BlueCat57

OK. The the information about motions is so scattered throughout Robert's that just about every time I look something up, I find some new reference. I guess I'm overthinking the whole censure/motion writing process. KISS Thanks for the replies.

I've read much in Robert's about motions, and have searched the web, but have yet to find a SIMPLE outline of how to write a motion. Any resources that you can recommend? I read that the "whereases" are not part of the motion, but are the arguments for passing the motion. From that and a form for recording motions that I've found imply that a "motion" should be a clear, short statement of what wants to be done. I guess I'm overthinking the concept of a motion, but everyone I find online is lengthy and contains the "whereases". So, any simple instructions on "How to Write a Motion"

I've been looking for guidelines or an outline of how to write a motion to censure a politician. So far, I haven't found any. I've read the general guidelines for writing a motion, the "whereases" shouldn't be part of the motion, but every censure I've found online starts with several whereases. Any guidance that y'all can offer will be appreciated.

Thank you for the reply. Our organization is undergoing a sea change between old leadership who like the status quo and new people that are ready to rock and roll. The rules are several years old and need updating but the update process is on a two year cycle so I'm looking for ways to "fix" things in the interim. Right now the Chair is taking the "old" attitude so I'm looking for a simple majority process to clarify things. I had flagged 56:68, but just hadn't gotten around to reading it. So much to learn.

Our organization's rules mentions footnotes within the document, but nowhere explains what they are or how they are to be used. And no one seems to know either. I am guessing that a Footnote could be used to explain some portion of the rules. Is that a logical assumption? There are many parts of our rules that are open to interpretation using the following standard: "Interpretation. These Rules shall be interpreted and applied so as to substantially accomplish their objectives. The spirit and not the letter of each Rule shall be controlling. Substantial compliance with a Rule shall be sufficient." Nowhere does it inform whose "spirit" is to be used. I am planning to propose that in a future revision that clause be stricken, but in the meantime plan to suggest that "footnotes" be used to clarify unclear areas of the rules and the the voting members of the organization can approve footnotes with a simple to act as guidance until the rules can be permanently amended and clarified. There are rules that allow amending the rules in the interim period but that requires a 2/3 quorum and a 2/3 vote. Just not going to happen in the near term. Most of the items that I believe need clarification are not covered by Robert's Rules of Orders. One item is a job description of a Sargent at Arms. Another is the answer to "Whose spirit?" The rules regarding producing and approving a budget in a timely fashion are not present. Lot's of things to clarify, and I think footnotes might provide the guidance necessary. What are your thoughts? Do any of your organizations have a method of clarify rules without super-majorities?