Guest Bill_H Posted May 19, 2012 at 07:07 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 07:07 AM A motion was made and seconded. Discussion ensued. A second motion to "postpone the vote of the first motion until X date" was made and seconded. Discussion ensued. The motion to postpone was voted on and passed by a majority.Was that proper or did we mess up? Thanks.Bill_H Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 19, 2012 at 07:55 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 07:55 AM You did just fine!The only possible problem is if "X Date" was (or is) further in the future than your next regular meeting. That would have been improper, but you needn't try to correct that after the fact - done is done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tctheatc Posted May 19, 2012 at 09:23 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 09:23 AM maybe this is picking fly crap out of pepper, but is it proper to postpone specifically the vote? Should it not be the pending matter itself? I suppose the distinction I am drawing is that when the matter is again picked up, it is picked up as it had been left off and (more) discussion can ensue. I would think it improper to say that they had decided to postpone "the vote (only) of the first motion" so that when the matter is resumed, no discussion is allowed and they move right to voting.(not saying that's what Bill intended, but just that it could be read that way) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 10:52 AM Quite correct, tcth..., , to be exact, the motion, not the "vote" is postponed. When the motion comes up, presumably at the next meeting as a "General Order" -- see p. 358 -- it is open for debate, further amendment, and all the other (appropriate) parliamentary motions (including postponing it again). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill_H Posted May 19, 2012 at 02:48 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 02:48 PM Thanks, JDStackpole and tctheatc. It was our intention that the motion be taken up again, with discussion, and then vote. We just wanted more time to obtain additional information regarding the matter under discussion before we voted.The "X date" will occur after our next meeting. What would have been the proper form of the motion to postpone in that situation? Would a different motion have been more appropriate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:02 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:02 PM Properly, the "X Date" should have been the next meeting (or before), not past it. RONR, p. 183.Then at that meeting, you could postpone things again if you had not yet gathered all the needed info.Is the "X Date" essentially two meetings in the future? Or perhaps you plan to hold a "Special Meeting"to discuss the issue? If so, be sure to follow all the rules for calling Special Meetings found in your bylaws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill_H Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:12 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:12 PM It may be three meetings before we vote again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:19 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:19 PM As long as there are no objections (at one of the intermediate meeting) and all are happy, no problem.If someone (who has been reading the book -- gotta keep an eye on them guys) does fuss and insist that the issue be brought up "right away", the fair thing is to do so... and then promptly postpone the motion to the next meeting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bill_H Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:22 PM Report Share Posted May 19, 2012 at 03:22 PM Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 21, 2012 at 04:28 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 04:28 PM And if you really need to put something off that far, refer it to a committee, and have the committee "report" it back to the floor at the appropriate future meeting (presumably without any changes). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted May 21, 2012 at 05:13 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 05:13 PM See http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_8 I guess I'm the only one who believes the motion postponed too far is dead and can be made anew at anytime? (Maybe JDS mean that too) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted May 21, 2012 at 05:48 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 05:48 PM See http://www.robertsru...ist.html#2006_8 I guess I'm the only one who believes the motion postponed too far is dead and can be made anew at anytime? (Maybe JDS mean that too)No, I think you're quite correct. The leap-frog postponement is forbidden because it would prevent intervening meetings from taking up the matter. Well, since they cannot be so prevented, they're not, and they can take up the same matter if they want to. Referring to a committee would make it a bit more difficult for intervening meetings to take it up, but not impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 21, 2012 at 06:17 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 06:17 PM See http://www.robertsru...ist.html#2006_8 I guess I'm the only one who believes the motion postponed too far is dead and can be made anew at anytime? (Maybe JDS mean that too)No, I don't think I did.It was improper to postpone past the next meeting to be sure, but since no point of order was (evidently) raised at the time of the rule violation (and it isn't a "continuing breach"), done is done.I suppose the way to formally undo the excessive postponement, would be to amend something previously adopted at an intervening meeting. What would be amended would be the length of time of postponement such that the issue would come up now, at the meeting in process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted May 21, 2012 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 07:11 PM No, I don't think I did.It was improper to postpone past the next meeting to be sure, but since no point of order was (evidently) raised at the time of the rule violation (and it isn't a "continuing breach"), done is done.In this case, what was done wasn't done (RONR, 11th ed., p. 265, ll. 7-10). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 21, 2012 at 08:11 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 08:11 PM Oop, thank you. You keep sneaking new text material in on us....So I guess I go with George now. The "postponement" never actually happened so the motion should be made anew - as new business whenever someone feels like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:47 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:47 PM In this case, what was done wasn't done (RONR, 11th ed., p. 265, ll. 7-10).If you are possibly suggesting that the motion may be renewed at one of the intervening meetings, I might just agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM Report Share Posted May 21, 2012 at 10:50 PM Sure. Renewed, new business, whatever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.