Motion Postponed "Too Long" -- Status?

[jstackpo]

Setup:  Monthly meetings, A, B, & C

 

At meeting A main motion MM is (improperly) postponed to meeting C, but nobody catches the error.

 

What is the status of MM when Meeting B rolls around?

 

1)  Should it be brought up (by the presiding officer) as a General Order, "as if" the original postponement was (properly) to meeting B?

 

2)  Or is MM dead in the water since the motion to postpone was clearly out of order?  MM can then be brought up as New Business.

 

3)  Or should MM be essentially (still improperly, to be sure) ignored, and held in the wings until meeting C when it can be brought up as either a GenOrd or New Business?

[George Mervosh]

My own view of it is that it was dead at the conclusion of meeting A since it was improperly postponed, and may be made again as new business at Meeting B.

[Josh Martin]

Setup:  Monthly meetings, A, B, & C

 

At meeting A main motion MM is (improperly) postponed to meeting C, but nobody catches the error.

 

What is the status of MM when Meeting B rolls around?

 

1)  Should it be brought up (by the presiding officer) as a General Order, "as if" the original postponement was (properly) to meeting B?

 

2)  Or is MM dead in the water since the motion to postpone was clearly out of order?  MM can then be brought up as New Business.

 

3)  Or should MM be essentially (still improperly, to be sure) ignored, and held in the wings until meeting C when it can be brought up as either a GenOrd or New Business?

It should have been brought up as a General Order at Meeting B. Since this was not done, it should come up as Unfinished Business at Meeting C.

[George Mervosh]

It appears I should have read a thread I started about this a couple of years ago before I posted.   http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/17323-postponing-to-a-time-too-far/

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Interesting. I have a different take on it.

 

Although this main motion was improperly postponed to Meeting C, that is still the adopted motion and I think that it would not automatically come up as a general order before then unless the assembly takes action on it before then. I think the assembly could bring it up in Meeting B under "General Orders" since this matter is still within the control of the assembly or the assembly could choose to wait until Meeting C when it would automatically come up as a general order for that meeting.

 

As a practical matter, there is not much difference in taking up the matter under Unfinished Business or General Orders, but wouldn't it still be considered a general order for Meeting C instead of being unfinished business since the adopted motion was to make it a general order for Meeting C?

[Gary Novosielski]

There still seems to be an unresolved difference.

 

Some are saying it should come up at meeting B as a General Order.

The logic apparently being that although the motion was to postpone to C, it should be interpreted so as to preserve the intent of the assembly to an extent consistent with the rules, i.e., at least a postponement of some sort, but only to the next meeting.

 

Others say it should come up at meeting B as Unfinished Business..

The logic apparently being that since the motion was out of order and void, the motion was never properly disposed of at meeting A, and therefore becomes Unfinished Business at meeting B.

 

 

Am I summarizing correctly, and is there any consensus to be reached on this?

[Richard Brown]

There still seems to be an unresolved difference.

 

Some are saying it should come up at meeting B as a General Order.

The logic apparently being that although the motion was to postpone to C, it should be interpreted so as to preserve the intent of the assembly to an extent consistent with the rules, i.e., at least a postponement of some sort, but only to the next meeting.

 

Others say it should come up at meeting B as Unfinished Business..

The logic apparently being that since the motion was out of order and void, the motion was never properly disposed of at meeting A, and therefore becomes Unfinished Business at meeting B.

 

 

Am I summarizing correctly, and is there any consensus to be reached on this?

I think you are summarizing correctly.  I tend to believe that if the motion to postpone beyond the next meeting was out of order and void, then the matter should be treated as unfinished business at meeting B.

 

I can certainly accept the other interpretation, too, but doing so involves accepting the "fiction" of interpreting the motion to postpone to meeting C as something that it was not.  I'm not fond of adopting "fictions" when not necessary.

 

Edited to add:  Of course, we do adopt such a "fiction" when we treat an improper motion to "table until the next meeting" as really being a motion to "postpone until the next meeting".  But, in that case, the motion itself is unclear and i guess it can be said that we are simply interpreting it to be a motion to postpone, replacing the word "table" with the word "postpone".  A motion to "postpone to meeting C" is quite clear, however.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

There still seems to be an unresolved difference.

 

Some are saying it should come up at meeting B as a General Order.

The logic apparently being that although the motion was to postpone to C, it should be interpreted so as to preserve the intent of the assembly to an extent consistent with the rules, i.e., at least a postponement of some sort, but only to the next meeting.

 

Others say it should come up at meeting B as Unfinished Business..

The logic apparently being that since the motion was out of order and void, the motion was never properly disposed of at meeting A, and therefore becomes Unfinished Business at meeting B.

 

 

Am I summarizing correctly, and is there any consensus to be reached on this?

 

And I had a different take from either of those two: The motion does not automatically come up in Meeting B, but could be brought up under General Orders. No matter how improper, the adopted motion is to postpone to Meeting C. This is the motion to be carried out unless the assembly decides otherwise. A point of order may be brought up in Meeting B, but I think the assembly could also decide to wait until Meeting C if that is what the assembly wants to do in Meeting B.

[Dan Honemann]

It should have been brought up as a General Order at Meeting B. Since this was not done, it should come up as Unfinished Business at Meeting C.

 

I agree with this, although I apparently wasn't so sure about it in the previous thread George refers to.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

And I now agree with your agreement. The flaw in my argument was that I was trying to argue that the motion could be made a general order for Meeting C.

[jstackpo]

I suppose the difficulty with this question is that we are dealing with what RONR does NOT say; hence we get (almost) free rein to tell each other how to pick up the pieces when a firm rule is violated.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

I think it would be easier to just agree with Mr. Honemann, especially when he agrees with Mr. Martin.

[George Mervosh]

I suppose the difficulty with this question is that we are dealing with what RONR does NOT say; hence we get (almost) free rein to tell each other how to pick up the pieces when a firm rule is violated.

 

I don't like giving any legitimacy to what happened in meeting A, which is why I think it should be dead after meeting A adjourns, but it doesn't matter I suppose because whether it's made anew or comes up as a general order in meeting B, the fact is, it can come up, and no 2/3 vote is necessary.

[Dan Honemann]

I don't like giving any legitimacy to what happened in meeting A, which is why I think it should be dead after meeting A adjourns, but it doesn't matter I suppose because whether it's made anew or comes up as a general order in meeting B, the fact is, it can come up, and no 2/3 vote is necessary.

 

I can understand the unwillingness to give any legitimacy to the the adoption of the improper motion to postpone, but how is it that the main motion also loses its legitimacy in the process? Are you treating the motion to postpone as if it were a motion to postpone indefinitely?

[Josh Martin]

I don't like giving any legitimacy to what happened in meeting A, which is why I think it should be dead after meeting A adjourns, but it doesn't matter I suppose because whether it's made anew or comes up as a general order in meeting B, the fact is, it can come up, and no 2/3 vote is necessary.

It might matter, if the motion in question requires previous notice, or if previous notice would lower the threshold for adoption.

[Sean Hunt]

In line with the unwillingness to give legitimacy to the motion made in meeting A, my inclination would be to rule it unfinished business in meeting B, as I would any other motion which had been properly put before the assembly in meeting A, but not finally disposed of.

Perhaps this deserves a separate thread of its own, but I'll put forth a very related question that may help us divine an ideal answer:

At meeting A, motion X is moved.

Motion X is (improperly) postponed to meeting C.

Motion Y is moved.

During consideration of motion Y, a point of order is raised against the postponement.

Should the consideration of motion X resume automatically, or must further action be taken at that point to resume it? If it is resumed automatically, then both X and Y would be considered at the same time. One of them must yield to the other (in the same manner that consideration of a motion yields to a matter of privilege or to a special order). Which should it be?

[Dan Honemann]

In line with the unwillingness to give legitimacy to the motion made in meeting A, my inclination would be to rule it unfinished business in meeting B, as I would any other motion which had been properly put before the assembly in meeting A, but not finally disposed of.

Perhaps this deserves a separate thread of its own, but I'll put forth a very related question that may help us divine an ideal answer:

At meeting A, motion X is moved.

Motion X is (improperly) postponed to meeting C.

Motion Y is moved.

During consideration of motion Y, a point of order is raised against the postponement.

Should the consideration of motion X resume automatically, or must further action be taken at that point to resume it? If it is resumed automatically, then both X and Y would be considered at the same time. One of them must yield to the other (in the same manner that consideration of a motion yields to a matter of privilege or to a special order). Which should it be?

 

It will almost certainly not be in order to raise a point of order concerning the improper postponement of motion X while motion Y is pending. The point of order does not arise out of motion Y, and does not take precedence over it.   (RONR, p. 72, ll. 24-30; p. 247, ll. 13-14).

[George Mervosh]

I can understand the unwillingness to give any legitimacy to the the adoption of the improper motion to postpone, but how is it that the main motion also loses its legitimacy in the process? Are you treating the motion to postpone as if it were a motion to postpone indefinitely?

 

It seems I'm treating this main motion no differently than if it had been postponed (definitely) to the next meeting when the next meeting is not held within a quarterly time interval.  That main motion needs to be made again, and I think this one does too. 

 

I certainly see the other viewpoints on this.

[Gary Novosielski]

It seems I'm treating this main motion no differently than if it had been postponed (definitely) to the next meeting when the next meeting is not held within a quarterly time interval.  That main motion needs to be made again, and I think this one does too. 

 

I certainly see the other viewpoints on this.

 

The original motion to Postpone actually broke two rules:  going beyond a quarterly interval, and going beyond the next regular meeting.  Since the next meeting occurs first, that's the first opportunity to deal with it.

 

I'm okay with any interpretation that allows the members at that meeting to take up the same question on the demand of a single member or, preferably, fewer.

[Richard Brown]

I'm okay with any interpretation that allows the members at that meeting to take up the same question on the demand of a single member or, preferably, fewer.

Fewer than a single member??  Interesting concept. 

[jstackpo]

A concept easily grasped: 

 

The presiding officer just brings it up and (re)initiates discussion where it was left off last meeting.  Nobody has "demanded" anything.

[DanielEHayes]

The original motion to Postpone actually broke two rules:  going beyond a quarterly interval, and going beyond the next regular meeting.  Since the next meeting occurs first, that's the first opportunity to deal with it.

 

I'm okay with any interpretation that allows the members at that meeting to take up the same question on the demand of a single member or, preferably, fewer.

It went beyond a quarterly interval? But A,B, and C were monthly meetings. Wouldn't meeting C fall within a quarter of meeting A? Doesn't this just break the rule of going past the next meeting?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

It went beyond a quarterly interval? But A,B, and C were monthly meetings. Wouldn't meeting C fall within a quarter of meeting A? Doesn't this just break the rule of going past the next meeting?

 

I think Mr. Novosielski was referring to the details in this thread in the General Discussion forum, which was the basis for posting this new topic in the Advanced Discussion forum.

 

If A, B, and C were monthly meetings, then C would be within a quarterly time interval of A.

 

Edited to add that this assumes that A, B, and C were consecutive months.

[Edgar Guest]

If A, B, and C were monthly meetings, then C would be within a quarterly time interval of A.

 

Or maybe could be? The quarterly time interval ranks near the top of RONR's vestigial nomenclature.

[Josh Martin]

Or maybe could be? The quarterly time interval ranks near the top of RONR's vestigial nomenclature.

 

If meetings A, B, C are in consecutive months, meetings A and C are certainly within a quarterly interval of each other.