Motion out of Order

[Guest Randall]

At an upcoming meeting of our Board of Directors, a motion shall be made to charge a member $40,000 for going to Code Enforcement and having them revisit a repaving job which was already signed off on, but reopened due to the member's efforts. The repaving job was then found to be in violation of County Code and the costs to the members is estimated at $40,000. I believe that such a motion is out of order, Any ideas?

[jstackpo]

Sounds like a legal problem, not a parliamentary procedure problem.

But, from the few details you have offered (please, no more!) I don't see why the motion would be out of order.

[Tim Wynn]

At an upcoming meeting of our Board of Directors, a motion shall be made to charge a member $40,000 for going to Code Enforcement and having them revisit a repaving job which was already signed off on, but reopened due to the member's efforts. The repaving job was then found to be in violation of County Code and the costs to the members is estimated at $40,000. I believe that such a motion is out of order, Any ideas?

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 572, ll. 2-4, and p. 643, ll. 12-14. These citations may help your argument, but you will need to analyze the governing documents and the wording of the motion to arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to whether the motion is in order.

[J. J.]

Sounds like a legal problem, not a parliamentary procedure problem.

But, from the few details you have offered (please, no more!) I don't see why the motion would be out of order.

It might be considered an assessment, or a fine. A motion to ask the member to donate $40,000 would probably be in order.

[Guest Edgar]

I believe that such a motion is out of order, Any ideas?

Here's one: Why do you believe the motion is out of order?

[Tim Wynn]

Here's one: Why do you believe the motion is out of order?

It could be the fact that it's a lot of money.

[Guest Guest]

It may be out of order, due to the fact that this organization does not have lien or assessment authority over the unit owners, all of whom are members of this organization. I believe that a motion that accomplishes nothing (is unenforceable) is out of order. I'm sure I will be corrected if I am in error. TIA

[Tim Wynn]

It may be out of order, due to the fact that this organization does not have lien or assessment authority over the unit owners, all of whom are members of this organization. I believe that a motion that accomplishes nothing (is unenforceable) is out of order. I'm sure I will be corrected if I am in error. TIA

A "motion that accomplishes nothing" is out of order, if by that you mean a motion would have the same effect if adopted or lost. However, a motion "That the moon be lassoed and pulled from the sky," is NOT out of order. This is to say that just because something is unlikely to be possible does not mean, from a parliamentary standpoint, that an assembly cannot DECIDE to do it.

Also, RONR is not concerned with whether or not an action is legal from a criminal perspective, only whether it adheres to procedural laws.

[Trina]

At an upcoming meeting of our Board of Directors, a motion shall be made to charge a member $40,000 for going to Code Enforcement and having them revisit a repaving job which was already signed off on, but reopened due to the member's efforts. The repaving job was then found to be in violation of County Code and the costs to the members is estimated at $40,000. I believe that such a motion is out of order, Any ideas?

It may be out of order, due to the fact that this organization does not have lien or assessment authority over the unit owners, all of whom are members of this organization. I believe that a motion that accomplishes nothing (is unenforceable) is out of order. I'm sure I will be corrected if I am in error. TIA

Take a look at the citations provided by Mr. Wynn in post #3.

Looking at the original post, it sounds as though a member communicated with some entity in local government regarding a possible violation of county code. From the outside looking in, that sounds like something a citizen/resident is allowed to do, regardless of his/her membership in any organization. Whether the motion (to essentially charge the member $40,000 for engaging in this communication) is in order from a parliamentary procedure point of view is a different question than whether the motion is 1) a good idea OR 2) whether the motion, if adopted by your Board of Directors, is enforceable.

[Gary Novosielski]

However, a motion "That the moon be lassoed and pulled from the sky," is NOT out of order.

I don't think I'd have any qualms about ruling that out of order as dilatory.

[Tim Wynn]

I don't think I'd have any qualms about ruling that out of order as dilatory.

Perhaps you've failed to lasso the subtlety of my point, which was expressed through extreme example. Let me downshift.

Should an athiest parliamentarian advise a chair to rule out of order a motion "That an invocation be included at the beginning of each meeting," since he "knows" it to be dilatory?

(This is not an invitation to start a theological debate.)

[sMargaret]

So, organization did something against the law, member reported it, organization is mad at member for reporting it, and wants member to pay organization the costs of making things legal?

This strikes me as being something that the organization (and member) should get legal advice on, not parliamentary advice.

[Gary Novosielski]

Should an athiest parliamentarian advise a chair to rule out of order a motion "That an invocation be included at the beginning of each meeting," since he "knows" it to be dilatory? (This is not an invitation to start a theological debate.)

That would depend on the society.

In a meeting of the First Presbyterian Church, no.

In a meeting of the New England Skeptical Society, yes.

In a meeting of the Morristown Unitarian Fellowship, the chair might be in doubt, and place the matter before the assembly.

[SaintCad]

Could this be considered a discipline action for an occurance outside the meeting?

[Tim Wynn]

Could this be considered a discipline action for an occurance outside the meeting?

Sure it could (if you mean disciplinary action for an offense elsewhere than in a meeting), and in that case, the references provided in my first post are applicable, along with p. 657, l. 33 - p. 658, l. 3.

[J. J.]

Jacobs' Rule Of Dilatory Motions: No motion is dilatory that the assembly chooses to entertain, no matter how dilatory it really is.

I would not rule this motion dilatory either directly or on a point of order. That decision would be subject to appeal.

That said, this motion does attempt to impose a fine or an assessment on a member. If an assessment, it would have to be authorized in the bylaws (p. 572). If a fine, it must not only be in the bylaws, but also given as a result of disciplinary proceedings after a full trial (pp. 643, 668). In either case, the motion should be ruled out of order on the ground that either must be included in the bylaws (p. 251, a).

[Tim Wynn]

Jacobs' Rule Of Dilatory Motions:

That's one dilatory rule.

Perhaps you could expand that into an entire dilatory book.

[J. J.]

That's one dilatory rule.

Perhaps you could expand that into an entire dilatory book.

Well, it needs enforced on this board occasionally.