Citing an out of date version of a policy during a vote.

[Guest guest1976]

We recently amended our Budget Policy by a vote of the entire board. The following meeting a question was raised regarding the allocation of some money and the old budget policy was cited. Now that the new budget policy is in effect, does the motion have to be amended before it can be called? If it is voted upon, will that vote stand?

[Chris Harrison]

What motion. Your post refers to the adoption of an amended policy and a question being raised citing an old policy. Where does this motion factor into the equation?

[Guest guest1976]

Let me clarify. In the February meeting our board voted on several changes to our budget policy. Following the vote I, as the Treasurer, amended the policy to reflect the changes. Also during that meeting I notified the organization of money that had been allocated to subsidiary organizations, which I had reclaimed as dormant funds. According to our policy when the budget is decided we first deduct out our expenses, then all remaining funds go to the subsidaries. When we reclaimed the funds I sent out a notice to all other subsidiaries notifying them of the availability of additional funds, because according to our budget policy "all remaining funds" go to the subsidiaries. At today's meeting someone made a motion to take the reclaimed funds from the subsidiaries and use it for ourselves, citing the previous budget policy as evidence. The problem is that due to the changes made to the policy the cited portion did not apply to the matter at hand. I am concerned that because the wrong version of the policy was used the vote is null and void.

[Burke Balch]

Of course, what should have happened is that a Point of Order ought to have been raised at the time the motion "to take the reclaimed funds from the subsidiaries" was made to the effect that it was out of order because in conflict with a main motion previously adopted and still in force (the budget policy as amended). See RONR (11th ed.), p. 111, l. 23 to p. 112, l. 7. Since that Point of Order was apparently not made in a timely fashion and the conflicting motion was evidently adopted, the question now is whether an untimely Point of Order is in order at the next meeting seeking to declare the adopted motion "to take the reclaimed funds from the subsidiaries" invalid. The answer is given on page 251: there is an exception "to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach" when "a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion." In such a circumstance, " a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach."

The vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion is "(a) a two-thirds vote, ( b ) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or ( c ) a vote of a majority of the entire membership-- any one of which will suffice." RONR (11th ed.), p. 306, ll. 25-31. If the vote that adopted the motion "to take the reclaimed funds from the subsidiaries" met any one of these three alternatives, then it is too late to raise a point of order regarding it and it should be treated as in full force and effect. If not, then you (or any other member) may raise a Point of Order at the next (or any subsequent) meeting, and the chair ought in response to rule the motion null and void.