Clarifying Robert's Rules of Order regarding who can make motions

[Guest Lacey Henager]

This was the question:

 

"As the appointed chair of a sub-committee, can I make a motion on behalf of my committee (for example, for funds to be allocated to my sub-committee for a specific purpose), or must I wait for a non-member of the sub-committee to make the motion after I state my case?"

 

This was the answer:

 

"If you are a member of the body that will be authorizing the funding, you can make it.  If not, someone else on your sub-committee who is a member of the body that will be authorizing funding can make the recommendation.  If no one on  your subcommittee is a member of the body authorized to grant funding, someone from that body needs to move for the adoption of the recommendation."

 

The question I have is this, does this still hold true if they are a non-voting member of the EC from which they are requesting the funding?

[Chris Harrison]

As far as RONR is concerned a member is a member with all the rights of a member.  If you all have created a different class of membership (nonvoting) it will be then up to you all to decide what rights this "member" has.  There are two major schools of thought on the situation.  One being that when a new class of membership is created that "member" has all of the rights not specifically withheld and the other school being that "member" only has the rights specifically given.  Take your pick. 

[Dan Honemann]

This was the question:

 

"As the appointed chair of a sub-committee, can I make a motion on behalf of my committee (for example, for funds to be allocated to my sub-committee for a specific purpose), or must I wait for a non-member of the sub-committee to make the motion after I state my case?"

 

This was the answer:

 

"If you are a member of the body that will be authorizing the funding, you can make it.  If not, someone else on your sub-committee who is a member of the body that will be authorizing funding can make the recommendation.  If no one on  your subcommittee is a member of the body authorized to grant funding, someone from that body needs to move for the adoption of the recommendation."

 

The question I have is this, does this still hold true if they are a non-voting member of the EC from which they are requesting the funding?

 

Who is "they"?

 

You previously asked if you, as chair of a sub-committee, could make a motion in behalf of that committee for funds to be allocated to it for a specific purpose. The answer was (and is) that yes, you can, if you are a member of the body that will be authorizing the funding -- in other words, if you are a member of the assembly in which you are making the motion. Whether you are or are not a voting member of the sub-committee in whose behalf the motion is being made doesn't matter.

[Laceyh32]

No I did not ask that question, I am sorry I did not make that clear,  But thank you Dan that cleared it all up. The issue that perplexed me was if it made a diffrence if they were a voting member or not, Thank you

[Guest Edgar]

The issue that perplexed me was if it made a difference if they were a voting member or not, 

 

Well, what I think Mr. Honemann is saying is that it wouldn't make a difference if this person was a "non-voting member" of the subcommittee since the motion wouldn't be made by a member (voting or non-voting) of the subcommittee, it would be made by a member of whatever body will be authorizing the spending of money (i.e. adopting a motion to do so). 

 

So the more interesting question (addressed by Mr. Harrison) is whether a "non-voting member" can make motions. This refers to a non-voting member of the body which will be considering the motion, not some other body which might only be making a recommendation (i.e. not making the motion itself).

[Guest Father Cadan]

On 12/7/2013 at 7:22 AM, Chris Harrison said:

As far as RONR is concerned a member is a member with all the rights of a member.  If you all have created a different class of membership (nonvoting) it will be then up to you all to decide what rights this "member" has.  There are two major schools of thought on the situation.  One being that when a new class of membership is created that "member" has all of the rights not specifically withheld and the other school being that "member" only has the rights specifically given.  Take your pick. 

 

I would not say take your pick. As "member" is defined by Robert's as having four rights "non-voting" negates one of those. A person possessing nothing: no rights and no privileges, would not be a "member". If you created a voting-only member then the other three rights would be negated. It violates logic and Robert's to interpret a non-voting member as having no rights and no privileges, that would be called a non-member.

[George Mervosh]

7 hours ago, Guest Father Cadan said:

I would not say take your pick. As "member" is defined by Robert's as having four rights "non-voting" negates one of those. A person possessing nothing: no rights and no privileges, would not be a "member". If you created a voting-only member then the other three rights would be negated. It violates logic and Robert's to interpret a non-voting member as having no rights and no privileges, that would be called a non-member.

I might quibble with some of this, but I'll wait 2 1/2 years.

[Richard Brown]

21 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I might quibble with some of this, but I'll wait 2 1/2 years.

Hey, at least he's either reading old threads for educational (or entertainment) purposes or he's using the search engine to research specific issues...   I wold give him kudos for that and for sticking to the topic with his response to Chris Harrison's comment. 

Now, if only Father Cadan will follow up with his own current thread about math and RONR in which Mr. Honemann and others are waiting for him to clarify some points.  Hopefully, it  won't be 2 1/2 years.  

Edited to add:  It's nice to see that he has joined the forum in the past 24 hours.  Now he can tell at a glance when someone has commented in a thread he started or has commented in.  But, it won't help with his post as a guest in this thread. 

[Guest calbear_77]

The Book, under Principles of Interpretation, says

Quote

A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are evidently not improper. 

I would interpret the last clause of the sentence to mean that a "non-voting member" is only limited in voting but not from any other member rights.

[Josh Martin]

11 hours ago, Guest calbear_77 said:

The Book, under Principles of Interpretation, says

I would interpret the last clause of the sentence to mean that a "non-voting member" is only limited in voting but not from any other member rights.

Okay, but without actually knowing what the bylaws say, how can we possibly interpret them?

[Guest calbear_77]

13 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Okay, but without actually knowing what the bylaws say, how can we possibly interpret them?

Guest Lacey Henager simply said that someone is a "non-voting member of the EC". Given this information, I am assuming that all the bylaw says is that certain individuals are non-voting members (something commonly found in many organizations). If the bylaws provided more nuance as to other prohibitions relating to the non-voting EC members or specifically enumerated their rights, Lacey wouldn't have a question for us.