Report from committe

[Guest RayStrutton]

The Treasurer of the organization (acting as the sole member of the Budget committe) recommended a budget to the full board. After some discussion, the Treasurer moved to amend the budget to items raised during the discussion. At that point, another board member raised a point of order, and said there could be not amendments -- that the orginial budget had to be voted up or down as presented. I subsquently looked at Roberts Rules, and it seems to me that the original budget recommendation should have been treated like any resolution meaning that it is amendable. Is my reading correct or are reports from committees not amendable?

[George Mervosh]

Your reading is correct.

" When a board or committee report has been received and the chair has stated the question on the adoption of the motion, resolution(s), recommendation(s), or report - whether the question became pending automatically, or the proper motion was made or was assumed by the chair as explained above-the matter is treated as any other main question, is open to debate and amendment, and can have any of the subsidiary motions applied to it." RONR, p. 491

Edited to add in the quote.

[Gary Novosielski]

At that point, another board member raised a point of order, and said there could be not amendments -- that the orginial budget had to be voted up or down as presented.

And then what, if anything, did the chair say or do? He should have ruled the point off order not well taken, since there is no such rule, at least none in RONR. Reports from committees are just as amendable as any other resolution or motion.

[Guest RayStrutton]

The chair ruled in favor of the point-of-order board member. The unamended budget failed to pass, and the point-of-order board member proposed his own budget which passed. What are the alternatives to rectify the situation, because I think the original budget if amended would have passed?

[Sean Hunt]

Since the point of order was not appealed, the business as transacted stands. So you would have to amend the passed budget, which would require a two-thirds majority or a majority with notice. If the chair rules that out of order, you should be prepared (and have a second ready) to make an appeal.

[Guest RayStrutton]

No one, including me, was familiar enough with the rules to object. But knowing now that errors were made, it seems strange that an "illegal" action would be allowed to stand.

[Dan Honemann]

No one, including me, was familiar enough with the rules to object. But knowing now that errors were made, it seems strange that an "illegal" action would be allowed to stand.

Illegal actions are usually not allowed to stand, but improper actions often are.

[Guest RayStrutton]

An action that prevents a legitimate amendment from being made is consider just "improper?"

[Dan Honemann]

An action that prevents a legitimate amendment from being made is consider just "improper?"

Inaction, not action, was the cause of the problem (although there appears to be no continuing problem).

[Guest RayStrutton]

I don't understand that. What inaction? Not objecting? The action that caused the problem, as I see it, was the chair ruling that no amendments could be made to the original budget? What am I missing?

[George Mervosh]

I don't understand that. What inaction? Not objecting? The action that caused the problem, as I see it, was the chair ruling that no amendments could be made to the original budget? What am I missing?

In almost every case (including this one), you either raise a point of order immediately, or you move on and get it right next time.

[Sean Hunt]

In almost every case (including this one), you either raise a point of order immediately, or you move on and get it right next time.

Well, in this case a point of order was raised and ruled well taken, in which case the correct thing to do is appeal. And in almost every case, if you don't appeal right away, the decision stands. Otherwise assemblies would be caught in situations where the rules were slightly misapplied and whole slews of decisions were invalidated.

[George Mervosh]

Well, in this case a point of order was raised and ruled well taken, in which case the correct thing to do is appeal. And in almost every case, if you don't appeal right away, the decision stands. Otherwise assemblies would be caught in situations where the rules were slightly misapplied and whole slews of decisions were invalidated.

Yes, thanks scshunt.....I got the facts a bit jumbled, but yes, as Dan noted, inaction is the problem. Thanks!

[Weldon Merritt]

I don't understand that. What inaction? Not objecting? The action that caused the problem, as I see it, was the chair ruling that no amendments could be made to the original budget? What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that no one appealled from the chair's ruling. An unappealed ruling stands, just as much as one that was sustained on appeal. The final action (adoption of a different budget than originally presented) is not even close to a continuing breach. Even if the chair had rulled correctly (or his ruling had been overturned on appeal), the alternate budget that was adopeted could have been proposed as a substituet for the original budget, and adopted anyway. But as schshunt has said, the adopted budget can itself be amended, if you have the votes to do it.

[Guest RayStrutton]

Thanks for everyone's help. I'm going to move on, but I have one last question. Assuming that an objection was made to the chair's original ruling (that no amendments could be made) and the chair overruled the objection and continued to rule that no amendments could be made, what can be done? Would this situation play out any differently?

[Sean Hunt]

Thanks for everyone's help. I'm going to move on, but I have one last question. Assuming that an objection was made to the chair's original ruling (that no amendments could be made) and the chair overruled the objection and continued to rule that no amendments could be made, what can be done? Would this situation play out any differently?

The correct thing to do, rather than 'object' to the ruling, is to make an Appeal. It requires a second, and once moved the assembly debates and votes on the matter. If the chair won't let you appeal, then you should get a new chair. I don't have RONR with me to find the citation, but it's got a section around 26 or so.