Refusing to accept a motion

[Guest John]

Simple question. CAN YOU, as Chairman of this organization, refuse to accept a motion from the floor if the Chairman feels that the motion is not in the best interest of the organization?

[hmtcastle]

CAN YOU, as Chairman of this organization, refuse to accept a motion from the floor if the Chairman feels that the motion is not in the best interest of the organization?

No, that's for the assembly (the members present) to determine.

But the chair can, and should, rule a motion out of order (and briefly state the justification for doing so) if the motion is, for a variety of possible reasons, out of order.

[Guest Guest]

Please allow me to explain a little deeper. I will be "President" of this Fraternal organization next year. It is my responsibility to do fundraiser/s to make my budget. We have had a Golf Tourney every year and it has been making less and less money every year, thus the President has less to do with as he sees fit.

Now in January, he presents a budget where "HIS" money goes. THe organization regularly accepts his budget and the world goes on.

Since we are earning LESS every year, I want to cut out the money that is normally dedicated to HOSPITALITY rooms at 3 conventions a year that we make. I feel certain that some will want to present a motion to add that money used for these hospitality rooms in, but we wont have the money to do this. So I was hoping that I could "rule this motion out of order" since we would not have the funds to do such.

I cannot see taking money out of what I earmark as Charity donations so they can have been and liquor at these conventions.

John

[hmtcastle]

So I was hoping that I could "rule this motion out of order" since we would not have the funds to do such.

Well, if there is $25 in the treasury and a motion is made to spend $100, I suppose you could rule it out of order on the basis of it being impossible to accomplish. Technically speaking, I guess you'd rule it "dilatory" (i.e. a waste of the assembly's time) to consider spending money the organization doesn't have.

But don't confuse your administrative responsibilities as president (e.g. preparing a budget) with your role as the presiding officer at meetings. In the latter instance, you're expected to maintain the appearance of impartiality.

And be prepared for the assembly to make decisions that you don't agree with.

[Robert B Fish]

So I was hoping that I could "rule this motion out of order" since we would not have the funds to do such.

There are a number of other things you can do. If you have the ability to appoint committees, you have probably appointed a finance committee and the chairman of that committee might speak against the aspects of the motion with which you find problematical. He could move to substitute a proposal that you find better suits you.

He could move that the proposal be referred to the finance committee for further study.

A motion might arise putting some people who also see the situation as you do in charge of the events. They could then develop a more reasonable budget.

Note, as my colleague has noted, when presiding you are expected to maintain the appearance of impartiality.

-Bob

[Kim Goldsworthy]

All that "justification" is parliamentarily meaningless.

The rule is, a chair or a president cannot pre-veto an idea just because he is against it.

That is the purpose of VOTING, i.e., coming to a collective decision on official action of the organization.

[Gary Novosielski]

Simple question. CAN YOU, as Chairman of this organization, refuse to accept a motion from the floor if the Chairman feels that the motion is not in the best interest of the organization?

Simple answer: No.

[Josh Martin]

Simple question. CAN YOU, as Chairman of this organization, refuse to accept a motion from the floor if the Chairman feels that the motion is not in the best interest of the organization?

No.

Since we are earning LESS every year, I want to cut out the money that is normally dedicated to HOSPITALITY rooms at 3 conventions a year that we make. I feel certain that some will want to present a motion to add that money used for these hospitality rooms in, but we wont have the money to do this. So I was hoping that I could "rule this motion out of order" since we would not have the funds to do such.

There is no reason under RONR such a motion would be out of order. There is no parliamentary reason an assembly must adopt a balanced budget, and for all you know, the members will balance the budget in the end. You might not like how they balance the budget, but that doesn't make the motion out of order.

If you feel especially strongly about this, you can relinquish the chair and speak in debate against the motion, but I don't see any legitimate reason to rule the motion out of order.

Well, if there is $25 in the treasury and a motion is made to spend $100, I suppose you could rule it out of order on the basis of it being impossible to accomplish. Technically speaking, I guess you'd rule it "dilatory" (i.e. a waste of the assembly's time) to consider spending money the organization doesn't have.

I don't think that logic quite applies here. The organization is adopting a budget, which is simply a plan for how the organization will spend money in the future. The organization isn't actually spending any money yet. There is no parliamentary reason the assembly must adopt a balanced budget. There are, of course, many practical reasons why it would be a good idea for the assembly to do so, but that's something to hash out in debate.

[hmtcastle]

I don't think that logic quite applies here. The organization is adopting a budget, which is simply a plan for how the organization will spend money in the future. The organization isn't actually spending any money yet.

Fair enough. But I was not referring to a budget, I was trying to suggest a motion involving the spending of money that might be ruled out of order on the basis of the money not being available.

[Gary Novosielski]

Fair enough. But I was not referring to a budget, I was trying to suggest a motion involving the spending of money that might be ruled out of order on the basis of the money not being available.

I think the chair might furnish a point of information regarding the state of the treasury, or ask the Treasurer to do so, but I don't think the assembly can be prevented from considering the motion.

The fact that the money is not (currently) available might well be raised in debate, and could inspire amendments to specify how the funds to defray the cost should be raised. But I don't think there's justification for declaring it flatly out of order.

[Josh Martin]

I think the chair might furnish a point of information regarding the state of the treasury, or ask the Treasurer to do so, but I don't think the assembly can be prevented from considering the motion.

The fact that the money is not (currently) available might well be raised in debate, and could inspire amendments to specify how the funds to defray the cost should be raised. But I don't think there's justification for declaring it flatly out of order.

I think it depends. If an assembly truly has no means of carrying out a motion, I think the motion could be ruled out of order as frivolous, as the motion would have no rational, affirmative side. Whether a motion to spend money that the organization doesn't have is truly impossible depends on the particular circumstances of the motion and the organization