Post Failed Motion Status

[Guest Molly Mom]

I recently attended a meeting where an individual was a current employee in a specified job. There was a discussion about removing this individual from his position. The motion that was made, however, was "Move that this person be RETAINED in the position." The motion failed by a vote of 7 to retain, and 8 to not retain. It was my thought that sent the motion "failed", the status of the employee remained the same, ie., not removed. Is this correct? It seemed to me that the wording of the motion made it impossible for any action to take place. That is, the person was in the job, if the motion had passed, he would remain in the job, and if the motion failed, he would have remained in the job.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I recently attended a meeting where an individual was a current employee in a specified job. There was a discussion about removing this individual from his position. The motion that was made, however, was "Move that this person be RETAINED in the position." The motion failed by a vote of 7 to retain, and 8 to not retain. It was my thought that sent the motion "failed", the status of the employee remained the same, ie., not removed. Is this correct? It seemed to me that the wording of the motion made it impossible for any action to take place. That is, the person was in the job, if the motion had passed, he would remain in the job, and if the motion failed, he would have remained in the job.

Yes.

You have conquered Lesson One in "Why negatively worded motions are dilatory."

[Josh Martin]

Is this correct? It seemed to me that the wording of the motion made it impossible for any action to take place. That is, the person was in the job, if the motion had passed, he would remain in the job, and if the motion failed, he would have remained in the job.

The President likely should have ruled the motion out of order, unless there was some reason a motion to retain the employee was necessary - such as if the employee's contract was up for renewal. Since nobody caught it at the time, however, it seems to me that the assembly has expressly decided not to do what the motion proposes - that is, the assembly has chosen not to retain the employee. That's my take on it from a parliamentary perspective, at any rate. Since employees are involved, there are likely legal considerations as well, for which the assembly should consult a lawyer.

Yes.

You have conquered Lesson One in "Why negatively worded motions are dilatory."

I agree that the motion should have been ruled out of order, but since the motion was considered (albeit in an undesirable form), hasn't the assembly expressly decided not to do what the motion proposes? Also, I think the issues involved here are more similar to those involved in a motion to reaffirm a position taken by the assembly - as the text notes, this creates an ambiguous situation if the motion fails.

[tctheatc]

it seems to me that the assembly has expressly decided not to do what the motion proposes - that is, the assembly has chosen not to retain the employee. That's my take on it from a parliamentary perspective, at any rate. ......................

I agree that the motion should have been ruled out of order, but since the motion was considered (albeit in an undesirable form), hasn't the assembly expressly decided not to do what the motion proposes?

Unless you look at the motion as taking no action on the employee's status. Every day he works there he's retained. They voted on a motion not to change that status. A motion to fire him, or a motion to extend his contract to Dec 31, 2015, if lost, would leave them in a much less ambiguous state.

[David A Foulkes]

I agree that the motion should have been ruled out of order, but since the motion was considered (albeit in an undesirable form), hasn't the assembly expressly decided not to do what the motion proposes?

As I've come to understand it, a motion to "take a certain action" (i.e. change the status quo) when defeated has the result of not changing the status quo.

A motion to paint the barn red, when defeated, does not result in painting the barn blue, or tearing it down. It just won't be painted red. The status does not change.

A motion to donate $XX to Charity Y, when defeated, does not result in a donation to another charity, or expending the funds in another fashion. Charity Y will not get $XX. The status does not change.

A motion to retain Joe in his current position as office manager, when defeated, does not result in his being fired. He stays on in the position. His status does not change.

I'll admit I struggle with this concept, because I was previously thinking that a motion to "take a certain action", when defeated, would be equivalent to a decision to take some other (opposite?) action. But what is the opposite of painting the barn red? Donating $XX to Charity Y? Appointing Ms. Scarlett to be Mr. Goldsworthy's assistant? (sorry Kim)

Admittedly, it gets a bit murky with retaining Joe, but if the motion was to hire Joe and it was defeated, he would not be hired. Status quo. Must that not follow for a defeated motion to retain him that fails? Status quo. See you in the morning, bright and early, Joe!

[Tim Wynn]

Yes.

You have conquered Lesson One in "Why negatively worded motions are dilatory."

I presume by Lesson Two the course will cover a motion that is actually worded in the negative.

[Tim Wynn]

If the assembly doesn't know what it meant, I doubt anyone else could.

It's the chair's duty to make sure the assembly is clear on the question and the effect of the vote.

[Guest Molly Mom]

I have read all the responses to date, and thank you all for your comments. I agree the motion should have been ruled out in the first place, and it was my position that a specific action should have been called for, ie., just because the retain side had more votes, doesn't automatically mean the person is fired. Lesson learned. Interestingly enough, for a group that normally moves very slowly, this motion was made, vote taken, and meeting adjourned in a very rapid fire. Hence, the confusion in the ensuing days -- no one is sure exactly what happened. The President who wanted the individual gone is very clear in her mind that he is "gone". The rest of us are not. BTW - this is a volunteer position, so there is no actual "firing".

[Josh Martin]

I'll admit I struggle with this concept, because I was previously thinking that a motion to "take a certain action", when defeated, would be equivalent to a decision to take some other (opposite?) action. But what is the opposite of painting the barn red? Donating $XX to Charity Y? Appointing Ms. Scarlett to be Mr. Goldsworthy's assistant? (sorry Kim)

Admittedly, it gets a bit murky with retaining Joe, but if the motion was to hire Joe and it was defeated, he would not be hired. Status quo. Must that not follow for a defeated motion to retain him that fails? Status quo. See you in the morning, bright and early, Joe!

While I certainly understand (and appreciate) your argument, it doesn't quite make sense to me that if a motion to retain an employee is defeated, this should be interpreted that the assembly has decided to retain the employee.

The President who wanted the individual gone is very clear in her mind that he is "gone". The rest of us are not. BTW - this is a volunteer position, so there is no actual "firing".

Given this information, the easiest thing to do might be to just accept that the President is correct and make a motion to appoint the person again. Whether or not you can get a majority vote for that motion should clarify whether people really wanted to fire the individual or they were simply confused by the poor wording of the original motion.

[Tim Wynn]

While I certainly understand (and appreciate) your argument, it doesn't quite make sense to me that if a motion to retain an employee is defeated, this should be interpreted that the assembly has decided to retain the employee.

That's exactly why a motion must be clear.

Given this information, the easiest thing to do might be to just accept that the President is correct and make a motion to appoint the person again. Whether or not you can get a majority vote for that motion should clarify whether people really wanted to fire the individual or they were simply confused by the poor wording of the original motion.

I suggest against the following language: I move that Ms. Johnson not remain unappointed to the position of BLANK.

[David A Foulkes]

While I certainly understand (and appreciate) your argument, it doesn't quite make sense to me that if a motion to retain an employee is defeated, this should be interpreted that the assembly has decided to retain the employee.

And thus my murky struggle. So...... as I understand your position:

A motion to hire Joe is defeated, thus he is not hired.

A motion to (continue to) retain Joe is defeated, thus he is not retained.

So, would he be de-volunteered immediately then? (Sorry, Joe )

[Josh Martin]

So, would he be de-volunteered immediately then?

Why wouldn't it be immediate?

[Tim Wynn]

And thus my murky struggle. So...... as I understand your position:

A motion to hire Joe is defeated, thus he is not hired.

A motion to (continue to) retain Joe is defeated, thus he is not retained.

So, would he be de-volunteered immediately then? (Sorry, Joe )

The understanding is essential. The assembly has to know the effect of the vote. That effect will depend on a multitude of factors specific to each case, but the chair should rule the motion out of order or help to adjust the wording, if it is confusing or does not present a proper question.

[tctheatc]

And thus my murky struggle. So...... as I understand your position:

A motion to hire Joe is defeated, thus he is not hired.

A motion to (continue to) retain Joe is defeated, thus he is not retained.

So, would he be de-volunteered immediately then? (Sorry, Joe )

Should it not be?:

A motion to hire Joe is defeated, thus no action is taken on Joe or the position.

A motion to retain Joe is defeated, thus no action is taken on Joe or his position.

[Josh Martin]

The understanding is essential. The assembly has to know the effect of the vote. That effect will depend on a multitude of factors specific to each case, but the chair should rule the motion out of order or help to adjust the wording, if it is confusing or does not present a proper question.

Yes, I certainly agree that the President should have ruled the motion out of order, but since the motion was permitted, the assembly needs to figure out what the effect is.

A motion to retain Joe is defeated, thus no action is taken on Joe or his position.

How does it make sense that if a motion to retain Joe is defeated, Joe is retained?

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, I certainly agree that the President should have ruled the motion out of order, but since the motion was permitted, the assembly needs to figure out what the effect is.

I agree.

How does it make sense that if a motion to retain Joe is defeated, Joe is retained?

We'll have to wait for the decision of the assembly.

[tctheatc]

How does it make sense that if a motion to retain Joe is defeated, Joe is retained?

While most unfortunate, because the original motion itself was pretty nonsensical!!

[Dan Honemann]

Should it not be?:

A motion to hire Joe is defeated, thus no action is taken on Joe or the position.

A motion to retain Joe is defeated, thus no action is taken on Joe or his position.

This depends entirely on what you mean by "action". There are a number of instances in RONR (e.g. p. 56, ll. 20-25; p. 93, l. 16-21; p. 118, l. 21-24; p. 278, l. 28-30; p. 415, l. 4-11: p. 466, ll. 7-9) in which it is clear that the word “action”, because of the context in which it appears, refers to a decision which was made (or will be made) as a result of a vote, which may be either adoption or rejection (or something else).

In both of the examples you give, action has been taken when "action taken" is understood to refer to a decision which has been made. Making such decisions is what a deliberative assembly is all about. In the first case, a decision was made not to hire Joe. In the second case, I decision was made not to retain Joe.

[tctheatc]

In that case, then, I would think we here can have no idea what the effect of not adopting the motion to retain Joe means. For all we know, people in the assembly rose in opposition to the motion saying it was completely unnecessary, did nothing seeing as Joe wasn't going anywhere, and stated their intention to vote against it for that reason. Followed by spoon tapping all around. In that case, their intention might be clearer.

[Tim Wynn]

In that case, then, I would think we here can have no idea what the effect of not adopting the motion to retain Joe means.

There you go.

[David A Foulkes]

Some motions, given the expressed "certain action" to be taken, offer multiple alternatives which can muddy up the process if not handled properly.

Scuttlebutt around the society about painting the barn (currently red) some other unspecified color leads a member at a meeting to move to leave the barn painted red. The motion is defeated. So, what next? Paint the barn blue? Cover it with vinyl siding? Tear it down? Clearly there can be no telling.

Now, the society needs an office manager after the last one quit. A motion to hire Joe is defeated. So, Joe is not hired. The options are considerably limited in such a motion: either Joe is hired or he is not. Not many other options to consider. Maybe hire him on a probationary basis for 90 days. But that would require amending the motion to say this, which is not done. Same goes for retaining Joe. Either Joe is retained or not (let go, that is). Not many other options to consider. Maybe put him on probation for 90 days and see if he straightens up his act. But that too would require an amendment to the motion to say this, which is not done.

It does seem as though the decision of the assembly is to discharge Joe. It is the society's responsibility to figure this out of course, and the larger onus falls on the chair to explain the effect of the result of the vote. I think if I had voted no on this motion, I would have been expecting a farewell party for Joe.

[tctheatc]

There you go.

I'm beginning to think this is gonna be a standing headline...

[Gary Novosielski]

How does it make sense that if a motion to retain Joe is defeated, Joe is retained?

Just as it makes sense that, if a motion to turn off the radio is defeated, the radio, if it is already off, may remain that way. The motion made no sense and, in fact, some who voted in the negative may have done so for just that reason--an unwillingness go on record supporting nonsense.

Now if the motion on Joe were different, say, "to extend Joe's contract for a term of three years", and that motion was rejected, then Joe would surely remain an employee until the expiration of his current contract when, absent further action, he would join the ranks of the unemployed.

But if he's an "at-will" employee, he works until he's terminated, and if the assembly intended to do that with that motion, I don't think they quite succeeded. They unquestionably have the right to do so, I just don't think they've done it. The chair, if he had taken the time to explain effect of the motion may well have stumbled upon the fact that rejecting it would have no effect, or at best an ambiguous one, and ruled it out of order. But he may have, as is common, explained the motion's effect if it were to be adopted. How many chairs go into detail on the effect of a motion if it is rejected?

The general assumption (and not a bad one, in my view) is that a rejected motion puts the assembly on record as favoring the status quo over the action suggested in the motion. Most chairs don't bother to explain that in each case, nor should they have to. The problem here is that the action suggested in the motion also preserves the status quo, and the radio remains in the same state it was in.

Do we even know what effect, if any, was announced by the chair after the motion was rejected? Apart from the not-very-helpful "...the negative has it, and the motion is lost", that is.

[Josh Martin]

Just as it makes sense that, if a motion to turn off the radio is defeated, the radio, if it is already off, may remain that way.

No, that's not really the same thing. In the example you have described, the assembly has voted not to turn off the radio - which is just as well, since you can't turn off something which is already off. A more comparable analogy would be a motion "to keep the radio on" when the radio is already on. Just like in this situation, such a motion should be ruled out of order by the chair. But if the motion was permitted and defeated, would you say the radio should stay on?

The motion made no sense and, in fact, some who voted in the negative may have done so for just that reason--an unwillingness go on record supporting nonsense.

I completely agree. As I have already stated several times, the motion should have been ruled out of order by the chair. Since the motion was disposed of by the assembly, however, the motion cannot simply be ignored on the basis that it is confusing.

Now if the motion on Joe were different, say, "to extend Joe's contract for a term of three years", and that motion was rejected, then Joe would surely remain an employee until the expiration of his current contract when, absent further action, he would join the ranks of the unemployed.

But if he's an "at-will" employee, he works until he's terminated, and if the assembly intended to do that with that motion, I don't think they quite succeeded.

Further clarification from the original poster seems to clarify that Joe isn't really an employee at all, he just holds a volunteer position within the society (or he did, at least).

How many chairs go into detail on the effect of a motion if it is rejected?

Not many.

The general assumption (and not a bad one, in my view) is that a rejected motion puts the assembly on record as favoring the status quo over the action suggested in the motion. Most chairs don't bother to explain that in each case, nor should they have to. The problem here is that the action suggested in the motion also preserves the status quo, and the radio remains in the same state it was in.

Yes, we all understand why negative motions are to be avoided, but this one unfortunately wasn't. A majority of the assembly voted "no" on the question of retaining Joe. They may have been confused, but that doesn't change what happened.

Do we even know what effect, if any, was announced by the chair after the motion was rejected? Apart from the not-very-helpful "...the negative has it, and the motion is lost", that is.

No, we don't. The original poster did say that the chair was of the opinion that Joe no longer holds his position, but it's unclear in what context he gave a statement to that effect.

[Gary Novosielski]

The motion made no sense and, in fact, some who voted in the negative may have done so for just that reason--an unwillingness go on record supporting nonsense.

I completely agree. As I have already stated several times, the motion should have been ruled out of order by the chair. Since the motion was disposed of by the assembly, however, the motion cannot simply be ignored on the basis that it is confusing.

No, if I were looking for an argument for ignoring it, I'd look no further than the fact that it was rejected.

But, if you completely agree, then you agree that some may have voted in the negative because they wanted Joe discharged forthwith, while others voted the same way because they thought the motion was nonsense, and that he should or at least would be retained. Actually, I do agree it should not be ignored just because it's confusing, but I think the outcome should be suspect, because its effect may not have been equally clear to the voters, through (little or) no fault of their own.

But we agree on the major points: that it should have been declared out of order, that the effect should have been better explained, and perhaps even that the results were suspect, although we probably also agree that, lacking further details, it's unclear that there is any parliamentary remedy that would fix things up at this point. If the chair did in fact state that the motion was lost and Joe was thereby dismissed, and nobody objected, I'm satisfied that the will of the assembly was carried out. Badly.

In fact, even if someone did appeal the ruling, I might actually vote to sustain it if I were in the requisite shoes--presumably not Joe's.