Clarification of previous motion

[Guest swing monkey]

Our society has two basic functions, to provide a gym and to provide a playground.

The gym is active year round, and the playground only during spring/summer/fall.

The playground related members outnumber the gym members by about 3 to 1.

However, their dedication to the playground tends to wane during winter.

Consequently the Board - all gym members - has taken to having general meetings in the gym during the winter.

Few of the playground members show up.

The Board has decided to re-locate the two facilities. Knowing that their chances of success would be greatest at a winter meeting, they proposed that both facilities, when the time came, would move together. Passed.

Eventually a new location was found for the gym, and an area adjacent which could be used for the playground. The proposed aquisition of the building for the gym (only)was passed at a late winter meeting.

The board signed a lease on the building for the gym.

The board then went ahead and also leased the adjacent space.

The gym members have readied their new location and have moved in.

The playground members find this location unacceptable, and are wanting to find away around what the board has done.

I feel that the motion to move together was inadequate in detail, esp as relates to the word "together".

Since the gym members have moved already, without the playground members, who they are requiring to show up in the spring, it is possible that "together" refers to a geographical closeness, rather than temporal.

Is it possible therefore, to clarify the previous motion by introducing a new motion which would state that the playground will remain where it is for a period of X years, giving time for the proposed playground area to be made suitable? Could this be ruled out of order? Would appealing this require only a simple majority?

Getting the turnout required for a 2/3 is not likely, in spite of membership numbers?

Really stressed - thanks

[tctheatc]

I don't think the original motion needs to be clarified. You can amend something previously adopted. See RONR section 35.

And the 2/3 vote would not require an extraordinary turnout, a quorum will suffice. A majority of the entire membership voting to amend would work, too, and not require previous notice (although that's unlikely to work given your doubt about getting a large turnout.

[Guest Guest]

Thanks I.O.

However, at this point the gym people are the more militant, and will get the full turnout of their members (1/3), the playgrounders are likely to get maybe half of theirs (1/2x2/3=1/3) so it's too close to call. That's why I am interested in the question regarding clarifying the previously adopted motion.

[Guest Edgar]

That's why I am interested in the question regarding clarifying the previously adopted motion.

Firstly, substitute "amending" for "clarifying" and we'll all be on the same parliamentary page.

As tc noted, all that's required to amend a previously adopted motion is a two-thirds vote. That means two-thirds of the members present and voting (not two-thirds of all the members and not even two-thirds of the members present). So as long as you've got the numbers, you can pretty much do what you want. That's the way democracy works.

Note that this is independent of any leases or other contracts that may have been signed. For those you may need a lawyer, not a parliamentarian.

[Steven Britton]

Thanks I.O.

However, at this point the gym people are the more militant, and will get the full turnout of their members (1/3), the playgrounders are likely to get maybe half of theirs (1/2x2/3=1/3) so it's too close to call. That's why I am interested in the question regarding clarifying the previously adopted motion.

Also, look at p. 308 (line 20 - 23). If a contract or lease has been executed or partially carried out, it may be to later to rescind or amend. This depends on the contents of the second leases you mentioned. It may be to late to do anything.

[Guest swing monkey]

I think my latest reply got lost.

As Edgar points out there is a similarity between "ammending" and "clarifying"

There may not be the votes at the next meeting to ammend.

The original motion "to move together" is very vague, and more of a principle than an action.

The gym people have already moved.

So timing is an issue.

My clarification (to specify when and under what conditions) then is either 1)an ammendment, and likely to fail, or 2) a supplementary piece of business, related to but not identical with the original resolution.

The rules books I have been able to read emphasize clarity and detail precisely to avoid this type of confusion.

Will I likely be called out of order if I put my "clarification" forward, and would an appeal (to the assembly?) be sustained with a simple majority?

Thanks again

[Guest Edgar]

Will I likely be called out of order if I put my "clarification" forward, and would an appeal (to the assembly?) be sustained with a simple majority?

If the chair rules your proposed amendment (to the previously adopted motion) out of order he must (briefly) state his reason(s) for doing so and his ruling can be appealed. A majority vote (in the negative) by the assembly would overturn the ruling.

Alternatively (and I think this may be what you are getting at with your "clarification"), you could raise a point of order to the effect that some action (moving the gym and the playground?) was not authorized by the adopted motion. Again, the chair will rule and his ruling can be appealed.

[Gary c Tesser]

... Will I likely be called out of order if I put my "clarification" forward, and would an appeal (to the assembly?) be sustained with a simple majority?

Thanks again

1. That depends on the chairman's judgement on your case, and maybe the chairman's judgement of you.

2. How could we here on the Internet possibly guess how your attending membership, apparently close to equally divided, will come down? Whom am I, a ind reader?

[Guest Guest]

Again, Edgar, thanks I think I will end up trying to put this clarification through as a new piece of business, then if called out of order, challenging it and going through on the majority vote.

However, the point still stands, and is interesting in itself:

Motion #1 “we shall move together” --passed Aug 2011, prior to scouting the new location

Motion #2 “the new gym location at xxy Main St. is accepted” --Passed Mar 2012

Motion #3 (which I am proposing) “the proposed playground location at xxx Main St is not acceptable at this time, and its suitability for use will be reviewed one year from now. “

Obviously, motion #2 does not deal with the subject of motion #3, so relative to it, #3 is new business, however:

Motion # 1 deals with the proposal of the gym and the playground moving “together”. (There was never a proposal to accept the proposed new location of the playground, only that the move be “together”- even though the gym has already moved).

(There are two separate leases, the playground is $1 per year, so paying it is not a hardship, regardless of use)

So the question remains, is Motion #3 new business, or is it an amendment to #1? Or is there no answer, other than that of the chair, who will call it out or not?

Thank you all for your time and interest

[J. J.]

Guest, I think they would have to use the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted.

[tctheatc]

JMHO, but the use of the word "clarifying" is not living up to its name here.

[David A Foulkes]

JMHO, but the use of the word "clarifying" is not living up to its name here.

Not nearly as well as "swing monkey", anyway.

[Guest swing monkey]

Had no idea youse guys were so witty.

The question remains:

When is an ammendment new business, and when is new business an ammendment?

[J. J.]

Had no idea youse guys were so witty.

The question remains:

When is an ammendment new business, and when is new business an ammendment?

When it amends something previously adopted,

[Gary Novosielski]

As Edgar points out there is a similarity between "ammending" and "clarifying"

There may not be the votes at the next meeting to ammend.

There is also a difference: Amending (something previously adopted) is a valid parliamentary motion by which you can accomplish what you want. "Clarifying" is not, i.e., there is no motion "to Clarify something previously adopted". If you move that, the chair should rule the motion out or order, or, if he's good and kind, accept the motion as one to Amend Something Previously Adopted. In that event you will need a 2/3 vote, and if there has already been a lease signed, you may have missed the boat entirely.

[Guest Edgar]

As Edgar points out there is a similarity between "ammending" and "clarifying"

There is also a difference:

Well, I'm not sure that's what I pointed out.

In any event, as Mr. Novosielski notes, there's no "Motion to Clarify". And, in order to raise a point of order (which might result in a ruling that clarifies the meaning of an adopted motion) some alleged infraction has to have occurred. I'm pretty sure there's a Latin term for this in the law but, at the moment, it escapes me. In the meantime, the word "actionable" comes to mind.

[Guest swing monkey]

hey all

Well, it's over. I had thought that we outsiders were subject to a malicious mis-application of the rules.

Turns out they just didn't know that there were any.

The thing went through, but not without a lot of name calling and hard feelings.

I guess I believe in the RONR now more than ever.

We have resolved to try to be courteous to one another.

Except perhaps for the bully, and I don't know what will happen with her.

Thanks for your comments and opinions I would reccomend this forum to anyone.

S.M.

(btw, I look after the maintenance on the swings and the monkey bars. Just so you know)

[Shmuel Gerber]

I don't understand why people, including some of the regular responders here, are saying that a two-thirds vote, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership, is required to adopt a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. If previous notice of the motion is given, it requires an ordinary majority vote.

[Guest Edgar]

I don't understand why people, including some of the regular responders here, are saying that a two-thirds vote, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership, is required to adopt a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. If previous notice of the motion is given, it requires an ordinary majority vote.

I typically only mention the two-thirds option to [a] keep it simple and indicate that there's a higher voting threshold to undo something than to do it. It's not meant to be an exhaustive answer (if you want that you can buy the book) and my usual phrasing ("A two-thirds vote will do the trick") doesn't suggest that it's the only option. Unfortunately, this time I wrote "all that's required to amend a previously adopted motion is a two-thirds vote" and while that's accurate, it might be construed as misleading if it suggests that there are no other options.