Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Ratify and Amendments


Sean Hunt

Recommended Posts

For whatever it is worth, my lowly humble opinion is the same as Mr.  Honemann's.

 

When I first started reading this thread, I was taking the position that ratification is an "all or nothing" proposition.   However, I have been convinced otherwise, and I believe it is perfectly ok for a motion to ratify a previously (improperly) adopted motion to be amended so as to limit just what parts of the prior motion are being ratified. 

 

Do you mind me asking why? I'm partial to this interpretation as a matter of principle, but perhaps not as a concrete interpretation of the Book.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An example, to help clarify one kind of a subset of actions taken.

• Assume an inquorate meeting.

• Assume that the assembly adopted the following main motions.
#1) To buy a new American flag.
#2) To repair the piano.
#3) To raise the dues by $1.
#4) To sponsor a Halloween party at the clubhouse.


***

Now, at the next quorum-satisfied meeting, the assembly is free to ratity #1, or #2, or #3, or #4.
Or ratify all items, 1-4.
Or ratity the odd-numbered resolutions (1,3).
Or ratify the even-numbered resolutions (2,4).

• When a motion is made, "To ratify ALL action items adopted at the meeting of MM/DD/YY", it is proper to AMEND BY STRIKING OUT any subset of numbered items.

• When a motion is made, "To ratify ONLY action item #3", it is proper to AMEND BY ADDING any numbered item.

***

An example of "a single main motion of multiple parts" is another example I am not addressing, but you can see that the treatment would be virtually identical in format.

***

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not understand why it would be necessary to ratify a motion that was originally rejected (at an inquorate meeting).

 

The motion to Ratify "is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly."  
 
If the motion was rejected, then no action was already taken (or even attempted), and so there is nothing to ratify.  An action rejected cannot "become valid" with or without the subsequent concurrence of the assembly.  
 
If the assembly approves of the original motion, it can simply renew the motion.  If it disapproves, it need do nothing.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I do not understand why it would be necessary to ratify a motion that was originally rejected (at an inquorate meeting).

 

The motion to Ratify "is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly."  
 
If the motion was rejected, then no action was already taken (or even attempted), and so there is nothing to ratify.  An action rejected cannot "become valid" with or without the subsequent concurrence of the assembly.  
 
If the assembly approves of the original motion, it can simply renew the motion.  If it disapproves, it need do nothing.

 

 

In the first two bullets near the bottom of page 124, "action improperly taken" and "action taken" refer to decisions made. When an assembly rejects a main motion, it has decided not to do what that motion proposes be done, and it is this decision which the assembly can confirm and make valid by the adoption of a motion to Ratify.  (cf. RONR, Off, Interp. 2006-12)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting. I would not have thought there is any such thing as a motion to Ratify that takes the form of a motion to Amend Something Not Previously Adopted (but Which the Members Assembled Improperly Purported to Adopt at a Meeting When No Quorum Was Present).

 

 

"I haven't said that I think this is the case. I am saying that, if this is not the case, I don't see how a motion to ratify either the adoption or rejection of a main motion can be amended."

 

By the way, when I say in this post, as in posts nos. 11 and 17, that I don’t see how a motion to ratify the adoption or rejection of a main motion can be amended, what I really should be saying is that I don't see how the main motion, which is the subject of the motion to ratify, can be amended (but, as has been noted, this is all a part of my decomposing). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first two bullets near the bottom of page 124, "action improperly taken" and "action taken" refer to decisions made. When an assembly rejects a main motion, it has decided not to do what that motion proposes be done, and it is this decision which the assembly can confirm and make valid by the adoption of a motion to Ratify.  (cf. RONR, Off, Interp. 2006-12)

Would there be any appreciable advantage in doing so? Presuming the assembly is not in favor of the motion, what risk do they run by simply never speaking of it again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would there be any appreciable advantage in doing so? Presuming the assembly is not in favor of the motion, what risk do they run by simply never speaking of it again?

 

Well, for one thing, by rejecting the motion the assembly prevents its subordinate board (assuming it has one with authority to act for it between its meetings) from adopting a motion to do whatever it decided not to do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...