Motion for a contribution which is beyond object of Club

[Guest traderfred]

RONR, 10th edition, page 333 states in part 'that no motion can be introduced that is outside the object of the society or assembly as defined by the by-laws, unless by a two-thirds vote the body agrees to its consideration.'

A member wishes to introduce a motion for a charitable contribution, which is beyond the stated purpose of our Club.

I construe this to mean that, first, a motion has to be introduced for permission to introduce the motion for the actual contribution.

Can someone suggest wording for the motion seeking permission. And, should any details of the potential motion be be discussed?

[jstackpo]

"I move that a motion to contribute $xxx.xx to Doctors Without Borders be considered by this association".

No Debate, 2/3 to adopt.

By the way, based on the page reference you gave, you are looking at the (now a tad outdated) 10th Edition of RONR.

You should upgrade to "The Right Book", the 11th ed.

[Guest Edgar]

"I move that a motion to contribute $xxx.xx to Doctors Without Borders be considered by this association".

No Debate, 2/3 to adopt.

Assuming the motion to consider the motion is adopted, how much leeway is permitted to amend it (the "actual" motion) during debate?

[jstackpo]

I'd say no restrictions at all, other than germaneness. Once the non-object motion is allowed in, it is like any other one.

[Guest Edgar]

I'd say no restrictions at all, other than germaneness. Once the non-object motion is allowed in, it is like any other one.

So would any amount of money be okay, even if a specific amount was mentioned in the motion to consider?

How about changing the potential recipient from Doctors Without Borders to, say, Planned Parenthood?

Since I've never been a fan of suspending the rules, I'm curious as to just how far one can go once the rules have been suspended. I would cite the infamous acceptability of substituting "commend" for "censure" (p.137) as you consider your reply.

Bh5797

[jstackpo]

I don't know how the Objects of _traderfred's_ bylaws read but let us assume giving away money to any group is not in the objects. Once the off-object motion gets past the "objects" barrier (by two thirds), then it becomes an original main motion like any other and can be amended any old (germane) way. The "permission to consider" motion doesn't seem to be to be in any way like a (required) previous notice which could put "scope" limits on the main motion.

The "two-thirds to consider rule" sounds to me just like "suspending the bylaws" which is normally forbidden. So there is an exception to "you can't suspend bylaws" in the case of the Objects. Gee, another rule-plus-exception in RONR. I am shocked!

[Guest Edgar]

The "two-thirds to consider rule" sounds to me just like "suspending the bylaws" which is normally forbidden.

I agree.

So would you, as chair, advise the assembly that, by adopting the motion to consider, they're admitting a Trojan Horse into the city?

In other words, would you feel compelled to tell them that a mere (shall we say "simple"?) majority will be able to alter the proposed motion into something they'll be unable to recognize?

I suspect that's more than the chair should be expected to do and yet I can imagine some members walking away feeling blindsided. Or maybe hoodwinked. Or hornswaggled. (And when I start channeling Mr. Tesser I know it's time to call it a night!).

[jstackpo]

"Sounds like suspend" doesn't mean you are suspending all the bylaws in any wholesale manner. One is suspending a particular bylaw provision (although the book doesn't use that term) for a very specific stated purpose, namely the consideration of an otherwise improper motion. Once the suspension is allowed, then there are no more restrictions, other than that the amendments must be germane. If you claim there are some, please show me.

If someone feels that he is being blindsided by an amendment that goes "too far" or that would make the original donation motion "unrecognizable", he is free to raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane and/or argue and vote against the amendment.

Not "Trojan" perhaps, but just a hrose of a different color.

[Guest Edgar]

If someone feels that he is being blindsided by an amendment that goes "too far" or that would make the original donation motion "unrecognizable", he is free to raise a point of order that the amendment is not germane and/or argue and vote against the amendment.

True, but while he only needed a third of the votes to keep the Trojan horse out, he'll need half the votes to keep the horse from morphing into a horse of a different color.

And, just to extend the equine metaphor a bit farther, I'll stop beating this dead one.

4brmeT

[jstackpo]

"Half the votes" That's called democracy.

I'll stop horsing around, too.

[David A Foulkes]

RONR, 10th edition, page 333 states .....

By the way, based on the page reference you gave, you are looking at the (now a tad outdated) 10th Edition of RONR.

Ahhh,... so, it was the page reference that tipped you off, eh???

[jstackpo]

"10" is an easy typo for "11' (but not too easy), but then again "333" is a reasonable typo for "343", but not "113" or "571".

Actually, of course, I spotted the number but not the preceding phrase - I was a Physics major, not an English Major, so numbers come first!

[Dan Honemann]

"10" is an easy typo for "11' (but not too easy), but then again "333" is a reasonable typo for "343", but not "113" or "571".

Actually, of course, I spotted the number but not the preceding phrase - I was a Physics major, not an English Major, so numbers come first!

You mean like "10"?

[TraderFred]

Thank you so much for the advice and interesting commentary. We are a sport/social organization.

Our stated purpose is ,'ARTICLE 2 – PURPOSE OF THE CLUB

To promote, encourage and coordinate organized skiing and year-round activities.

Based on that, it was determined that a charitable contribution to an entity not involved with organized skiing would be a violation. Since our By-laws do not specify how to deal with an exception, we default to RONR.

Under RONR, is there another way to handle a motion for a contribution to an entity that is beyond the stated purpose of ou Club. We make contributions to ski-related organizations without fanfare.

Based on the mentality of our members, I doubt if anyone would take advantage of a 'Trojan Horse'.

My RONR 11th edition has been shipped !

[Guest Edgar]

Our stated purpose is . . . To promote, encourage and coordinate organized skiing and year-round activities.

Based on that, it was determined that a charitable contribution to an entity not involved with organized skiing would be a violation.

We're not supposed to interpret bylaws here but I would think the phrase "and year-round activities" opens a hole big enough to drive a whole herd of horses through. Note that it doesn't say, "and related year-round activities" (even if that was what was intended). But, of course, it's the membership that determines what the bylaws mean and your membership has apparently done just that (assuming that by, "it was determined", you mean that the membership had its say). On the other hand, you seem to be suggesting that the membership wants to make this donation and, if that's the case, they're free to interpret the purpose of the organization as broadly as they wish.

[Guest Edgar]

Under RONR, is there another way to handle a motion for a contribution to an entity that is beyond the stated purpose of ou Club. We make contributions to ski-related organizations without fanfare.

What's wrong with "suspending the rules" as Mr. Stackpole initially suggested?

[jstackpo]

Although "suspending the rules" isn't the "proper" terminology for "authorizing its introduction" (p. 113, line 10 ff.), it is close enough for government work.

I don't want Dan reminding me that one cannot "suspend bylaws" (except for "rules of order" in them).

[Guest Edgar]

I don't want Dan reminding me that one cannot "suspend bylaws" (except for "rules of order" in them).

And except for going against the very reasons for which the organization was, well, organized. If that ain't an instance of suspending the rules, then I don't know what is.

(And, yes, I can almost hear Mr. Honemann saying, "Then you don't know what is".)

6hE8GM

[TraderFred]

'Suspending the Rules', is an option worth considering. And ,'reinterpreting' the By-law probably would be the most pragmatic approch. Thanks again.

[Tim Wynn]

True, but while he only needed a third of the votes to keep the Trojan horse out, he'll need half the votes to keep the horse from morphing into a horse of a different color.

I'm sure you don't really believe a third of the votes would keep the motion from being introduced... despite what is said about determining the result of a two-thirds vote on tinted page 27, #80.

[Tim Wynn]

What's wrong with "suspending the rules" as Mr. Stackpole initially suggested?

There's no reason to suspend the rules to do something that can be done without suspending the rules... also, it's out of order to suspend the rules for such an unnecessary purpose.

[Tim Wynn]

Although "suspending the rules" isn't the "proper" terminology for "authorizing its introduction" (p. 113, line 10 ff.), it is close enough for government work.

I don't want Dan reminding me that one cannot "suspend bylaws" (except for "rules of order" in them).

The rule that prevents the introduction of a motion outside the object of the society, except by a two-thirds vote, is contained in RONR; it's NOT a rule contained in the bylaws.

[Guest Edgar]

I'm sure you don't really believe a third of the votes would keep the motion from being introduced...

It was a rough, though admittedly inaccurate, approximation. My point was that the vote needed to keep the Trojan Horse out is less than than the vote needed to keep it from morphing into a horse of a different color.

[Guest Edgar]

There's no reason to suspend the rules to do something that can be done without suspending the rules... also, it's out of order to suspend the rules for such an unnecessary purpose.

Call it what you will, but adopting a motion (by a two-thirds vote) to consider a motion that goes beyond the stated (in the bylaws) purpose of the organization sound like suspending the rules to me.

But perhaps I'm missing your point.

[Gary Novosielski]

Call it what you will, but adopting a motion (by a two-thirds vote) to consider a motion that goes beyond the stated (in the bylaws) purpose of the organization sound like suspending the rules to me.

But perhaps I'm missing your point.

Or you could look at it as following the rule in RONR that allows adopting such a motion (by a two-thirds vote).