Removal of Motion

[Andrew002]

In a recent union meeting a motion was "removed" by the chair due to the fact the mover of the motion was not in attendance. Did the chair have the right to remove the motion? 

[jstackpo]

Seems strange:  Did someone make the motion? If the mover wasn't there how did the content of the motion get to the meeting?

Can you clarify the facts, please.    (Bedtime (on he east coast) I'll be back in the morning...)

[Andrew002]

The motion was moved the month before and now a month later the membership was voting on the motion. The mover was not in attendance for the vote and therefore the chair removed the motion.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

If the motion was postponed or otherwise properly carried over to this meeting, then the chairman had no power to suppress it. There is no rule that the mover must be in attendance. The motion now belongs to the assembly.

[Atul Kapur]

If, last month, the motion was moved, seconded, and stated by the chair, then it was in the assembly's hands last month. If that is the case, I assume it was (a) being discussed at last month's meeting when the meeting adjourned, or (b) was postponed to this month's meeting.

If, on the other hand, the motion was "moved" last month with the intention from the start that it would only be debated at this month's meeting, then the mover effectively just gave "notice of motion" last month's meeting. In that case, if the person who gave notice is not present this month, any other member can move the motion.

It sounds, from your wording, that your union has a particular custom or Special Rule of Order regarding the introduction of motions.

Edited April 21, 2018 at 02:39 AM by Atul Kapur, PRP "Student"

[Andrew002]

Yes, it was a notice of motion last month, seconded and understood it would be debated this month. 

The chair used the excuse that "this is the way it has been done in the past"! The unions constitution and bylaws verify that RONR is to be adhered too.

Quote

 

 

[Atul Kapur]

42 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The chair used the excuse that "this is the way it has been done in the past"!

 

That has the status of "custom" according to RONR. Page 19, lines 3-5 define the term.

Lines 9-15 say that if the custom "is or becomes in conflict with with the parliamentary authority", that you can raise a Point of Order and "the custom falls to the ground" and you follow the authority.

The only reference I can find to back up my statement

57 minutes ago, Atul Kapur, PRP "Student" said:

if the person who gave notice is not present this month, any other member can move the motion.

is specific to the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Page 307, lines 23-26 say "When previous notice has been given, it is usual to wait for the member who gave notice of these motions to move them; but if he does not, any member can do so."

I would say that this same principle should apply in your situation and should prevail over your custom. I'm interested in hearing whether others on this forum agree.

You could raise a Point of Order that this provision means the custom is in conflict with your parliamentary authority. Your chair would then have to rule, subject to appeal to the assembly.

[Andrew002]

I'll speak with the principle and discuss your suggestions for next meeting. 

[Richard Brown]

I'm still unable to determine from the description of what happened whether the member actually made the motion at the first meeting or whether he merely gave notice that he intended to make the motion at the next meeting. That makes a difference even though, in either case, that alone is not determinative of whether the chair should have arbitrarily "dismissed" "removed" the motion.

I suspect there is more to this than we have been told. For example, is there a rule that a motion cannot be taken up at the same meeting at which it is made? Even if there is, that alone does not give me chair the right to dismiss (or remove) the motion if the original mover is not present at the second meeting. The motion is before the assembly and should be treated as such. 

A point of order should have been raised and possibly appealed. If that wasn't done, it's too late now. Someone needs to make the motion again. 

Edited April 21, 2018 at 11:18 AM by Richard Brown
Edited as indicated by strikerthrough and underline

[Richard Brown]

8 hours ago, Andrew002 said:

Yes, it was a notice of motion last month, seconded and understood it would be debated this month. 

In what way was it determined that it would be debated this month?  It sounds like it was more than just a notice if an intent to make a motion at the next meeting. It sounds like the motion was actually made at the first meeting.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

In what way was it determined that it would be debated this month?  It sounds like it was more than just a notice if an intent to make a motion at the next meeting. It sounds like the motion was actually made at the first meeting.

Well, giving previous notice that a motion will be made at the next meeting does indeed suggest that the motion will be debated at that meeting. What I find more unusual is the fact that the motion was seconded. Previous notice does not require a second, but actually making the motion does.

I wonder if it is in fact the rule or custom of the society that certain motions are actually made, seconded, and stated by the chair, and are then automatically and immediately postponed to the next regular meeting. If this is the case, the motion should have automatically become pending in General Orders, whether or not the motion maker was present. It would not be necessary to make the motion again.

Edited April 21, 2018 at 01:40 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

Wait, what does "removed" mean?  Does it mean removed from something (and, if so, what?) or does it mean moved again?

[Richard Brown]

19 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Wait, what does "removed" mean?  Does it mean removed from something (and, if so, what?) or does it mean moved again?

I'm assuming ( admittedly a dangerous thing to do, but, what the heck, I enjoy living dangerously) that the motion was removed from the agenda.

C'mon, Andrew, give us a little more information  about what happened! The details you are leaving out are important!

Edited April 21, 2018 at 02:45 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Andrew002]

Great information from the group, let me start from the beginning.

A local meeting was held last March...under new order of business a notice of motion was brought forward. It is customary that our local defer the vote to the following month, the notice of  motion is posted for the entire membership to review...at the next meeting the notice of motion is debated and then voted on by the members in attendance. 

At the local meeting in April the Chair removed the motion prior to debate because the mover was not in attendance. Members did not question the decision and so it was removed. When the chair was questioned the following day member he simply replied "I removed it because the member who introduced the notice was not in attendance. When his authority was questioned he said "that is the way is been done in the past".

Sorry to everyone who provided input, I should have provided more clarity as to the events.

[Joshua Katz]

20 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

A local meeting was held last March...under new order of business a notice of motion was brought forward. It is customary that our local defer the vote to the following month, the notice of  motion is posted for the entire membership to review...at the next meeting the notice of motion is debated and then voted on by the members in attendance. 

 

So this was notice, not a motion.  Was it a motion for which notice impacted the vote threshold?  On second thought, I'm not sure that matters for our purposes.  But you also say that the notice is debated, so it could be your organization is using a very different procedure (or different words) from what we expect.

21 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

At the local meeting in April the Chair removed the motion prior to debate because the mover was not in attendance. Members did not question the decision and so it was removed. When the chair was questioned the following day member he simply replied "I removed it because the member who introduced the notice was not in attendance. When his authority was questioned he said "that is the way is been done in the past".

 

Again, removed from what?  I'll join Mr. Brown in assuming it's from the agenda.  Is that right?  If so, do you have time for new business in your agenda?  In any case, whatever it is that happened, it certainly sounds like something you'd need to object to at the time.  I'm not even sure that matters, though, because even if it were something you could, in fact, object to later, the remedy would be the same as what you can already do - make the motion at the next meeting.

So it sounds like the "custom" is to not allow new business, require it to be stated but then actually introduced at the next meeting, and to require that the maker of the motion be at the next meeting.  Is that about right?  If that's your custom, and not a rule, it will fall to the ground to the extent it violates actual rules on a point of order.  For example, if you have no rules, and no adopted agenda, prohibiting new business, someone could make a motion and raise a point of order if the chair doesn't let the assembly consider it immediately.  If your organization wants such a procedure, it would do well to make it a rule.

[Andrew002]

Yes from the agenda.

[Joshua Katz]

This business about the mover being present might well result from one of the problems I've observed before is common to many organizations: formality for its own sake.  We get a lot of questions about who can make a motion, whether a motion must be made, etc. that seem to stem from the same issue.  In fact, we all do it to some extent.  For instance, our answers often say things like (for instance, I just said it) it is too late to raise a point of order; you'll have to make the motion again.  We write that as if making a motion were somehow unduly strenuous or difficult.  (In fact, in many cases, it would be more accurate for us to say that you may make the motion again; i.e. when a motion dies on the table, the take-away is not that someone must do the arduous labor of stating it again, but that it may be made without the use of any parliamentary motions, whereas if it were on the table, the same motion could not be made again before the first is finally disposed of.)  In other words, your organization may attach undue significance to a motion, as do many organizations, as if it were more than the way of proposing something.

My first volunteer fire department was like this, although it was also my first meeting organization and so I didn't realize it was incorrect.  Most meetings, there would be no motions at all.  When someone was really fired up about something, they'd make a motion, and a quiet would come over the hall - everyone hold tight, someone's making a motion!  Then the officers would say something about it, but they'd never let us vote on it anyway.

[Andrew002]

The executive board considers a notice of motion new business which is voted on by the membership the following month. This is all new to me however after attending several meetings something seems inherently wrong with the way the rules of order are interpreted.

[Joshua Katz]

9 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The executive board considers a notice of motion new business which is voted on by the membership the following month. This is all new to me however after attending several meetings something seems inherently wrong with the way the rules of order are interpreted.

Well, at least from what you've said, I see several things wrong with this.  Let's start with the easiest: if you're talking about a membership meeting, then the board is not even present as such (although its members may well be present, as members, not as a board) and is in no position to be considering anything anything.  Next up, that effectively denies a member the right to make a motion and have it decided, one of the most basic rights of membership.  You can't deny someone that right by custom.  (More practically, it prevents any motions from being made which would be carried out in the next month.)  

[Andrew002]

The officers in our local seem to believe the membership have no right to question the EB and should recuse themselves from any involvement. I have begun to take an interest and do understand that a 2/3 majority vote can change many things and the membership plays an important function in future outcomes. I've witnessed a number if improprieties that contravene our international constitution & bylaws for personal favour or gain in addition to circumventing the rules or order.

[Andrew002]

knowledge is power and currently their isn't anyone that is well versed in Roberts Rules of Order...Id like to change that!

[Andrew002]

Joshua, I don't understand the following statement:

"if you're talking about a membership meeting, then the board is not even present as such (although its members may well be present, as members, not as a board) and is in no position to be considering anything."

The board is present and conducts every local meeting. I must also inform you that the membership includes 1100 members.

[Joshua Katz]

10 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

Joshua, I don't understand the following statement:

"if you're talking about a membership meeting, then the board is not even present as such (although its members may well be present, as members, not as a board) and is in no position to be considering anything."

The board is present and conducts every local meeting. I must also inform you that the membership includes 1100 members.

Meetings are for the body that is meeting.  The board has its meetings (i.e. board meetings), and the membership (in many organizations) has its meetings.  Unless your rules say otherwise, the board has no right to conduct your meetings (I question how, in practice, any group can ever conduct meetings in that sense, but I see it often enough here, like in a recent thread where, it seems, the board controlled which motions the members could consider, that they must have a way).  It is likely that the board chair also chairs membership meetings, which is usually provided for in the bylaws or rules of order, but beyond that, the board answers to the membership.  If the board could control the meetings of the membership, it would essentially be able to make itself unanswerable to its superior assembly.  At membership meetings, the membership decides what motions it wants to hear, and how it wants to conduct business, and makes its own decisions.  

[Josh Martin]

48 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The executive board considers a notice of motion new business which is voted on by the membership the following month. This is all new to me however after attending several meetings something seems inherently wrong with the way the rules of order are interpreted.

Based on the additional facts which have been presented, I am questioning whether it was proper to delay the motion until the next meeting in the first place. It appears that there may not be any rule of the society which provides for this.

28 minutes ago, Andrew002 said:

The board is present and conducts every local meeting.

The board members are present, but they are present as individual members of the board. They can only act as “the board” at meetings of the board. The only board members who have any role in conducting the membership meeting are the chair and the Secretary, and it is ultimately the membership which is in charge of its meetings.

[Richard Brown]

Andrew, I'm curious. Is it possible in this organization for a motion to ever be adopted the same day the motion is made? If so, how?