an AGM) and the Executive Committee. I presume you have a Board of Directors of which the EC is a subset? Or is the EC itself actually your board?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not? And where did "delegates" come from? I thought this was a membership meeting.

It is

Once it is placed before the assembly for action, the assembly can refer it wherever they want to. It doesn't matter where it came from before it got to them. Once a special committee delivers its report (what's known as "rise and report") it doesn't retain control over it. In fact, it goes out of existence,

The problem is the committee will at that time complete its task namely revising the bylaws.

I'm still not clear who these "delegates" are. You've mentioned the membership (at an AGM) and the Executive Committee. I presume you have a Board of Directors of which the EC is a subset? Or is the EC itself actually your board?

The delegates are members, the EC is a subset

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob I know you said I drained all the knowledge, but please indulge this point.

Our current constitution, states that the Delegates or membership will vote at this meeting only and there is no mention of

1) Delegates present and voting at any subsidiary meeting until the next Delegates meeting,

2) the constitution does not provide for calling a special meeting of Delegates to accomplish a vote.

In addition the current Bylaws and Policy do not contain any mention of voting by members accept at the Delegates meeting,

which constitutionally occurs only once per year.

Given these observations it would appear to me that a Condition exists that would allow for the vote to be continued to another time certain, i.e., the next annual Delegates meeting.

With that in mind this seems to me the bylaws supersede the quarterly rule.

tks again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob I know you said I drained all the knowledge, but please indulge this point.

Our current constitution, states that the Delegates or membership will vote at this meeting only and there is no mention of

1) Delegates present and voting at any subsidiary meeting until the next Delegates meeting,

2) the constitution does not provide for calling a special meeting of Delegates to accomplish a vote.

In addition the current Bylaws and Policy do not contain any mention of voting by members accept at the Delegates meeting,

which constitutionally occurs only once per year.

Given these observations it would appear to me that a Condition exists that would allow for the vote to be continued to another time certain, i.e., the next annual Delegates meeting.

With that in mind this seems to me the bylaws supersede the quarterly rule.

tks again

That is incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob I know you said I drained all the knowledge, but please indulge this point.

Our current constitution, states that the Delegates or membership will vote at this meeting only and there is no mention of

1) Delegates present and voting at any subsidiary meeting until the next Delegates meeting,

2) the constitution does not provide for calling a special meeting of Delegates to accomplish a vote.

In addition the current Bylaws and Policy do not contain any mention of voting by members accept at the Delegates meeting,

which constitutionally occurs only once per year.

Given these observations it would appear to me that a Condition exists that would allow for the vote to be continued to another time certain, i.e., the next annual Delegates meeting.

With that in mind this seems to me the bylaws supersede the quarterly rule.

The fact that the assembly only meets annually and does not provide for special meetings does not change the application of the quarterly interval rule for postponement. In such an assembly, a motion to Postpone Definitely may only be used to postpone a motion to later in the same meeting or to an adjourned meeting, not to the next regular meeting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...