Mingo999 Posted May 2, 2011 at 08:06 AM Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 at 08:06 AM Our board has a tendency to discuss a topic and only make a motion once some discussion has taken place. I'm aware that this is wrong. My question is around the events at a recent meeting, in which--after some discussion on a topic raised by a member--a motion was made, seconded, further discussed, and then a vote was held and the motion was carried. At the moment after the motion was announced as carried, one of the members announced that she was unhappy with the wording of the motion and suggested new wording, to which there was general agreement. So, she moved to amend the original motion to reflect the new wording. This again was seconded, voted upon and carried. What did we do wrong? Did we do anything right? Should there be follow up at the next meeting? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted May 2, 2011 at 09:44 AM Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 at 09:44 AM [snip]Unless I'm badly misreading this, and RONR also, you did nothing wrong. Really. Especially if your board is about a dozen or fewer, and they are accustomed to these methods. See p. 470 ff. or so in RONR, 10th Ed. (I would give you the page numbers for sure, but one of my generously-donated copies is over there under my elbow, and I'm way the other side of my arm at the keyboard.)OK, let's pick. At that point, it would have been preferred to Reconsider, rather than Amend Something Previously Adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 at 10:11 AM Our board has a tendency to discuss a topic and only make a motion once some discussion has taken place. I'm aware that this is wrong. My question is around the events at a recent meeting, in which--after some discussion on a topic raised by a member--a motion was made, seconded, further discussed, and then a vote was held and the motion was carried. At the moment after the motion was announced as carried, one of the members announced that she was unhappy with the wording of the motion and suggested new wording, to which there was general agreement. So, she moved to amend the original motion to reflect the new wording. This again was seconded, voted upon and carried. What did we do wrong? Did we do anything right? Should there be follow up at the next meeting?I agree with Mr. Tesser (and don't worry about motions to Reconsider).The mere fact that the motion had just been adopted did not preclude the making of a motion to amend it, and so all appears to be in order in this regard. However, either a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership of the board would have been required to adopt the motion to amend in such a case, so when you say that it was "voted upon and carried", the announcement by the chair that it was carried would have been correct only if either of those votes was actually attained. But regardless of whether or not the requisite vote was attained, the chair's announcement that the motion to amend was adopted stands, no point of order having been raised concerning the matter at that time.So all's well, the motion to amend was adopted, and nothing at all needs to be done about it at your next meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted May 2, 2011 at 03:09 PM Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 at 03:09 PM [snip] But regardless of whether or not the requisite vote was attained, the chair's announcement that the motion to amend was adopted stands, no point of order having been raised concerning the matter at that time.[snip] I remember being astonished a few weeks or months ago, when this was discussed, and Official Interpretation 2006-17, "CONFLICTING MOTIONS," turned out not to control. I don't remember why, so if it is not too inconvenient, would someone please post (or e-mail me, being sure to include the indispensable hyphen) the URL (I don't understand the newfangled thread numbers, either), or even a quick yet comprehensive summary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 2, 2011 at 03:30 PM Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 at 03:30 PM I remember being astonished a few weeks or months ago, when this was discussed, and Official Interpretation 2006-17, "CONFLICTING MOTIONS," turned out not to control. I don't remember why, so if it is not too inconvenient, would someone please post (or e-mail me, being sure to include the indispensable hyphen) the URL (I don't understand the newfangled thread numbers, either), or even a quick yet comprehensive summary?A motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (such as the one made here) is never out of order on the grounds that it "conflicts with" whatever it is that it seeks to amend. As a consequence, 2006-17 has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted May 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 at 12:39 PM A motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (such as the one made here) is never out of order on the grounds that it "conflicts with" whatever it is that it seeks to amend. As a consequence, 2006-17 has nothing whatsoever to do with this situation.Thanks. Cripes, was it that easy last time too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 3, 2011 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 at 07:50 PM Thanks. Cripes, was it that easy last time too?No. I'm quite sure that the "last time" to which you refer dealt with a truly conflicting motion that was declared adopted by a majority vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.