Motion approved for purchase in contention

[Guest Guest_T.H.]

At our last meeting this month, a motion was brought up and passed to make a significant purchase. At the time, the majority of members present were all part of the same committee, therefore those present were all in favor of it. 2 members of the officers were not present. We had previously agreed that for any purchases over $500 - it would be required for the maker of the motion to present the motion to the club for review and it would be voted on the following meeting. That would give members the appropriate amount of time to review the details, and request additional information if needed.

The member that made the motion did not follow that previous decision because it had not been put into a bylaw at the time. It has caused great dissent among the officers and members because the motion was pushed through by "bullying" tactics. The member said there is a motion on the floor so we have to vote on it after it was seconded. Information presented was misrepresented and not validated.

The officers held a meeting afterwards to discuss this in greater detail.

Was anything "illegal" by holding the meeting? The issue is that people are making frivolous and financially irresponsible motions to suit their own needs, rather than take the time to present all of the details surrounding their request for all members to see and determine the necessity of the request.

What would be the appropriate procedure for placing a hold on the order? There was no timeframe given in the motion that would require the purchase to be made in a certain period of time. Can the motion be rescinded at next month's meeting, or can it be amended? We do not necessarily want to do away with the order, we just need enough time to review the details to see if it is necessary in the quantity that was requested.

Is there any rule that makes it "illegal" to place a hold on the order despite the motion being passed - even though that motion is in contention?

Please help! We are trying to learn the right way to conduct meetings, and those involved want things their way.

[Tim Wynn]

At our last meeting this month, a motion was brought up and passed to make a significant purchase. At the time, the majority of members present were all part of the same committee, therefore those present were all in favor of it. 2 members of the officers were not present.

That particular make up of the assembly is of no parliamentary importance.

We had previously agreed that for any purchases over $500 - it would be required for the maker of the motion to present the motion to the club for review and it would be voted on the following meeting. That would give members the appropriate amount of time to review the details, and request additional information if needed.

The member that made the motion did not follow that previous decision because it had not been put into a bylaw at the time. It has caused great dissent among the officers and members because the motion was pushed through by "bullying" tactics. The member said there is a motion on the floor so we have to vote on it after it was seconded. Information presented was misrepresented and not validated.

This can be important. The rule regarding the notice requirements for the adoption of expenditures over $500 would be a special rule of order. If it were properly adopted, it would nullify any motion that was adopted in violation of the notice requirement. However, for the special rule of order to have been properly adopted, it would have required either 1) previous notice AND a two-thirds vote; or 2) a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership. If it did not have previous notice and did not achieve a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership, it simply wasn't adopted.

Now, you say this rule had not been put into a bylaw at the time. Was this rule properly adopted as a bylaw amendment? If so, it becomes effective immediately, and it cannot be suspended, due to the fact that it protects absentees. If this is the case, the motion is null and void, due to having been adopted in conflict with the bylaws.

The officers held a meeting afterwards to discuss this in greater detail.

Was anything "illegal" by holding the meeting? The issue is that people are making frivolous and financially irresponsible motions to suit their own needs, rather than take the time to present all of the details surrounding their request for all members to see and determine the necessity of the request.

Officers cannot hold a meeting, in the parliamentary sense, unless authorized in the bylaws. If you mean a board meeting, one can only be called in accordance with the bylaws.

What would be the appropriate procedure for placing a hold on the order? There was no timeframe given in the motion that would require the purchase to be made in a certain period of time. Can the motion be rescinded at next month's meeting, or can it be amended? We do not necessarily want to do away with the order, we just need enough time to review the details to see if it is necessary in the quantity that was requested.

There is no process to "put a hold" on an order outside of a meeting. The assembly, during a meeting, can Rescind or Amend the motion, if it is not too late to do so, for example, if the money has not already been spent.

Is there any rule that makes it "illegal" to place a hold on the order despite the motion being passed - even though that motion is in contention?

Being "in contention" doesn't play into the matter, because the type of contention you mentioned carries no parliamentary weight. If by "illegal" you mean against the law, you would have to address such a question to an attorney.

[Guest Guest]

"This can be important. The rule regarding the notice requirements for the adoption of expenditures over $500 would be a special rule of order. If it were properly adopted, it would nullify any motion that was adopted in violation of the notice requirement. However, for the special rule of order to have been properly adopted, it would have required either 1) previous notice AND a two-thirds vote; or 2) a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership. If it did not have previous notice and did not achieve a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership, it simply wasn't adopted."

What do you mean by "previous notice"? This was something we discussed at the meeting the month before, and again the following month. We do not take a quantitative vote, we have a verbal "yea" or "nay".

By "entire membership" - do you mean everyone that is a member? We don't have any meetings where all members are there, as membership is determined by the number of meetings they attend.

"Now, you say this rule had not been put into a bylaw at the time. Was this rule properly adopted as a bylaw amendment? If so, it becomes effective immediately, and it cannot be suspended, due to the fact that it protects absentees. If this is the case, the motion is null and void, due to having been adopted in conflict with the bylaws."

I don't know how that works. For us to amend the bylaws, it has to be read at 3 consecutive meetings, then voted on.

[Chris Harrison]

What do you mean by "previous notice"? This was something we discussed at the meeting the month before, and again the following month. We do not take a quantitative vote, we have a verbal "yea" or "nay".

There are some motions where previous notice is required or will allow a lesser vote to adopt a motion. Basically previous notice is where at a meeting a member addresses the Chair and notifies him or her (and the assembly) that he or she will be introducing a motion at the next meeting. As an alternative the Secretary can include the previous notice in the Call of the meeting (the notification of where and when the meeting will be held).

By "entire membership" - do you mean everyone that is a member?.

Yes.

I don't know how that works. For us to amend the bylaws, it has to be read at 3 consecutive meetings, then voted on.

In order for the bylaws to be properly amended you would need to follow whatever procedures your bylaws spell out for their amendment.

[Guest Guest]

Here is more information: Historically, our organization has conducted business the way they thought it should be done, not the way it should be done. None of us have experience with parliamentary rules, or knowing what we can do versus what we cannot do. So the meetings tend to get out of hand.

Ultimately in this - we want to make sure that we are within our bounds to place the order on hold that the motion was passed on. Do we have to wait until the next meeting to vote on amending it - and then put the order on hold? Do we have to allow the order to go through now regrdless??

How can we prevent this from going through right away?

[Chris Harrison]

Ultimately in this - we want to make sure that we are within our bounds to place the order on hold that the motion was passed on.

Well, since the meeting has already adjourned you are pretty much stuck with what was done at the previous meeting since the Chair and/or assembly cannot take any actions outside of a meeting unless the bylaws grant that authority. But the first question is if the bylaws were properly amended to include the rule regarding expenditures over $500 being read at one meeting and voted on the next meeting or was a Special Rule of Order adopted implementing this rule (requiring previous notice and a 2/3 vote or without notice a majority of the entire membership)? If neither of those occurred then the rule was not validly adopted and is not enforceable.

Do we have to wait until the next meeting to vote on amending it - and then put the order on hold?

Yes provided that the motion hasn't been fully executed yet.

Do we have to allow the order to go through now regrdless??[

Yes unless the bylaws grant the Chair or someone else the authority to put the brakes on the purchase between meetings.

How can we prevent this from going through right away?

You can't unless the bylaws grant the Chair or someone else the authority to put the brakes on the purchase between meetings.

Your first job is to determine if the bylaws were properly amended or a Special Rule of Order was validly adopted implementing this rule. If not, you are stuck with what happened and should promptly amend the bylaws or adopt the Special Rule so it will be properly in place for the next time this situation crops up. If you all can prove that the bylaws were amended or a Special Rule was adopted (which will be very difficult unless the minutes of that meeting included the voting totals for that particular motion) you probably are out of luck at this point unless you can convince the person/people who are responsible for making the purchase that the motion to make the purchase wasn't validly adopted and they agree to not make it until the issue is disposed of at the next meeting.

[Trina]

...

We had previously agreed that for any purchases over $500 - it would be required for the maker of the motion to present the motion to the club for review and it would be voted on the following meeting. That would give members the appropriate amount of time to review the details, and request additional information if needed.

"This can be important. The rule regarding the notice requirements for the adoption of expenditures over $500 would be a special rule of order. If it were properly adopted, it would nullify any motion that was adopted in violation of the notice requirement. However, for the special rule of order to have been properly adopted, it would have required either 1) previous notice AND a two-thirds vote; or 2) a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership. If it did not have previous notice and did not achieve a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership, it simply wasn't adopted."

What do you mean by "previous notice"? This was something we discussed at the meeting the month before, and again the following month. We do not take a quantitative vote, we have a verbal "yea" or "nay".

By "entire membership" - do you mean everyone that is a member? We don't have any meetings where all members are there, as membership is determined by the number of meetings they attend.

You said in your original post that your group had 'previously agreed' to follow a certain procedure for larger expenditures. Mr. Wynn was trying to nail down exactly what form that agreement took. If the procedure was properly adopted as a special rule of order, then the motion to make the purchase would be null and void. Majority of the entire membership does mean majority of all the people who are members. For example, if the siciety has 120 members, at least 61 must vote in favor (which means, of course, that at least 61 have to show up at the meeting. The two-thirds vote with notice (the other way to adopt a special rule of order) means two-thirds of those present and voting. Just because you discussed the matter at one meeting and voted on it at the next does not necessarily mean notice was given (especially if the discussion was informal, and no one actually said that he/she intended to make a motion to adopt the rule at the next meeting). You were there; we weren't -- was notice given? That is a key question If not, the rule was not validly adopted, unless you actually achieved a majority vote of the entire membership.

Also, it's worth mentioning that a voice vote is not suitable in a situation where a two-thirds vote is required.

The officers held a meeting afterwards to discuss this in greater detail.

As Mr. Wynn said, this was almost certainly not a meeting in the parliamentary sense, unless this was a properly called board meeting. Hopefully these folks didn't attempt to make formal decisions on behalf of the group.

What would be the appropriate procedure for placing a hold on the order? There was no timeframe given in the motion that would require the purchase to be made in a certain period of time. Can the motion be rescinded at next month's meeting, or can it be amended? We do not necessarily want to do away with the order, we just need enough time to review the details to see if it is necessary in the quantity that was requested.

Is there any rule that makes it "illegal" to place a hold on the order despite the motion being passed - even though that motion is in contention?

If the rule of order was properly adopted, the motion to make the purchase is null and void, and a point of order to that effect can be raised at the next meeting. If the rule of order was not adopted, then the motion is valid, no matter how rude, undiplomatic, or foolish it appears to you. If the motion has not been executed by next month's meeting, then it can indeed be rescinded or amended. The motion to rescind, or amend something previousy adopted has a higher voting threshold than an ordinary main motion -- it requires two-thirds vote without notice OR majority vote with notice OR a majority vote of the entire membership.

Whether the people who are supposed to carry out the motion can (or want to) take the risk of not following instructions, and instead twiddle their thumbs until the next meeting, is not a question we can answer for you.

"Now, you say this rule had not been put into a bylaw at the time. Was this rule properly adopted as a bylaw amendment? If so, it becomes effective immediately, and it cannot be suspended, due to the fact that it protects absentees. If this is the case, the motion is null and void, due to having been adopted in conflict with the bylaws."

I don't know how that works. For us to amend the bylaws, it has to be read at 3 consecutive meetings, then voted on.

It certainly doesn't sound as if you've amended the bylaws. I believe this was simply something Mr. Wynn was asking about because it wasn't 100% clear from your original post.

[Trina]

Here is more information: Historically, our organization has conducted business the way they thought it should be done, not the way it should be done. None of us have experience with parliamentary rules, or knowing what we can do versus what we cannot do. So the meetings tend to get out of hand.

Ultimately in this - we want to make sure that we are within our bounds to place the order on hold that the motion was passed on. Do we have to wait until the next meeting to vote on amending it - and then put the order on hold? Do we have to allow the order to go through now regrdless??

How can we prevent this from going through right away?

As I said before, if the motion to make the purchase was validly adopted, you probably have no proper formal way to 'place it on hold' (unless there is some such authority specifically granted to someone by your bylaws). Whether you can, informally, dilly-dally and simply not get around to placing the order until the next meeting is for you to figure out. That could, in principle, leave those responsible subject to discliplinary action.

If your bylaws allow special meetings to be called, you could follow that process, and meet sooner to deal with the issue. You certainly cannot amend the motion outside of a meeting.

Your group would probably benefit from getting and reading a copy (or several copies) of RONR In Brief, in order to get a better grasp on proper procedure.