Guest Chris Posted February 27, 2012 at 03:10 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 03:10 PM If Board makes a motion and it passes then afterwards find out that the motion violates a law, can the Board make another motion to withdraw the original motion or make another motion to claim the original motion null and void? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 27, 2012 at 03:29 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 03:29 PM They could rescind the original motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted February 27, 2012 at 04:24 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 04:24 PM Agreeing with JJ I would also point out that in extremely rare circumstances a motion could be ruled null and void without the normal timeliness requirement if the action taken is "in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law" (RONR p. 251[c]). However, you are probably just as likely to run across a four-leaf clover at the end of a supernumerary rainbow as to find a legitimate case of this occurring in one of your meetings (though I did see it happen in a meeting a few years back). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rev Ed Posted February 27, 2012 at 04:58 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 04:58 PM At the next meeting, a Point of Order could be raised pointing out that the motion is invalid. If the Chairman agrees, then the motion would be ruled null and void. However, at the same time the Board could simply rescind the motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM Report Share Posted February 27, 2012 at 06:10 PM At the next meeting, a Point of Order could be raised pointing out that the motion is invalid. If the Chairman agrees, then the motion would be ruled null and void....Only if the violation of the law falls into the category described by Chris H. (violation of applicable procedural rules). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted February 28, 2012 at 04:31 PM Report Share Posted February 28, 2012 at 04:31 PM Only if the violation of the law falls into the category described by Chris H. (violation of applicable procedural rules).Right. I think GcT established long ago it's not necessarily improper to adopt a motion to rob a bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.