Guest Debbie Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:34 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:34 AM At a recent meeting somone make a motion on an item that I don't believe is motionable. Can someone please explain to me what needs to be made into a motion and what doesn't. Is it just changes to policy etc or is there more to it?We are a soccer organization and someone made a motion to have someone ratified as a coach, I don't think that is required, I think we can just vote on whether on not this person be accept as a coach or not. I don't believe motions have been made on this issue in the past.ThanksDebbie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:44 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 02:44 AM At a recent meeting somone make a motion on an item that I don't believe is motionable. Can someone please explain to me what needs to be made into a motion and what doesn't. Is it just changes to policy etc or is there more to it?We are a soccer organization and someone made a motion to have someone ratified as a coach, I don't think that is required, I think we can just vote on whether on not this person be accept as a coach or not. I don't believe motions have been made on this issue in the past.ThanksDebbieBusiness is ordinarily introduced to the assembly by way of making a main motion. However, sometimes it is proper for a main motion to be assumed--that is, the question is stated by the chair without a formal motion having been made. Take a look at RONR, Off. Interp. 2007-1, www.robertsrules.com. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted October 9, 2011 at 07:07 AM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 07:07 AM It does sound as though Debbie's Soccer Organization misused the motion to ratify as it is described in RONR p. [124 / 118]*.A topic or item can be "unmotionable" -- better to say that a particular motion is "out of order" -- if it falls under the restrictions on p. [110 ff. / 106 ff.]*. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted October 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 12:41 PM I don't know if they misused it. Sounds to me as if 1 person wants to ratify the guy as a coach, and the other wants to vote him in as coach. Maybe the nomenclature is slightly off, but I wonder if there's a nickel's worth of difference between what they want as a result. How to get there? Either way it sounds as if business (be it ratifying, voting, blessing, sanctioning, high-fiving or ordaining) is being introduced. Why not a motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Edgar Posted October 9, 2011 at 01:14 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 01:14 PM I don't think that is required, I think we can just vote on whether on not this person be accept as a coach or not. I don't believe motions have been made on this issue in the past.What you're voting on is the motion, whether stated (preferably) or assumed, that Joe be named as coach. If no one is opposed to Joe being coach, the motion (again, either expressed or implied) could be adopted (i.e. passed) by unanimous consent (i.e. without objection).A motion is simply a proposal that the assembly do something (e.g. appoint Joe as coach). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted October 9, 2011 at 11:26 PM Report Share Posted October 9, 2011 at 11:26 PM Thank you everyone for your prompt and as always, helpful replies I know understand that there really is no difference and whatever way we chose to do it, we should just be consistent about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gary c Tessser Posted October 10, 2011 at 08:28 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 at 08:28 AM Umm .... actually, if you don't mind, it would be better if your members made motions to do things -- which is what motions are for. I suggest that the word "ratify" be avoided, unless it is used either for what it means in plain English, or in its special parliamentary meaning. Otherwise the word is being misused to mean something that it doesn't, which causes confusion.(O tc. Our first quarrel.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted October 10, 2011 at 11:57 AM Report Share Posted October 10, 2011 at 11:57 AM I don't know if they misused it. Sounds to me as if 1 person wants to ratify the guy as a coach, and the other wants to vote him in as coach. Maybe the nomenclature is slightly off, but I wonder if there's a nickel's worth of difference between what they want as a result. How to get there? Either way it sounds as if business (be it ratifying, voting, blessing, sanctioning, high-fiving or ordaining) is being introduced. Why not a motion?The reasons for employing the correct nomenclature will have at least two benefits:As GcT noted, doing otherwise can lead to confusion at meetings, and possibly causing situations to develop needlessly (such as a Point of Order, and possibly Appeal, when neither is warranted).It makes it easier to provide correct answers and citations on this forum.While the decision to accept Joe as a coach can be "reconsidered" (in its every day usage), it cannot be Reconsidered (in its parliamentary usage) after the meeting at which it has been made is adjourned. Likewise, a motion to ratify is an incidental main motion used to confirm an action already taken (Joe voted in as coach at previous meeting). If that vote hasn't yet been taken, there's nothing to Ratify. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.