unexecuted motion

[Trina]

Just curious, what would be the parliamentarily formal way to deal with the following situation, and how would it be noted in the minutes?

A society does some research into possible venues for a future function (let's say the function is to take place in June 2014). A suitable place is found, and the board (which is in charge of such matters) adopts a motion to hold the function at the XYZ Country Club. Mr. A and Ms. B volunteer to contact the Country Club, get answers to a few questions, and bring back a contract to be signed by the society's president. Mr. A and Ms. B are both extremely busy, and don't get around to the task immediately... the motion did not specify exactly when the task was to be carried out, and the task is not urgent, since the date is far in the future.

The annual election takes place, and another month or two passes.

Then, at the next board meeting, the secretary, who was also at the earlier meeting when the motion was adopted, happens to wonder if everything is all set with the venue for the 2014 event. She leafs back in the minutes, finds the motion (5 months back by now), and asks whether it has been carried out. Everyone looks blank. The secretary reads that Mr. A and Ms. B had volunteered to carry out the motion. Ms. B, who is still on the board, looks a bit embarassed, and promises to visit the XYZ Country Club the next day.

How would this situation be handled if the organization operated in a very formal way? The secretary's question does not seem to be a request for information, since it isn't connected to the business at hand. Would it fall under a request for any other privilege?

As for the minutes of the current meeting, would this event be noted in the minutes at all? It doesn't seem to fall into any of the categories describing content of the minutes on pp. 468-471. Nonetheless, the inquiry and response do seem substantive enough that they should be mentioned in the minutes. (Suppose, for example, that Ms. B still does not carry out the assignment -- it seems that there should be a record of the fact that she was reminded of her earlier promise).

I guess this gets into implementation of motions, which I've been thinking about lately (as noted in another thread recently, RONR doesn't seem to deal very much with implementation).

[Rev Ed]

It would be a request for information in my opinion. However, at the event is still over to years away and no date was specified there is nothing wrong with what happened. Ms. B might be embarrased as this could have been handled better by asking her privately before (or after) the meeting. If necessary at the following meeting a motion to amend something previously adopted could be used to amend the motion to have a date added for completion.

[Trina]

It would be a request for information in my opinion. However, at the event is still over to years away and no date was specified there is nothing wrong with what happened. Ms. B might be embarrased as this could have been handled better by asking her privately before (or after) the meeting. If necessary at the following meeting a motion to amend something previously adopted could be used to amend the motion to have a date added for completion.

Thanks. My question really was about the formal way to handle something like this under the rules.

In practice (in the informal organization where something much like this occurred), the question was asked during the meeting and answered, the minutes (which are not kept in exactly the terse form recommended by RONR) duly recorded the question and answer, and Ms. B did go and secure the contract the following week, with no problem. No one on the board was annoyed with Ms. B (in truth, they are all grateful that she competently carries out umpteen different tasks for the organization), so there was no question of any motion involving discipline.

So, I'm still left with the question of how such a discovery (that an adopted motion remains unexecuted) is to be handled in a formal way.

[Tim Wynn]

So, I'm still left with the question of how such a discovery (that an adopted motion remains unexecuted) is to be handled in a formal way.

It is handled with a decision by the assembly, and that decision goes in the minutes. The inquiry could have been made outside a meeting or privately during the meeting, since it was between two people. Otherwise, a request for information can be made at any time when no question is pending.

A few members talking during a meeting is not a formal decision of the assembly and does not belong in the minutes. Formality recognizes a difference between someone saying that he'll do something and the assembly agreeing that he will do it.

[Tim Wynn]

How would this situation be handled if the organization operated in a very formal way? The secretary's question does not seem to be a request for information, since it isn't connected to the business at hand. Would it fall under a request for any other privilege?

This is covered by a Request for Information, which would be in order, so long as it is not interrupting business to which it is irrelevant.

Notice that the first example on p. 294, ll. 26-29 does not appear to relate to business at hand.

At a time when the Request for Information is out of order, a Request for Any Other Privilege could be made, as in, "Madam President, I request permission to ask a question not related to the business at hand."

[Rev Ed]

I agree with Tim, a Request for Information is the formal way of handling the situation. However, it is just as "formal" to simply ask privately about the issue. Sometimes that can be more practical then anything.

[Trina]

It is handled with a decision by the assembly, and that decision goes in the minutes. The inquiry could have been made outside a meeting or privately during the meeting, since it was between two people. Otherwise, a request for information can be made at any time when no question is pending.

A few members talking during a meeting is not a formal decision of the assembly and does not belong in the minutes. Formality recognizes a difference between someone saying that he'll do something and the assembly agreeing that he will do it.

Let's say it was definitely not a conversation between two members (I see that my description in the original post left that unclear). The actual sequence of events that this question was based on was more like the following:

A board member (who had also been a member at the time the motion was adopted) raises the question, "I seem to remember that we decided to hold our June 2014 event at the XYZ Country Club. I just wanted to double check that someone has contacted them, and told them that we want to reserve the banquet hall for that date?" Conversation follows among other board members. Two people remember the same thing -- i.e. that the board had actually made a decision on the matter. Three people believe that the choice of venue was still under discussion; they remember that the potential deal with the Country Club sounded pretty good, but they are under the impression that a final decision had not been made. Several recently elected board members have no idea what the other people are talking about; they don't know that the June 2014 event is already being planned, let alone that there has been previous work done toward securing a venue.

While the conversation goes on (with some people discussing other possible locations for the event, their best recollection of what the XYZ Country Club wanted to charge for use of the facility, etc., etc.) the secretary starts leafing back through the minutes, looking for a record of an adopted motion. She eventually locates it, 5 months back, and reads it. On hearing the motion, everyone is in agreement that a decision was, in fact, made 5 months ago. Still, no one remembers who was supposed to carry out the decision. The secretary reads further, and finds that Ms. B (a board member, whose position at the time of the motion included some responsibility for securing venues) and Mr. A (a general member who happened to have connections at the Country Club, and who had negotiated a good price) were to carry out the motion.

Ms. B (who is still on the board, but serving in a different position post-election) is a bit surprised, and a bit embarassed. She says she will go deal with the matter promptly, since she apparently was one of the people requested to carry out the motion 5 months ago.

I didn't give all this detail in the first place because it didn't seem relevant (much of it probably still isn't). A couple of responses have suggested that this should have been handled as a private question from one member to another, or have expressed concern that Ms. B was unnecessarily embarassed. A private question wouldn't have worked, since the questioner did not actually remember who was supposed to carry out the motion (that only became clear on examination of the minutes). Ms. B wasn't particularly upset, and her embarassment doesn't seem relevant to the parliamentary situation in any case.

Even with more details, I'm still not clear that the assembly took an action or made a decision here (in the RONR sense). No motion was adopted. Nonetheless, the members certainly felt that they had done something -- they had cleared up confusion, and had acted to get an earlier motion back on track.

Does any of this belong in the minutes?

This is covered by a Request for Information, which would be in order, so long as it is not interrupting business to which it is irrelevant.

Notice that the first example on p. 294, ll. 26-29 does not appear to relate to business at hand.

At a time when the Request for Information is out of order, a Request for Any Other Privilege could be made, as in, "Madam President, I request permission to ask a question not related to the business at hand."

Thanks for the clarification, and the p. 294 citation.

[Tim Wynn]

Trina,

I'm not being technical or strict. Requests for Information and the responses generally do not belong in the minutes, and members generally would have no need for such inclusion. However, if members feel it necessary, the assembly can certainly order that the minutes reflect the situation, such as...

I move that the minutes reflect that, after researching previous minutes, it was discovered that Member B is responsible for organizing the whatchamathing, and this was brought to her attention, satisfying the board that it would be handled adequately.

[Trina]

Trina,

I'm not being technical or strict. Requests for Information and the responses generally do not belong in the minutes, and members generally would have no need for such inclusion. However, if members feel it necessary, the assembly can certainly order that the minutes reflect the situation, such as...

I move that the minutes reflect that, after researching previous minutes, it was discovered that Member B is responsible for organizing the whatchamathing, and this was brought to her attention, satisfying the board that it would be handled adequately.

Thank you Tim. That makes sense.

In general, I wonder how the responsibility for execution is best handled. It seems odd to include it in the language of the motion itself. For example, a motion might be made that, "the society purchase a 4-drawer standard size filing cabinet, at a cost not to exceed $150." It is presumably clear, even without saying so, that the treasurer should issue a check to pay for the filing cabinet when it is purchased (or that the treasurer should reimburse the purchaser). However, it is not at all clear who is to go out and actually shop for the filing cabinet, get the thing into the back of a suitable vehicle, bring it to the clubhouse, get it inside, etc.

It doesn't seem right to put the details of implementation into the motion. The society doesn't ultimately care who goes and gets the filing cabinet. Also, if a name of a responsible party is put into the motion, then you'd have to amend the motion if that person was unable to follow through for some reason.

On the other hand, if the assignment of responsibility is informal (as it usually is in the organizations I belong to), recording that information in the minutes doesn't fit into the structure of the minutes as described in RONR.

Should one have a separate motion about implementation? That runs into the same problem, though, that you would have to amend the motion if the assigned person can't carry it out. If assignment of responsibility is informal, then when Joe -- who was supposed to get the filing cabinet -- discovers that his pickup truck has a leaky brake line, he can just call up his friend Stan and ask him to take care of the filing cabinet assignment instead.

As you say, the assembly can order that the minutes reflect the details about implementation. It just seems, though, that the minutes should have a place for such information, without the assembly having to specifically order that the information be included. I can't find anything that fits, though, on pp. 468-471.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you Tim. That makes sense.

In general, I wonder how the responsibility for execution is best handled. It seems odd to include it in the language of the motion itself. For example, a motion might be made that, "the society purchase a 4-drawer standard size filing cabinet, at a cost not to exceed $150." It is presumably clear, even without saying so, that the treasurer should issue a check to pay for the filing cabinet when it is purchased (or that the treasurer should reimburse the purchaser). However, it is not at all clear who is to go out and actually shop for the filing cabinet, get the thing into the back of a suitable vehicle, bring it to the clubhouse, get it inside, etc.

It doesn't seem right to put the details of implementation into the motion. The society doesn't ultimately care who goes and gets the filing cabinet. Also, if a name of a responsible party is put into the motion, then you'd have to amend the motion if that person was unable to follow through for some reason.

On the other hand, if the assignment of responsibility is informal (as it usually is in the organizations I belong to), recording that information in the minutes doesn't fit into the structure of the minutes as described in RONR.

Should one have a separate motion about implementation? That runs into the same problem, though, that you would have to amend the motion if the assigned person can't carry it out. If assignment of responsibility is informal, then when Joe -- who was supposed to get the filing cabinet -- discovers that his pickup truck has a leaky brake line, he can just call up his friend Stan and ask him to take care of the filing cabinet assignment instead.

As you say, the assembly can order that the minutes reflect the details about implementation. It just seems, though, that the minutes should have a place for such information, without the assembly having to specifically order that the information be included. I can't find anything that fits, though, on pp. 468-471.

The minutes will reflect a DECISION of the assembly. If the assembly officially decides that member A will be responsible for performing action B, that decision belongs in the minutes. If some members just assume this and others don't care and still others never give it any thought, and if it's never brought before the assembly, it simply isn't the decision of the assembly.

This is a principle at the core of the deliberative process. Such decisions are to be made with the opportunity for full and free discussion, with the members present acting in concert to decide on a course of action.

Imagine the annual picnic is always organized by the same member. Members may assume this person will do it, as usual. However, this is similar to an organization that keeps the same president forever, simply because it never makes a decision on it and the members begin to think that "that's the way it's always been." This can be bad for an organization.

If the assembly actually has a quick informal discussion, like "Jan, you can handle this again, right," then, at a minimum, the chair should say, "If there is no objection, the project will be handled by Jan." This constitutes a decision and belongs in the minutes. Also, there's really nothing arduous or restrictively formal about adding to a motion words that will clarify how the assembly wants the action to be carried out.

In cases where the assembly doesn't stipulate the details, it's simply up for grabs, and there's nothing wrong with that. It's often the best way to handle things. However, if a few members think that something was decided by the assembly when it wasn't, problems are likely to arise. It's the duty of the chair to make sure that clarity prevails over assumption.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

I'm pretty sure that RONR's position, generally, is that implementation does not go into the minutes, and doesn't provide much by way of formal follow-up. I myslef mention this once in a while (often as a complaint); much like your (Trina's) file cabinet, I remember more than once having cited p. 115 here on the world's premier internet parliamentary forum; but I do remember having mentioned the top of p. 121, so I've brought it upt fairly recently also. But we do see that there are motions named in the sample minutes that are much like the motion handled on p. 120 - 121, with no mention there of how those motions are implemented.

In real life, not too long ago I was at a meeting where it was decided that the organization would donate a copy of RONR to the library of the school that was providing us meeting space. I think the motion was in the passive voice; I remember thinking over the next few days, "Now what?" At the next meeting or so, one of the officers reported that the job had been done (which I found something of a relief and something of an annoyance); I'm pretty sure that the fact of the delivery appeared in the minutes of that meeting, but if it had not been mentioned in an officer's report, I doubt that there would be any record of the delivery of the book, much as I doubt that Joe's leaky pickup truck and Stan's taking care of the job wouldn't (and properly wouldn't) make it into the minutes.