Kim Goldsworthy Posted February 25, 2011 at 09:04 AM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 09:04 AM Assume that there is a set of bylaws which is worded like the sample bylaws in RONR, regarding the board, the general membership, the relationship of who is superior/inferior to whom.Q. If the general membership were to reject a certain motion, then, if the board ("between meetings of the general membership") were to take up that identical motion, and adopt it, (unanimously, or nearly unanimously)then, what would be the parliamentary outcome?(a.) The board's adoption stands, but subjects the board to risk of disciplinary action?(b.) The board's adoption is null and void? (But likewise subjects the board to risk of disciplinary action?)Note that the above scenario does not trigger a (page 244, #a thru #e) continuing breach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 10:30 AM Assume that there is a set of bylaws which is worded like the sample bylaws in RONR, regarding the board, the general membership, the relationship of who is superior/inferior to whom.Q. If the general membership were to reject a certain motion, then, if the board ("between meetings of the general membership") were to take up that identical motion, and adopt it, (unanimously, or nearly unanimously)then, what would be the parliamentary outcome?(a.) The board's adoption stands, but subjects the board to risk of disciplinary action?(b.) The board's adoption is null and void? (But likewise subjects the board to risk of disciplinary action?)The motion is null and void and the board is subject to disciplinary action. The margin by which the motion was adopted is irrelevant.Note that the above scenario does not trigger a (page 244, #a thru #e) continuing breach.The board has taken an action which is in excess of its authority and therefore cannot become legally valid until approved by the assembly. See information in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 119 for information on the motion to ratify. While "board" is not explicitly listed in the examples, it seems to me the same principles apply. Since the situation is therefore also comparable to an inquorate meeting, it seems it may be an issue of absentee rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 12:18 PM The motion is null and void. (And of course the board is subject to disciplinary action.)This is the exact situation in Official Interpretation 2006-12, and while I mourn the inclusion of the first sentence of the last paragraph there, the outcome is clear. Of course, as a practical matter, it might still take a Point of Order, or more, to forestall any ill effects of the situation, should the board try to implement the void motion. If the membership just ignores what happened and goes along its merry collective way, the board effectively will have gotten away with it. Even in cases of the null and the void, rules seldom enforce themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 25, 2011 at 02:04 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 02:04 PM Mr. Martin's response is entirely correct, and, with all due respect, I suggest that those who "mourn the inclusion of the first sentence of the last paragraph" of RONR Off. Interp. 2006-12 apparently do not fully understand the uses and purposes of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and the effect of its adoption. Begin by carefully reviewing the motion’s history as found in ROR (1915), pages 152-153, Parliamentary Practice (1921), page 14, and Parliamentary Law (1923), pages 15-17. All that has really happened is that, in RONR (beginning with the 7th ed. and continuing without change into the 10th) a little more emphasis is placed on the motion’s usefulness in declining to take a position on a motion in instances in which either directly adopting it or rejecting it will have undesirable consequences for the Society. It may also, of course, still be used for the other purposes noted, but in every instance its adoption means that the membership’s assembly has decided, in behalf of the Society, that the proposal indefinitely postponed is not to be agreed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 25, 2011 at 02:53 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 02:53 PM Mr. Martin's response is entirely correct, and, with all due respect, I suggest that those who "mourn the inclusion of the first sentence of the last paragraph" of RONR Off. Interp. 2006-12 apparently do not fully understand the uses and purposes of the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, and the effect of its adoption. Begin by carefully reviewing the motion’s history as found in ROR (1915), pages 152-153, Parliamentary Practice (1921), page 14, and Parliamentary Law (1923), pages 15-17. All that has really happened is that, in RONR (beginning with the 7th ed. and continuing without change into the 10th) a little more emphasis is placed on the motion’s usefulness in declining to take a position on a motion in instances in which either directly adopting it or rejecting it will have undesirable consequences for the Society. It may also, of course, still be used for the other purposes noted, but in every instance its adoption means that the membership’s assembly has decided, in behalf of the Society, that the proposal indefinitely postponed is not to be agreed to.Thanks, Dan, for the references, and I will study them all this evening.I think I do understand the uses and purposes of the motion. I guess I just wish it were otherwise. Or more correctly, I wish there were a way (which there apparently is not) for the assembly, having taken under consideration a particular question, to decide by a majority vote (or some vote) to back away from it, and leave it undecided--neither agreed to nor rejected, but as if the question had never been moved. It seems there should be a way to accomplish this, but the closest approach I've seen has involved withdrawal of the motion. That's fine if the mover agrees, but if the mover is the lone hold-out, it can't happen.It did seem to me that of all the possible ways to accomplish this end, Postpone Indefinitely was the most likely candidate. If that is not an available avenue to this result, that's not so troubling. Still, if the assembly truly wishes to push the Undo button, it is troubling to encounter an apparent parliamentary impasse--one that appears to thwart the will of the majority, due to what looks like a gap in the rules. And I've never before encountered a gap like that. If my hopes were just pinned on the wrong motion, that's fine. But to find no place to pin them is still problematic. Any guidance you can offer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 25, 2011 at 04:12 PM Report Share Posted February 25, 2011 at 04:12 PM Thanks, Dan, for the references, and I will study them all this evening.I think I do understand the uses and purposes of the motion. I guess I just wish it were otherwise. Or more correctly, I wish there were a way (which there apparently is not) for the assembly, having taken under consideration a particular question, to decide by a majority vote (or some vote) to back away from it, and leave it undecided--neither agreed to nor rejected, but as if the question had never been moved. It seems there should be a way to accomplish this, but the closest approach I've seen has involved withdrawal of the motion. That's fine if the mover agrees, but if the mover is the lone hold-out, it can't happen.It did seem to me that of all the possible ways to accomplish this end, Postpone Indefinitely was the most likely candidate. If that is not an available avenue to this result, that's not so troubling. Still, if the assembly truly wishes to push the Undo button, it is troubling to encounter an apparent parliamentary impasse--one that appears to thwart the will of the majority, due to what looks like a gap in the rules. And I've never before encountered a gap like that. If my hopes were just pinned on the wrong motion, that's fine. But to find no place to pin them is still problematic. Any guidance you can offer?I tried to think about this as I drove down to the office (a little late getting started this morning), but I am having trouble trying to determine exactly what it is that you think this assembly wants to do that it cannot do by using one of the parliamentary tools available to it. Frankly, I think you are having the same trouble. As best I can determine, you want the majority to be able to force withdrawal of the motion. You want there to be an "Undo button", which, when pushed, will make the parliamentary situation the same "as if the question had never been moved." If this is so, it seems to me that you want the assembly to have the ability to retroactively deny the member the right to make his motion. How else can you explain it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 26, 2011 at 02:20 AM Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 02:20 AM I think I do understand the uses and purposes of the motion. I guess I just wish it were otherwise. Or more correctly, I wish there were a way (which there apparently is not) for the assembly, having taken under consideration a particular question, to decide by a majority vote (or some vote) to back away from it, and leave it undecided--neither agreed to nor rejected, but as if the question had never been moved. It seems there should be a way to accomplish this, but the closest approach I've seen has involved withdrawal of the motion. That's fine if the mover agrees, but if the mover is the lone hold-out, it can't happen.There is no method by which the assembly may make a question as if it had never been moved against the motion maker's will, nor should there be. To do so would be to effectively deny the assembly's members of the right to make motions, and it would also allow the assembly to falsify its own history, since if a question is as if it had never been moved, it is not recorded in the minutes. I am sure that neither of these things were your goal. If you could explain what the actual goal(s) of such a motion would be, I suspect there are parliamentary motion(s) to accomplish these goals in a different manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 26, 2011 at 03:52 AM Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 03:52 AM What I've taken away from this so far is that once a question is placed before the assembly, with one or two exceptions, it must be disposed off eventually. It might be Laid on the Table, Referred, or Postponed Definitely, but ultimately it must come up for a vote, and the assembly either adopts or rejects it. Once the process has begun, it must be seen through to its inevitable conclusion.The exceptions so far are the withdrawal of the motion, and (if I'm correct) Objection to the Consideration of a Question, which of course has its own restrictions. Barring those two actions, it comes down to adoption or rejection, even if indirectly by the use of Postpone Indefinitely.My sense of what Gary N has been getting at is how an assembly, after some careful consideration through debate, can come to the realization that it's just better not to deal with the question. A motion such as Yeah.... Let's Not Go There, or We Shall Not Speak Of This Again, or Okay, Drop It, I Said Let's Move On. Not to step on a member's right to make motions, but as voiced as the will of the assembly, to allow the majority or even two-thirds the ability to say "we aren't going to go there."And if that's not what Gary N has been getting at, it has at least been going through my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 26, 2011 at 04:14 AM Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 04:14 AM There is no method by which the assembly may make a question as if it had never been moved against the motion maker's will, nor should there be. To do so would be to effectively deny the assembly's members of the right to make motions, and it would also allow the assembly to falsify its own history, since if a question is as if it had never been moved, it is not recorded in the minutes. I am sure that neither of these things were your goal. If you could explain what the actual goal(s) of such a motion would be, I suspect there are parliamentary motion(s) to accomplish these goals in a different manner.No, of course I'm not suggesting leaving it out of the minutes. I'm not seeking to suppress the fact that the motion was made, nor prevent anyone from making motions.What I'm looking for is a way for the assembly, after full and fair consideration of the merits of the motion, if it should decide that the proper course is neither to to approve nor reject the motion, to be able to do that. Suppose it does not wish to inhibit the board from taking up the matter at a later date.Assemblies do this by mistake all the time by, say, laying the question on the table and forgetting about it. We tell them that they shouldn't do that, and should instead Postpone Indefinitely, but that won't really work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 26, 2011 at 04:24 AM Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 04:24 AM What I'm looking for is a way for the assembly, after full and fair consideration of the merits of the motion, if it should decide that the proper course is neither to to approve nor reject the motion, to be able to do that.Okay. No, there is no way to do that (except maybe by a motion to Suspend the Rules). The assembly may put off consideration by a motion to Postpone Definitely, but it may not decide that it's never going to make a decision on the motion, and I don't really understand why that would be more desirable than a motion to Postpone Indefinitely.I should note that, other than the difference in the freedom of a subordinate board on the matter, there is really no difference between "rejecting" a motion "and not approving nor rejecting the motion." A motion proposes that the assembly takes some action. Ultimately, there are really only two possible consequences - the assembly takes the action or it doesn't.Suppose it does not wish to inhibit the board from taking up the matter at a later date.If the assembly wishes to Refer the matter to the board it is free to do so.We tell them that they shouldn't do that, and should instead Postpone Indefinitely, but that won't really work.It's worked just fine for assemblies for years. There is no proper method by which an assembly may simply make a motion disappear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted February 26, 2011 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted February 26, 2011 at 08:07 PM What I've taken away from this so far is that once a question is placed before the assembly, with one or two exceptions, it must be disposed off eventually. It might be Laid on the Table, Referred, or Postponed Definitely, but ultimately it must come up for a vote, and the assembly either adopts or rejects it. Once the process has begun, it must be seen through to its inevitable conclusion.The exceptions so far are the withdrawal of the motion, and (if I'm correct) Objection to the Consideration of a Question, which of course has its own restrictions. Barring those two actions, it comes down to adoption or rejection, even if indirectly by the use of Postpone Indefinitely.My sense of what Gary N has been getting at is how an assembly, after some careful consideration through debate, can come to the realization that it's just better not to deal with the question. A motion such as Yeah.... Let's Not Go There, or We Shall Not Speak Of This Again, or Okay, Drop It, I Said Let's Move On. Not to step on a member's right to make motions, but as voiced as the will of the assembly, to allow the majority or even two-thirds the ability to say "we aren't going to go there."And if that's not what Gary N has been getting at, it has at least been going through my mind.After it is too late to raise an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, there is no parliamentary action by which an assembly can vote to finally dispose of a main motion without either agreeing to do what the motion proposes or agreeing not to do what the motion proposes, whether directly or indirectly. This is true for the very same reason that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be raised after consideration of the main motion has begun and by the very nature of a main motion that is framed in the ordinary way. However, there are ways in which a main motion can "fall to the ground" or "die" (you just have to love the General's military imagery, don't you?) without action by the assembly; for example, see RONR (10th ed.), p. 229, ll. 11-18; or, p. 290, l. 34, through p. 291, l. 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 27, 2011 at 02:50 AM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 02:50 AM My sense of what Gary N has been getting at is how an assembly, after some careful consideration through debate, can come to the realization that it's just better not to deal with the question. A motion such as Yeah.... Let's Not Go There, or We Shall Not Speak Of This Again, or Okay, Drop It, I Said Let's Move On. Not to step on a member's right to make motions, but as voiced as the will of the assembly, to allow the majority or even two-thirds the ability to say "we aren't going to go there."And if that's not what Gary N has been getting at, it has at least been going through my mind.That is, indeed what I'm getting at. I had also considered to Leave Upon the Table, to Amend by Striking All the Words, to Express Remorse at Ever Having Begun to Consider, and the ever-popular Emptying Blanks.After it is too late to raise an Objection to the Consideration of a Question, there is no parliamentary action by which an assembly can vote to finally dispose of a main motion without either agreeing to do what the motion proposes or agreeing not to do what the motion proposes, whether directly or indirectly. This is true for the very same reason that an Objection to the Consideration of a Question cannot be raised after consideration of the main motion has begun and by the very nature of a main motion that is framed in the ordinary way. However, there are ways in which a main motion can "fall to the ground" or "die" (you just have to love the General's military imagery, don't you?) without action by the assembly; for example, see RONR (10th ed.), p. 229, ll. 11-18; or, p. 290, l. 34, through p. 291, l. 7.Yes, it's interesting that when a motion "falls to the ground" and "dies", it is then in just the state I'm looking for (dead). But Postpone Indefinitely, whose purpose is to "kill" the motion, does not cause it to "die". It is then, we must suppose, undead, and as such should be listed in the Pocket Manual of the Coming Zombie Apocalypse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weldon Merritt Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:26 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:26 PM I am one who used to think that the assembly's rejection of an action should not prohibit the board from later taking that same action. I have since come to agree that in fact it should, and does. If the assmebly wishes to avoid taking a stand at the time the motion is pending, but leave the board free to do so, then I agree with the earlier comment that the assembly is free to refer the matter to the board. (I would attribute the comment to whomever made it, but I can't seem to go back and read earlier comments while working on my own response.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hmtcastle Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:36 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:36 PM (I would attribute the comment to whomever made it, but I can't seem to go back and read earlier comments while working on my own response.)If you scroll to the bottom of the page (while you're entering your reply), you'll see a link that says: "Review the complete topic (launches new window)". Otherwise I think you only see the posts in a particular thread.You can also use the "MultiQuote" button to include excerpts from previous posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:40 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 04:40 PM I am one who used to think that the assembly's rejection of an action should not prohibit the board from later taking that same action. I have since come to agree that in fact it should, and does. If the assmebly wishes to avoid taking a stand at the time the motion is pending, but leave the board free to do so, then I agree with the earlier comment that the assembly is free to refer the matter to the board. (I would attribute the comment to whomever made it, but I can't seem to go back and read earlier comments while working on my own response.)Oh, I think that the assembly's rejection definitely should prohibit the board from taking that action, and have never thought otherwise. My question involves the ability of the assembly to put aside the question without overtly rejecting it. Referring the question to the board might seem to solve the problem, but it essentially kicks the can down the road. The board is now faced with a question which it did not choose to take up, and it is in exactly the same situation as the assembly was. It must decide to adopt or overtly reject the proposition, without any way to decide not to deal with it. The board would have had more freedom to deal with the matter, or not, if the assembly could set the question aside without referring it.When replying to posts, it should be possible to see prior posts (in reverse order) by scrolling down below the input box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted February 27, 2011 at 05:26 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 05:26 PM Oh, I think that the assembly's rejection definitely should prohibit the board from taking that action, and have never thought otherwise. My question involves the ability of the assembly to put aside the question without overtly rejecting it. Referring the question to the board might seem to solve the problem, but it essentially kicks the can down the road. The board is now faced with a question which it did not choose to take up, and it is in exactly the same situation as the assembly was. It must decide to adopt or overtly reject the proposition, without any way to decide not to deal with it. The board would have had more freedom to deal with the matter, or not, if the assembly could set the question aside without referring it.I'd suggest putting aside all this effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and focusing instead on gaining an understanding of why the first sentence of the last paragraph of RONR Off. Interp. 2006-12 is entirely correct (as, of course, is all the rest of it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:16 PM I'd suggest putting aside all this effort to solve a problem that doesn't exist, and focusing instead on gaining an understanding of why the first sentence of the last paragraph of RONR Off. Interp. 2006-12 is entirely correct (as, of course, is all the rest of it).I knew that was comin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:41 PM When replying to posts, it should be possible to see prior posts (in reverse order) by scrolling down below the input box.This is limited to the last 10 replies posted. For a thread at 11 or more posts, some will not be displayed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2011 at 07:54 PM This is limited to the last 10 replies posted. For a thread at 11 or more posts, some will not be displayed.In which case I open another tab in the browser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 28, 2011 at 12:51 AM Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 at 12:51 AM Referring the question to the board might seem to solve the problem, but it essentially kicks the can down the road. The board is now faced with a question which it did not choose to take up, and it is in exactly the same situation as the assembly was. It must decide to adopt or overtly reject the proposition, without any way to decide not to deal with it. The board would have had more freedom to deal with the matter, or not, if the assembly could set the question aside without referring it.Yes, but the only actual reason you seemed to be able to come up with for "not approving" the motion rather than rejecting it is to give freedom to a subordinate board. If you do "kick the can down the road," you will eventually run out of subordinate boards and there is no longer any parliamentary reason to avoid either approving or rejecting the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 28, 2011 at 02:06 AM Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 at 02:06 AM Yes, but the only actual reason you seemed to be able to come up with for "not approving" the motion rather than rejecting it is to give freedom to a subordinate board. Well, there are other reasons, but by forcing the board to take a position, they do not have the freedom to ignore the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 28, 2011 at 10:33 PM Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 at 10:33 PM Well, there are other reasons, but by forcing the board to take a position, they do not have the freedom to ignore the issue.The point is that once a motion has been made and seconded, the society does not have the freedom to ignore the issue. Ultimately, someone has to make a decision on it. If the society chooses not to do so, it may pass it off to a subordinate board. Eventually, you will run out of subordinate boards, but then there is no longer an advantage to "ignoring" the issue over simply adopting a motion to Postpone Indefinitely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 28, 2011 at 10:46 PM Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 at 10:46 PM I'm away from my Book today (I know, I know) but I'm wondering...... if a motion is defeated by a direct vote, it can be renewed at the next session. Does this apply to a motion that is "rejected" by adoption of Postpone Indefinitely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM Report Share Posted February 28, 2011 at 11:04 PM Does this apply to a motion that is "rejected" by adoption of Postpone Indefinitely?Of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted March 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM Report Share Posted March 1, 2011 at 12:11 AM For my own clarification (concerning "apply"): You're saying if a motion is Postponed Indefinitely, that postponed motion can be moved again at the next session, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.