Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted October 13, 2011 at 08:54 PM Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 08:54 PM The following is an excerpt from minutes currently before a judicial commission of my organization - where the action taken by the body to approve the recommendation in question is being challenged, but not because of the moderator's "declaration." Here is the excerpt: Moderator XXXXXX clarified that while the motion made and passed at the October Stated Meeting . . . was stated as a motion to table, the appropriate motion should have been to postpone until the special meeting of the assembly. A motion to table is correct when the item will be removed from the table at the same meeting. A motion to postpone is correct when the item will be taken up again at another meeting. The motion made and passed specified the intention that it be dealt with at the Special Meeting of the Assembly. Therefore she was declaring that recommendation number two of the Report of the Administrative Commission was now before the Assembly. That recommendation reads as follows: Under these conditions, what is the status of the action taken on the recommendation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted October 13, 2011 at 08:58 PM Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 08:58 PM The following is an excerpt from minutes currently before a judicial commission of my organization - where the action taken by the body to approve the recommendation in question is being challenged, but not because of the moderator's "declaration." Here is the excerpt: Moderator XXXXXX clarified that while the motion made and passed at the October Stated Meeting . . . was stated as a motion to table, the appropriate motion should have been to postpone until the special meeting of the assembly. A motion to table is correct when the item will be removed from the table at the same meeting. A motion to postpone is correct when the item will be taken up again at another meeting. The motion made and passed specified the intention that it be dealt with at the Special Meeting of the Assembly. Therefore she was declaring that recommendation number two of the Report of the Administrative Commission was now before the Assembly. That recommendation reads as follows:Under these conditions, what is the status of the action taken on the recommendation?Was this the special meeting; did it have proper notice? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:07 PM Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:07 PM The following is an excerpt from minutes currently before a judicial commission of my organization - where the action taken by the body to approve the recommendation in question is being challenged, but not because of the moderator's "declaration." Here is the excerpt: Moderator XXXXXX clarified that while the motion made and passed at the October Stated Meeting . . . was stated as a motion to table, the appropriate motion should have been to postpone until the special meeting of the assembly. A motion to table is correct when the item will be removed from the table at the same meeting. A motion to postpone is correct when the item will be taken up again at another meeting. The motion made and passed specified the intention that it be dealt with at the Special Meeting of the Assembly. Therefore she was declaring that recommendation number two of the Report of the Administrative Commission was now before the Assembly. That recommendation reads as follows:Under these conditions, what is the status of the action taken on the recommendation?If the item of business was not mentioned in the call of the special meeting, it could not be validly acted upon unless every member of the assembly was present at the special meeting, RONR (11th ed.), p. 93, ll. 3-21; p. 263, l. 29, through p. 264, l. 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:23 PM Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:23 PM Yes, it was properly noticed. And my assumption, then, is that since no one challenged the presiding officer's ruling at the time, the action is valid even though there should have been a vote to take it from the table. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:25 PM Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:25 PM Yes, it was properly noticed. And my assumption, then, is that since no one challenged the presiding officer's ruling at the time, the action is valid even though there should have been a vote to take it from the table.Be sure to check my citation that discusses the difference between previous notice and inclusion in the call of a meeting.As far as I can tell, there is no continuing breach, so it's all water under the bridge, now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Wynn Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:35 PM Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 09:35 PM The following is an excerpt from minutes currently before a judicial commission of my organization - where the action taken by the body to approve the recommendation in question is being challenged, but not because of the moderator's "declaration." Here is the excerpt: Moderator XXXXXX clarified that while the motion made and passed at the October Stated Meeting . . . was stated as a motion to table, the appropriate motion should have been to postpone until the special meeting of the assembly. A motion to table is correct when the item will be removed from the table at the same meeting. A motion to postpone is correct when the item will be taken up again at another meeting. The motion made and passed specified the intention that it be dealt with at the Special Meeting of the Assembly. Therefore she was declaring that recommendation number two of the Report of the Administrative Commission was now before the Assembly. That recommendation reads as follows:Under these conditions, what is the status of the action taken on the recommendation?This is not an accurate description of either motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greg Goodwiller, PRP Posted October 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2011 at 10:46 PM Thanks. And yes, the call for the meeting included the item - and listed it very correctly, saying "take from the table the recommendation of the Administrative Commission . . ." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted October 14, 2011 at 08:30 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 at 08:30 AM Good luck. And mind what Tim and Rob told you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Nancy N. Posted October 14, 2011 at 08:56 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 at 08:56 AM I give up. Mr. Goodwiller, what was the nature of the challenge, please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted October 14, 2011 at 11:10 AM Report Share Posted October 14, 2011 at 11:10 AM I give up. Mr. Goodwiller, what was the nature of the challenge, please?The challenge appears to be based on the fact that, at the special meeting of the Judicial Commission called for the purpose of taking from the table the recommendation (number two) of the Administrative Commission which had been laid on the table at the last regular meeting of the Judicial Commission, the Judicial Commission proceeded directly to a consideration of, and then adopted, the tabled recommendation without that recommendation having first been taken from the table as a result of the adoption of a motion to do so.Mr. Goodwiller and I say that this challenge ain't going nowhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.