Motions and Appeals

[hofergregory]

A member made a motion that the Executive Board must follow our bylaws.

Isn't this motion out of order. I remember RONR addressing this in the 10 edition but can't find

the language now. Something to the effect that any motion is out of order if either result

of the motion could possible result in an action that is contrary to the bylaws.

To make the matter more complicated, if the motion was ruled out of order and the membership

appealed the decision of the board, wouldn't that appeal be out of order based on the fact that the

motion the appeal was based on is out of order?

As a Parliamentarian, how would you handle this and

If you could quote me the text in RORN that addresses this that would be great. Thanks.

[Robert B Fish]

I suggest that the moton - that the board of directors shall follow the bylaws - should have been ruled out of order because it is dilatory. Since it is required that the board of directors abide by the bylaws, consideration of such a motion is a waste of the assembly's time. See page 342, RONR, 11th ed.

The proper motion to have made is a point of order, noting the action(s) taken that do not comply and asking that the chairman rule that such actions are null and void. [page 251]

-Bob

[SaintCad]

Wouldn't it be a Point of Order and not a motion if the board is not following a bylaw? And then if not well-taken then an Appeal can be made?

[Tim Wynn]

Wouldn't it be a Point of Order and not a motion if the board is not following a bylaw? And then if not well-taken then an Appeal can be made?

Yes, a point of order should be used when a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated. Not much information was given about the situation, though, so it's difficult to give a substantial answer.

In any event, it should be noted that a Point of Order is a motion.