Exhisting policy changes.

[Guest Richard Trent]

At a recent church council meeting the topic of discussion was an employee's wish to add a holiday to our schedule. We have a personel policy which clearly states our policy on the number of holidays allowed. In this meeting the council president allowed a vote to add the requested holiday and was approved with a tie vote which the president broke in favor of the measure. I then stated that the vote was out of order because in order to add the holiday the policy manual would first have to be amended and and approved and then an up or down vote to approve the additional holiday would first have to be taken. The President of the board has challenged my position and asked that I defend my position by affirming it was within the framework of Roberts Rules. Please help.

[Robert B Fish]

A main motion is out of order if it conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion. [page 244, item b.]

As your vote on the change was close, so it depends on the number present to see whether the vote was sufficient to overturn the policy. The vote to amend the previous policy requires a 2/3 vote without notice, majority vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership (of the council). Unless all council members were present, you did not have enough votes to carry the motion.

This type of violation creates a continuing breach and it is never too late to raise a point of order that the vote to add the holiday was out of order.

-Bob

[Josh Martin]

At a recent church council meeting the topic of discussion was an employee's wish to add a holiday to our schedule. We have a personel policy which clearly states our policy on the number of holidays allowed. In this meeting the council president allowed a vote to add the requested holiday and was approved with a tie vote which the president broke in favor of the measure. I then stated that the vote was out of order because in order to add the holiday the policy manual would first have to be amended and and approved and then an up or down vote to approve the additional holiday would first have to be taken. The President of the board has challenged my position and asked that I defend my position by affirming it was within the framework of Roberts Rules.

Well, you're correct that it is necessary to amend the policy manual in order to add the holiday, but it's not a two-step process. A single motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted would do the trick. This motion requires a 2/3 vote, vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. Since the motion to add the holiday conflicts with the policy manual, it is null and void unless it was adopted by the vote required to amend the policy.

[tctheatc]

was this a motion to add this holiday permanently? or was this a one time deal?

[Josh Martin]

was this a motion to add this holiday permanently? or was this a one time deal?

Why would it matter? The answer's the same either way.

[tctheatc]

I'm wondering if it is a one time deal, could a motion be in order to grant all employees an extra day off? I mean it as above and beyond the scope of the 'schedule" that's mentioned. This schedule provides for the allowed holidays, and unless it specifically proscribes any additional holidays, I would argue (ex-union prez in me, perhaps) that a granting of an additional day off in 2011 does not conflict with the schedule which defines that employees will get X holidays. They're still getting X. This is a bonus: X + 1 if you will. Fezziwig is just so nice and happy with us all that he gave us an additional day off!

OTOH, if it is a motion to add this holiday to the schedule itself, I absolutely see where it is an amendment to the schedule (something previously adopted)

[hmtcastle]

was this a motion to add this holiday permanently? or was this a one time deal?

Adding it to the "schedule" of holidays suggests it's more than a one-time deal.

[Josh Martin]

I'm wondering if it is a one time deal, could a motion be in order to grant all employees an extra day off? I mean it as above and beyond the scope of the 'schedule" that's mentioned. This schedule provides for the allowed holidays, and unless it specifically proscribes any additional holidays, I would argue (ex-union prez in me, perhaps) that a granting of an additional day off in 2011 does not conflict with the schedule which defines that employees will get X holidays. They're still getting X. This is a bonus: X + 1 if you will. Fezziwig is just so nice and happy with us all that he gave us an additional day off!

Okay, I understand what you're getting at now. I agree that a motion granting the employees a one-time day off would not necessarily conflict with a policy setting the holiday schedule, although I agree with Mr. Mountcastle that that does not seem to be what happened.

[tctheatc]

I tend to agree, also. I was just wondering, and asking was free, so....

[Guest Bill Savering]

A main motion is out of order if it conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion. [page 244, item b.]

As your vote on the change was close, so it depends on the number present to see whether the vote was sufficient to overturn the policy. The vote to amend the previous policy requires a 2/3 vote without notice, majority vote with notice, or a majority of the entire membership (of the council). Unless all council members were present, you did not have enough votes to carry the motion.

This type of violation creates a continuing breach and it is never too late to raise a point of order that the vote to add the holiday was out of order.

-Bob

The vote has been superceded by new information; that said however, some additional information is germane to the discussion.

1) The Policy which was thought to be current was being discussed with what dates were listed.

2) With this policy in full view: The motion was made to add an additional date to that policy. There is no other source that was being discussed which had dates. Hence, the motion made was to add an additional day to that policy. The motion inferred the policy was being modified.

3) All board members were present for the vote.

4) I cannot locate anything that would conflict when it is placed in context.

5) We are looking for the correct answer according to Robert's Rules so that we might avoid further issues.

6) I have Robert's Rules, however, 244b that I have doesn't correspond.

Thanks!

Bill

[Guest Guest]

The vote has been superceded by new information; that said however, some additional information is germane to the discussion.

1) The Policy which was thought to be current was being discussed with what dates were listed.

2) With this policy in full view: The motion was made to add an additional date to that policy. There is no other source that was being discussed which had dates. Hence, the motion made was to add an additional day to that policy. The motion inferred the policy was being modified.

3) All board members were present for the vote.

4) I cannot locate anything that would conflict when it is placed in context.

5) We are looking for the correct answer according to Robert's Rules so that we might avoid further issues.

6) I have Robert's Rules, however, 244b that I have doesn't correspond.

Thanks!

Bill

I should say the motion was to amend the policy to add the day

[Josh Martin]

The vote has been superceded by new information;

What do you mean by that?

The motion inferred the policy was being modified.

"Inferred" doesn't cut it (and you mean implied, not inferred). A motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed to change an adopted motion.

6) I have Robert's Rules, however, 244b that I have doesn't correspond.

On pg. 244 there should be five items lettered (a) through (e). If you don't see that, you don't have The Right Book.

I should say the motion was to amend the policy to add the day

You're confusing me. Was it just "implied," or was this a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted? This is a crucial fact in determining whether the motion is valid.

[Guest Bill Savering]

What do you mean by that?

"Inferred" doesn't cut it (and you mean implied, not inferred). A motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is needed to change an adopted motion.

On pg. 244 there should be five items lettered (a) through (e). If you don't see that, you don't have The Right Book.

You're confusing me. Was it just "implied," or was this a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted? This is a crucial fact in determining whether the motion is valid.

1) What do I mean by that: Meaning it turns out the previous ruling board never adopted the Policy that we were using.

2) I don't mean to confuse you. I do not recall that they specifically said "I make the motion para 2 of policy' x, y, z" - instead it was more like these here are the current dates listed in the policy, it does not list President's Day. I make the motion we add President's day to the list of authorized holidays. It was seconded at that point.

THere is also an online Robert's rules.

Hope that I was clearer.

Thanks

Bill

[Josh Martin]

1) What do I mean by that: Meaning it turns out the previous ruling board never adopted the Policy that we were using.

Well, if the policy was never adopted to begin with, yes, that would render the current issue moot. It seems your organization has bigger problems.

THere is also an online Robert's rules.

Well, there is, but it uses the text of the 1915 edition of ROR since it's in the public domain now. The current edition of RONR is not available online.

[Guest Bill Savering]

Well, if the policy was never adopted to begin with, yes, that would render the current issue moot. It seems your organization has bigger problems.

Well, there is, but it uses the text of the 1915 edition of ROR since it's in the public domain now. The current edition of RONR is not available online.

Josh

The document in question was developed in early 2008. The current board members date only to 2009. No, we don't claim to be perfect.

Might I disturb you however to answer your take on #2 had in been in effect?: ... I do not recall that they specifically said "I make the motion para 2 of policy' x, y, z" - instead it was more like these here are the current dates listed in the policy, it does not list President's Day. I make the motion we add President's day to the list of authorized holidays. It was seconded at that point.

Would that have been a valid motion or was it not specific enough?

Thanks

Bill

[Dan Honemann]

Josh

The document in question was developed in early 2008. The current board members date only to 2009. No, we don't claim to be perfect.

Might I disturb you however to answer your take on #2 had in been in effect?: ... I do not recall that they specifically said "I make the motion para 2 of policy' x, y, z" - instead it was more like these here are the current dates listed in the policy, it does not list President's Day. I make the motion we add President's day to the list of authorized holidays. It was seconded at that point.

Would that have been a valid motion or was it not specific enough?

Thanks

Bill

If there is in existence a previously adopted list of authorized holidays, then "I make the motion we add President's day to the list of authorized holidays" would be a motion to amend the previously adopted list.

[tctheatc]

But what if this list was never previously adopted in any formal sense by any body?

(I ask knowing that some church "policies" exist or begin as nothing more than handwritten notes passed from committee to (newly elected) committee and eventually take on the force of law as time etches them in stone)

[Dan Honemann]

But what if this list was never previously adopted in any formal sense by any body?

Then (unless a motion is pending to adopt such a list and this is a subsidiary motion to amend it) this would appear to be a motion to add something to a list which has no meaningful existence, but I see no reason to assume that this is the case.

You seem to be asking me to make sense out of a situation that makes no sense (or else I don't understand your question).

[tctheatc]

Dan, I'm trying to make sense of the post above stating that the policy referred to was never actually adopted. I guess it just became custom over time.

Perhaps a motion to adopt the policy (and amend it to include the new day) is in order. If so, only a majority vote is needed, I'd think.

[Dan Honemann]

Dan, I'm trying to make sense of the post above stating that the policy referred to was never actually adopted. I guess it just became custom over time.

Perhaps a motion to adopt the policy (and amend it to include the new day) is in order. If so, only a majority vote is needed, I'd think.

In post #15 we are told that "The document in question was developed in early 2008."

[David A Foulkes]

1) What do I mean by that: Meaning it turns out the previous ruling board never adopted the Policy that we were using.

Can we assume you know this after a careful review of the minutes going back to 2008 when it was developed, and have found nothing to show the adoption? If so, and this is true, then I don't think you have a policy in force. However.....

Page 17, lines 4-18, state that a particular practice established through custom which conflicts with the parliamentary authority falls to the ground when a Point of Order is raised. I don't see any clear conflict with RONR on this. Further, it states if there is no contrary provision, the custom should be adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees to do otherwise. You obviously don't want to get rid of the policy, so the custom stands, but not as policy or rule.

Page 16, line 27, uses the phrasing "long-established custom", although whether that is applicable or not I can't say. How "long" is "long-established" - years? decades?

If the policy has never been formally adopted, and I'd say this has all the characteristics of a standing rule, then it could be adopted (with the additional holiday) by a majority vote, and make it "official."

My .02

[tctheatc]

In post #15 we are told that "The document in question was developed in early 2008."

.... it turns out the previous ruling board never adopted the Policy that we were using.

Bill

Dan, I don't have the multi quote or post number features on my mobile device. But this is the concept I'm referring to. Developed, put together, written, whatever it appears it was never formally ADOPTED by the previous or current board. I guess they just thought/assumed it'd been adopted. So I don't know if amending something previously adopted is the way to go

[Dan Honemann]

Dan, I don't have the multi quote or post number features on my mobile device. But this is the concept I'm referring to. Developed, put together, written, whatever it appears it was never formally ADOPTED by the previous or current board. I guess they just thought/assumed it'd been adopted. So I don't know if amending something previously adopted is the way to go

Well, of course the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is not the way to go if this "list" we have been referring to has not been previously adopted. I'm quite sure I never suggested otherwise.

[Guest Bill Savering]

If there is in existence a previously adopted list of authorized holidays, then "I make the motion we add President's day to the list of authorized holidays" would be a motion to amend the previously adopted list.

Thanks Dan.

Of course, since the 2008 policy was never adopted this was just in case this comes up again.

On my end it was clear what the motion was for, however, it apparently wasn't clear to others - so lesson learned on my part to ensure everyone is on the same page (ie, ask for a repeat or summary of the motion) in a non-routine scenario.

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, of course the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is not the way to go if this "list" we have been referring to has not been previously adopted. I'm quite sure I never suggested otherwise.

Perhaps the 11th Edition will introduce the motion to Amend Something Never Actually Adopted.