Changing a motion prior to a vote

[Guest janet]

A motion was made at a monthly meeting and sent out for the membership to consider and vote on at the next meeting. Two weeks before that meeting, it was decided that the motion required changing. The person who made the original motion made the changes and it was again sent out to the membership for consideration and still to be voted on at the same meeting.

It has been brought up that because the original motion was changed, it must only be presented at the next meeting and the vote would not take place at that meeting, but would have to wait until the next one.

We would appreciate the proper parlimentary procedure on this

Thank you

[Gerry4000]

You, apparently, have some provisions in your organization that seems to require notice of motions, beyond that of RONR. Check your bylaws and other governing documents to see what you must do or can do.

[Rob Elsman]

A motion was made at a monthly meeting and sent out for the membership to consider and vote on at the next meeting. Two weeks before that meeting, it was decided that the motion required changing. The person who made the original motion made the changes and it was again sent out to the membership for consideration and still to be voted on at the same meeting.

It has been brought up that because the original motion was changed, it must only be presented at the next meeting and the vote would not take place at that meeting, but would have to wait until the next one.

We would appreciate the proper parlimentary procedure on this

Thank you

Once a motion is in the control of the assembly by having been stated by the chair, the maker cannot change the motion on his own accord without the unanimous consent of the assembly.

[tctheatc]

A motion was made at a monthly meeting and sent out for the membership to consider and vote on at the next meeting. Two weeks before that meeting, it was decided that the motion required changing. The person who made the original motion made the changes and it was again sent out to the membership for consideration and still to be voted on at the same meeting.

It has been brought up that because the original motion was changed, it must only be presented at the next meeting and the vote would not take place at that meeting, but would have to wait until the next one.

We would appreciate the proper parlimentary procedure on this

Thank you

Generally speaking, at a meeting a motion is made, seconded, put before the assembly and discussed. Then you vote.

I am generally surprised the more I read here how many groups do what you do (or something similar) whereby that simple process is broken up, either to have a vote later, or avoid discussion altogether.

By not following the normal deliberative process, you perhaps passed on these "changes" being made during the process. That's why we discuss motions, stand for or agin' 'em. We modify, postpone, or refer, as appropriate in order to best handle the motion.

In your case, Rob is correct; those changes cannot be made. At least not the way they were, outside the meeting.

When the motion (original form) comes up (under unfinished business I assume), let the amendments begin! Discuss & vote on them. Then discuss and vote on the motion as amended (if indeed amended). Do it correctly from this point forward.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

A motion was made at a monthly meeting and sent out for the membership

to consider and vote on at the next meeting.

Why?

What prevented you (all) from voting on the issue immediately, in the same meeting in which it was introduced?

Two weeks before that meeting, it was decided

that the motion required changing.

"It"? -- "It was decided?"

WHO decided?

You have unknown people altering the language of motions already in the mail???

The person who made the original motion made the changes

and it was again sent out to the membership for consideration

and still to be voted on at the same meeting.

Ah-ha!

The person who made the original motion made the changes.

How was this accomplished, since the mailing had already gone out?

Did he kidnap Mr. Postman, open the envelopes, and scribbled the edited text onto every letter?

You're not saying that the original mailing was just completely ignored, and a new mailing was done, are you?

It has been brought up ...

By more unknown people?

By the original mover, again?

... that because the original motion was changed,

it must only be presented at the next meeting

and the vote would not take place at that meeting,

but would have to wait until the next one.

Again, same question. -- Why all the delay?

Why is everything pushed to the next meeting.

Your description in the passive voice ("... it was decided ... it was brought up ...") generates more mud than clarity. -- No way to tell who's MAJORITY VOTE is finalizing all these decisions.

All this delay to the next meeting stuff is likewise an unexpected process.

You could have avoided your whole problem is you had just voted on the issue in the same meeting as the the meeting where the motion was moved.

So, you need to clarify WHY the separation of (a.) date of moving and seconding, vs. (b.) date of voting.

[Gary Novosielski]

A motion was made at a monthly meeting and sent out for the membership to consider and vote on at the next meeting. Two weeks before that meeting, it was decided that the motion required changing. The person who made the original motion made the changes and it was again sent out to the membership for consideration and still to be voted on at the same meeting.

It has been brought up that because the original motion was changed, it must only be presented at the next meeting and the vote would not take place at that meeting, but would have to wait until the next one.

We would appreciate the proper parlimentary procedure on this

Thank you

Do you have some custom rule requiring motions to be sent out to the membership before considering them? How do you ever get anything done? Okay, so the motion is sent out. Now, until the next meeting, there is no meeting, right?

So how did the motion "require" changing? Changing a motion once it has been moved can only be done by a motion to Amend, which needs a second, is debatable, and requires a majority vote, in order to change the main motion.

So, my question is, how could the person who made the original motion possibly have done any of these things, since there was no meeting going on?

None of this appears to make any sense.

[Guest Janet]

Why?

What prevented you (all) from voting on the issue immediately, in the same meeting in which it was introduced?

"It"? -- "It was decided?"

WHO decided?

You have unknown people altering the language of motions already in the mail???

Ah-ha!

The person who made the original motion made the changes.

How was this accomplished, since the mailing had already gone out?

Did he kidnap Mr. Postman, open the envelopes, and scribbled the edited text onto every letter?

You're not saying that the original mailing was just completely ignored, and a new mailing was done, are you?

By more unknown people?

By the original mover, again?

Again, same question. -- Why all the delay?

Why is everything pushed to the next meeting.

Your description in the passive voice ("... it was decided ... it was brought up ...") generates more mud than clarity. -- No way to tell who's MAJORITY VOTE is finalizing all these decisions.

All this delay to the next meeting stuff is likewise an unexpected process.

You could have avoided your whole problem is you had just voted on the issue in the same meeting as the the meeting where the motion was moved.

So, you need to clarify WHY the separation of (a.) date of moving and seconding, vs. (b.) date of voting.

Ok

I hadn't considered that I was being too vague , but now that my question has raised more questions, then I'm going to consider this a learning opportunity.

First of all, the club is a small one, (35 members). Our monthly meetings are informal, therefore Roberts rules and correct parlimentary procedure are not a priority and no one is very familiar with the finer details anyway.

The motion that I am refering to, was made at a meeting where very few members were present. Because it is in regards to an issue that involves conflict and division within the membership, the members present at the meeting decided to send the motion out to the whole membership for consideration prior to the vote. The motion was included within the New Business of the minutes and emailed out to the membership.

Two weeks later,at an executive meeting , the executive were not happy with the motion and asked the person who presented the motion ( also on the executive) if she would change it. She removed a portion of the original motion and changed one word. This was sent out in a mass email. The email stated the original motion and that it had been rescinded, then it stated the revised motion with instructions that the revised motion is the one that will be voted on at the next meeting.

One of our members, who has some knowledge of parlimentary procedure piped up to say that cannot be done. He states that the executive cannot change a motion ( although it was an executive member who made the motion and then changed it) and that the original motion is still on the table and has to be dealt with first, which puts the new motion into mew business to be voted on at another meeting.

I suspect that he is right and the executive will have to eat crow , and try to fix this. And the battle will continue.

Janet

[tctheatc]

First of all, the club is a small one, (35 members). Our monthly meetings are informal, therefore Roberts rules and correct parlimentary procedure are not a priority and no one is very familiar with the finer details anyway.

...until something like this happens, right? Which is why it's a good idea to make it a priority and find out the right way, so problems such as these can be headed off.

Safety isn't a priority until there's a crash... (or something like that)

I suggest starting with Robert's Rules of Order In Brief. You can easily read it within a day, and it will give you some basics with which to start.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

...

The motion that I am referring to, was made at a meeting where very few members were present.

Because it is in regards to an issue that involves conflict and division within the membership, the members present at the meeting decided to send the motion out to the whole membership for consideration prior to the vote.

The motion was included within the New Business of the minutes and e-mailed out to the membership.

That's not quite right. (Putting X in the minutes is not the same thing as giving notice.)

But let's continue.

Two weeks later, at an executive meeting, the executive were not happy with the motion and asked the person who presented the motion (also on the executive) if she would change it.

She removed a portion of the original motion and changed one word.

This was sent out in a mass e-mail.

This isn't quite right, either.

The e-mail stated the original motion and that it had been rescinded, then it stated the revised motion with instructions that the revised motion is the one that will be voted on at the next meeting.

That's not right. (You cannot rescind what was never adopted in the first place.)

One of our members, who has some knowledge of parliamentary procedure piped up to say that cannot be done.

He states that the executive cannot change a motion (although it was an executive member who made the motion and then changed it) and that the original motion is still on the table and has to be dealt with first, which puts the new motion into mew business to be voted on at another meeting.

So far, everybody's wrong.

***

You had asked what would have been proper parliamentary procedure.

Proper parliamentary procedure would have been:

1.) make a motion

2.) vote on the motion, in that same meeting.

All the rigamarole you jumped through only muddied the waters.

You think the e-mail blast established some kind of fixed wording.

Robert's Rules of Order does have rules for previous notice, but the rules in Robert's Rules won't apply to ordinary acts of the society for spanking-brand new motions.

You are treating the e-mails like gold bullion, sacred and untouchable.

All those e-mails were just courtesy notices, and have no parliamentary official-ness (per your description so far -- we stand by for the trickle-down theory of "but" and "except" and "what about", surely due to come).

[Thomas Ralph]

Per most above, the motion need not be moved at the meeting as it was provided in the first notice, or the second notice, or at all. Just turn up at the next meeting, move the motion in whatever form you want to move it, and do all the usual things like amending, voting, and what-not.

[Dan Honemann]

The motion that I am refering to, was made at a meeting where very few members were present. Because it is in regards to an issue that involves conflict and division within the membership, the members present at the meeting decided to send the motion out to the whole membership for consideration prior to the vote. The motion was included within the New Business of the minutes and emailed out to the membership.

If we can conclude that, as a result of (or as a part of) this decision, the pending motion was postponed until the next monthly membership meeting, then it should come up automatically at that meeting, worded exactly as it was at the time that it was postponed. None of the events occurring between these membership meetings are of any consequence.

If so, it appears that you're right that the guy who is saying that "the executive cannot change a motion ... and that the original motion is still on the table and has to be dealt with" is essentially right (although the motion should come at the next meeting as a general order - in other words, just prior to new business).