Amendent to a Motion

[Guest MLC]

At a recent meeting of our church association, a situation came up where a special committee that was appointed during the June 2011 Quarterly Meeting to investigate the viability of a piece of property from a future perspective. This association states in their bylaws the parliamentary authority of the association shall be "Robert's Rules of Order" (the latest revised edition).

A motion was made by the chair of said committee to sale the property in question. After discussion / debate, a motion was made to ammend the motion to postpone the vote until the Annual Meeting (held each October). The meeting parliamentarian stated that this ammendment was out of order as the Bylaws give the Executive Committee authority to oversee such situations. The person making the motion to ammend was and is a member of the Executive Committee and received a second from another member. T

Also, the Bylaws do not state anywhere how a vote on such a matter should be handled. In most "normal" business, it states a 2/3 majority is required. In this vote, the vote was 60/40 for the sell of the property in question.

Two questions:

1. Was the motion to ammend the motion out of order? I do not believe it would be as a second was given and discussion took place afterward before it was declared out of order.

2. If Bylaws do not state / cover such a situation as described, should the epectation be that a 2/3 majority vote would be required?

[Chris Harrison]

1) If the parliamentarian is correct that the bylaws grant the Executive Committee the authority to "oversee such situations" then the bylaws need to be followed.

2) Generally a motion to amend a pending motion only requires a majority vote. However, check those bylaws again because it is not uncommon for a motion to sell/buy properties requires a higher vote.

[Rev Ed]

The Committee would have to make the recommendation to sell the property to the responsible group. If that is the Executive Committee, then it is the Executive Committee. It would be up to the Executive Committee to decide if it wants to send the motion to the general membership.

[Guest MLC]

Response to Chris H:

1. The Bylaws are not very specific. They specifically state: The Executive Committee shall supervise the operation of the Associations Retreat Center. They shall select committees, guide progress in the development of the Retreat Center, and guide in the operation and the safety of the center. I do not see how this wording can override / keep a motion from being made from an existing Executive Committee member.

2. The Bylaws nowhere address the purchase and/or sale of property.

Response to Rev Ed:

I agree with you completely. The issue here is that the Executive Committee did not allow a vote on the motion to ammend. Again, the motion was made by an Executive Committee member and seconded by another committee member.

[Dan Honemann]

A motion was made by the chair of said committee to sale the property in question. After discussion / debate, a motion was made to ammend the motion to postpone the vote until the Annual Meeting (held each October). The meeting parliamentarian stated that this ammendment was out of order as the Bylaws give the Executive Committee authority to oversee such situations.

A motion to amend a pending motion "to postpone the vote until the Annual Meeting" is certainly out of order, regardless of whether or not the reason given was correct.

[tctheatc]

Thanks, for a while I thought I wasn't reading this thread right