Guest Megan Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:28 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:28 PM At a previous board meeting, a motion was made and seconded. Discussion was held and the person who made the motion and the one who seconded chose to withdraw the motion before a vote was held. Does the motion need to be recorded in the minutes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:42 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:42 PM Nope. P. 452. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:47 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 06:47 PM At a previous board meeting, a motion was made and seconded. Discussion was held and the person who made the motion and the one who seconded chose to withdraw the motion before a vote was held. Does the motion need to be recorded in the minutes?Generally withdrawn motions are not included in the minutes (see the footnote on RONR p. 452 for an exception). However, after the question has been stated by the Chair (as happened in your case) the maker of the motion cannot unilaterally withdraw a motion. Permission to do so must be granted first (RONR pp. 283-286). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:25 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:25 PM However, after the question has been stated by the Chair (as happened in your case)....Well, we assume it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:36 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:36 PM Once stated by the Chair - after which debate begins - the assembly must approve the withdrawal of the motion. Otherwise, the motion was not legally withdrawn according to RONR. Plain and simple. And the assembly has better options to deal with the motion than to withdraw it - they could postpone it to an indefinite time, a definite time (i.e. to the next meeting), defeat the motion, refer the motion to a committee, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:41 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 07:41 PM Since, according to the original post, there was no objection to withdrawing the motion, or, if no objection was requested, there was no point of order in that regard was made, and the meeting went on to other matters, we can assume that the motion was indeed withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 2, 2011 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 08:29 PM Since, according to the original post, there was no objection to withdrawing the motion, or, if no objection was requested, there was no point of order in that regard was made, and the meeting went on to other matters, we can assume that the motion was indeed withdrawn.Hogwash. The proper procedure for handling a unanimous consent request is given in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 51-53. The facts we are given do not indicate that the permission or consent of the assembly was even sought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:08 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:08 PM Not hogwash - or what part do you think is h-wash?No timely point of order was raised with respect to a failure to follow proper procedure. It's over - the motion is now withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:17 PM Not hogwash - or what part do you think is h-wash?No timely point of order was raised with respect to a failure to follow proper procedure. It's over - the motion is now withdrawn.No rule in RONR empowers the maker and a seconder to withdraw a motion without the assembly's permission after the question has been stated by the chair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:30 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:30 PM I don't think JD's assertion was that it was proper, but merely a done deal, based on the info we have (and don't have).Let's all take a deep breath... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:33 PM Report Share Posted March 2, 2011 at 09:33 PM I don't think JD's assertion was that it was proper, but merely a done deal, based on the info we have (and don't have).Let's all take a deep breath... As far as I can tell, there's no deal done, since it seems from the facts given that the assembly took no action at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 01:06 AM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 01:06 AM As far as I can tell, there's no deal done, since it seems from the facts given that the assembly took no action at all.Which does support the notion that the motion was withdrawn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 3, 2011 at 06:24 AM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 06:24 AM The chair erred in allowing the motion to be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, and in giving any weight to the wishes of the seconder.He should have at the very least used the magic words "without objection" to indicate that he was presuming consent in the absence of audible dissent.Since he did not, any member who objected to the withdrawal should have spoken up anyway, either by raising an objection (indicating that he was presuming that the chair was presuming general consent), or by raising a point of order that the motion was withdrawn without consent.Since none of these things happened--particularly the timely point of order--the motion, though improperly withdrawn, was nevertheless withdrawn, and need not be recorded in the minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:31 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:31 PM The chair erred in allowing the motion to be withdrawn without the consent of the assembly, and in giving any weight to the wishes of the seconder.He should have at the very least used the magic words "without objection" to indicate that he was presuming consent in the absence of audible dissent.Since he did not, any member who objected to the withdrawal should have spoken up anyway, either by raising an objection (indicating that he was presuming that the chair was presuming general consent), or by raising a point of order that the motion was withdrawn without consent.Since none of these things happened--particularly the timely point of order--the motion, though improperly withdrawn, was nevertheless withdrawn, and need not be recorded in the minutes.No rule in RONR authorizes the president to usurp powers that rightly belong to the assembly as a whole and do what only the assembly can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:38 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:38 PM No rule in RONR authorizes the president to usurp powers that rightly belong to the assembly as a whole and do what only the assembly can do.No rule authorizes him to make an honest mistake, or to be ignorant of proper procedure, or to simply blow a call. Yet these things happen too.However, if the assembly reacted to this presumed usurpation of their rights by sitting still and smiling affably rather than raising a point of order, it's hard for me to find any continuing breach among the wreckage.I'm not for one minute claiming that things were done right. I'm just saying that apart from some retroactive hand wringing, there's not a lot to be done about it at this late date. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:46 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:46 PM No rule authorizes him to make an honest mistake, or to be ignorant of proper procedure, or to simply blow a call. Yet these things happen too.However, if the assembly reacted to this presumed usurpation of their rights by sitting still and smiling affably rather than raising a point of order, it's hard for me to find any continuing breach among the wreckage.I'm not for one minute claiming that things were done right. I'm just saying that apart from some retroactive hand wringing, there's not a lot to be done about it at this late date.Sitting still and smiling affably when the president is not asking for unanimous consent does not conform to the proper procedure for transacting business by unanimous consent in RONR (10th ed.), pp. 51-53. The president's "honest mistake" is not equivalent to an act of the assembly on behalf of the society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:49 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:49 PM But the assembly's error in not making a prompt point of order is equivalent. Commonly "Silence implies consent". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:53 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 03:53 PM But the assembly's error in not making a prompt point of order is equivalent. Commonly "Silence implies consent".Even when a Point of Order is not raised, the president cannot exercise powers that he does not possess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 3, 2011 at 06:56 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 06:56 PM The assembly may not have objected, but based on the information provided, the way it was handled was still wrong according to RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:07 PM The assembly may not have objected, but based on the information provided, the way it was handled was still wrong according to RONR.There is no doubt whatsoever that it was wrong.The question is whether it is null and void. And the answer is that it is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:10 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:10 PM Even when a Point of Order is not raised, the president cannot exercise powers that he does not possess.Mr. Elsman, no one is arguing that what happened was proper. The original question, however, is whether the motion should be recorded in the minutes. I agree with Mr. Novosielski that "the motion, though improperly withdrawn, was nevertheless withdrawn, and need not be recorded in the minutes." If you have a different opinion regarding what happened to the motion and whether (and how) it should be recorded in the minutes, I would be glad to hear it, but merely restating the obvious (that the President, the motion maker, and the seconder do not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the motion) does not answer the original poster's question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 07:15 PM The question is whether it is null and void. And the answer is that it is not.Agreed - only that it is now too late to correct it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:03 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:03 PM Mr. Elsman, no one is arguing that what happened was proper. The original question, however, is whether the motion should be recorded in the minutes. I agree with Mr. Novosielski that "the motion, though improperly withdrawn, was nevertheless withdrawn, and need not be recorded in the minutes." If you have a different opinion regarding what happened to the motion and whether (and how) it should be recorded in the minutes, I would be glad to hear it, but merely restating the obvious (that the President, the motion maker, and the seconder do not have the authority to unilaterally withdraw the motion) does not answer the original poster's question.As far as I can tell from facts given, the main motion should be recorded in the minutes like any other main motion that is in the control of the assembly at the time the assembly adjourns, RONR (10th ed.), pp. 452, 453. The facts do not support the conclusion that the assembly gave its permission to withdraw the motion in its control, and the president does not have the power to supply this permission on his own initiative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:07 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:07 PM As far as I can tell from facts given, the main motion should be recorded in the minutes like any other main motion that is in the control of the assembly at the time the assembly adjourns, RONR (10th ed.), pp. 452, 453. The facts do not support the conclusion that the assembly gave its permission to withdraw the motion in its control, and the president does not have the power to supply this permission on his own initiative.What should be recorded for the disposition of the motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:15 PM Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 at 08:15 PM What should be recorded for the disposition of the motion?I certainly do not claim that the main motion was finally disposed of directly or indirectly, nor do I claim that the main motion was temporarily disposed of in any one of the four ways described in RONR (10th ed.), p. 88, ll. 19-25. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.