kenfree Posted September 24, 2012 at 02:31 AM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 02:31 AM Hi all....here's the scenario: A member makes a motion, which is seconded. During the discussion, another member raises a point of order, that the motion in question is beyond the agreed mission of the group.Supposing that the chair rules in the affirmative, what follows from this?1) Is the motioin therefore illicit, and should be dismissed?2) Does the motion therefore require a super-majority to pass?Thanks in advance for any help on this.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:39 AM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:39 AM It takes a 2/3 vote to introduce a motion that is outside of the organization's objective (RONR pp. 343-344). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfree Posted September 24, 2012 at 04:25 AM Author Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 04:25 AM a 2/3 vote to INTRODUCE? or to pass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 24, 2012 at 05:20 AM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 05:20 AM To introduce it. However, once discussion has started on the motion, it is too late for a point of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 24, 2012 at 06:48 AM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 06:48 AM To introduce it. However, once discussion has started on the motion, it is too late for a point of order.Not so, according to statements by Dan H. anyway. The motion that was "beyond the agreed mission", if adopted, would set up a continuing breach (p. 251, a) ). This, per Dan, means that the motion is exempt from the "once debate starts it is too late to raise a point of order" rule. Indeed any motion that would result in a continuing breach is exempt from that "too late" rule.The book is not exactly transparent on this point, however. I think it is a consequence of p. 250 lines 21-23 in that it is not the "parliamentary situation" that is causing the breach of order but the content of the motion itself. But I await further explication from others.Returning to kenfree's original question: if the chair rules the motion out of order (which I gather is what happened) and there is no appeal overturning the chair, then that is the end of it. The motion should just be "dismissed", using kenfree's good word.The proponents of the motion could then move for the consideration (or introduction) of the motion, per p. 113, 343, or 571, which, if adopted by the required 2/3 vote, would then allow the "beyond the agreed mission" motion to be properly introduced and considered. But it is clearly a two-step process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:08 PM John, RONR says no motion can be introduced that is outside the object of the society or assembly as defined in the bylaws unless by a two-thirds vote the body agrees to its consideration. That leads me to believe the bolded portion of the rule is suspendable, and if it is suspendable, how can it become a continuing breach of the rules?I'd be happy to have Dan clarify what you said he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM Report Share Posted September 24, 2012 at 03:41 PM I'd be happy to have Dan clarify what you said he said. So would I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM Not so, according to statements by Dan H. anyway. The motion that was "beyond the agreed mission", if adopted, would set up a continuing breach (p. 251, a) ). This, per Dan, means that the motion is exempt from the "once debate starts it is too late to raise a point of order" rule. Indeed any motion that would result in a continuing breach is exempt from that "too late" rule.The book is not exactly transparent on this point, however. I think it is a consequence of p. 250 lines 21-23 in that it is not the "parliamentary situation" that is causing the breach of order but the content of the motion itself.But I await further explication from others.Returning to kenfree's original question: if the chair rules the motion out of order (which I gather is what happened) and there is no appeal overturning the chair, then that is the end of it. The motion should just be "dismissed", using kenfree's good word.The proponents of the motion could then move for the consideration (or introduction) of the motion, per p. 113, 343, or 571, which, if adopted by the required 2/3 vote, would then allow the "beyond the agreed mission" motion to be properly introduced and considered. But it is clearly a two-step process.John, since I have no present recollection of having made these statements, and no way of reviewing the context in which they were made (if they were made), I would appreciate your letting me know where they may be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:12 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:12 PM Dan H. just wrote: "I would appreciate your letting me know where they may be found."For openers, deep in the recesses of my mind. I'll see if I can find it here on this board, but meanwhile....Perhaps we can resurrect your opinion by my restating the assertion I made that brought forth (my recollection of) your view of the matter - then you can express your view clearly again...Situation: A motion has been made, seconded, stated, that, if it was adopted, would clearly and unequivocally put a continuing breach (CB) in place. It doesn't matter which of the criteria for a CB on p. 251 is about to be violated. Debate then gets under way without any timely point of order being made, perhaps because no one realizes that there is a danger of a CB being made. Note that all the p. 251 criteria involve motions that have been adopted;there is no CB in just talking about the motion. Eventually, during the debate, someone realizes the potential violation if the motion is passed and raises the point of order that the motion is itself out of order.p. 250, lines 23-25 are clear as a bell that it is now "too late" to raise the point of order "no matter how clearly out of order the motion may be".Hence, even a potential CB motion cannot be "point-of-ordered" away, but has to be disposed of via standard mechanisms: postpone indef., adopt/defeat, &c. The potential CB motion could also be amended such that it would no longer be a problematic motion, but that is not the point of my assertion about point of order.End of my contention. Over to you, Dan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:42 PM Dan H. just wrote: "I would appreciate your letting me know where they may be found."For openers, deep in the recesses of my mind. I'll see if I can find it here on this board, but meanwhile....Perhaps we can resurrect your opinion by my restating the assertion I made that brought forth (my recollection of) your view of the matter - then you can express your view clearly again...Situation: A motion has been made, seconded, stated, that, if it was adopted, would clearly and unequivocally put a continuing breach (CB) in place. It doesn't matter which of the criteria for a CB on p. 251 is about to be violated. Debate then gets under way without any timely point of order being made, perhaps because no one realizes that there is a danger of a CB being made. Note that all the p. 251 criteria involve motions that have been adopted;there is no CB in just talking about the motion. Eventually, during the debate, someone realizes the potential violation if the motion is passed and raises the point of order that the motion is itself out of order.p. 250, lines 23-25 are clear as a bell that it is now "too late" to raise the point of order "no matter how clearly out of order the motion may be".Hence, even a potential CB motion cannot be "point-of-ordered" away, but has to be disposed of via standard mechanisms: postpone indef., adopt/defeat, &c. The potential CB motion could also be amended such that it would no longer be a problematic motion, but that is not the point of my assertion about point of order.End of my contention. Over to you, Dan.This particular contention of yours is erroneous, and I have previously said so. However, my saying (and having said) that this contention is erroneous is quite different from my saying what, in this thread, you claim that I have said. Please be more careful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:55 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 01:55 PM This particular contention of yours is erroneous, and I have previously said so....So, in the hypothetical picture painted by Dr. Stackpole, it is proper to raise a point of order that the motion being debated would cause a continuing breach if adopted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:17 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:17 PM Jumping in for Dan (which I do all the time, just to annoy him): yes, it is proper. In effect any potential CB motion is exempt from the "if debate, then too late" rule on p. 250.When I first read Dan's correction of my assertion (some time ago - maybe I can find it yet), I promptly revised my view and decided (a wise thing to do) to agree with him. So we have been in agreement all along. However, I would still like to see the reasoning behind his statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:19 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:19 PM So, in the hypothetical picture painted by Dr. Stackpole, it is proper to raise a point of order that the motion being debated would cause a continuing breach if adopted?Why run this thread off on a tangent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:30 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:30 PM May we run it off over to the "Advanced Discussion" section? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:45 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 02:45 PM Why run this thread off on a tangent?I assume (maybe wrongly) that this comment is not directed specifically at me. The detour from the original poster's question started long before my query in post #11 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:24 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:24 PM I assume (maybe wrongly) that this comment is not directed specifically at me. The detour from the original poster's question started long before my query in post #11 .In my opinion if the original poster reads post # 2 by Chris and #4 by Sean he should have his answer, and you might have yours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:28 PM Except that #4 appears to be in error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:40 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 05:40 PM Except that #4 appears to be in error.No it doesn't. You just don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted September 25, 2012 at 06:11 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 06:11 PM Dan: I feel that this decision might be less confusing were you just a little more direct sometimes in pointing out what the error in John's reasoning is.John: I do not believe this to be an (a)-class breach to begin with. Nowhere in the typical organization's bylaws is there a rule stating that an organization may carry out business only to its purpose. If it were, then it would surely be out of order for the assembly to do so, even by two-thirds vote. In that circumstance, a motion cannot constitute a continuing breach solely by reason of being beyond the society's objects, and so, once discussion begins on the motion, it is too late to raise a point of order regarding it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:02 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:02 PM How is it that making a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, the objects of the association in particular, without first adopting (by 2/3) a motion to authorize its introduction (p. 113, and others), is not covered by p. 251 a)? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:13 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:13 PM John, I don't know if this is the correct way to view it, but try this - I think RONR is saying:1) Rule in RONR - No motion can be introduced that is outside the object of the society or assembly as defined in the bylaws.....2) (continuing on in the same sentence) But the aforementioned rule is suspendable and you can introduce it if, in essence, the rules are suspended to permit it (2/3 vote required)If the rule is suspendable, it's violation cannot cause a continuing breach, and a timely point of order is required.I hope that makes sense even if you disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:15 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:15 PM How is it that making a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, the objects of the association in particular, without first adopting (by 2/3) a motion to authorize its introduction (p. 113, and others), is not covered by p. 251 a)?John, you have to recognize the difference between a motion which merely proposes action which is outside the scope of an organization’s object and one which actually conflicts with it.It is, of course, conceivable that an organization’s object, as stated in its bylaws, may be worded in such a way that a proposed motion, rather than merely proposing action which is outside its scope, actually conflicts with it, but such does not appear to be the case in the facts presented here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:25 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:25 PM Ah, OK, if it is is content dependent, with respect to "outside the scope" vs. a p. 251 a) "conflict" violation, all is clear. And I suppose George M. is right, too.Thank you for being patient with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:35 PM Report Share Posted September 25, 2012 at 07:35 PM Ah, OK, if it is is content dependent, with respect to "outside the scope" vs. a p. 251 a) "conflict" violation, all is clear. And I suppose George M. is right, too.Thank you for being patient with me.And thank you for giving me another opportunity to be my grumpy self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kenfree Posted September 26, 2012 at 02:47 PM Author Report Share Posted September 26, 2012 at 02:47 PM Thanks to all of you for this painstaking examination of this issue....it seems clear enough now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.