Same motion made at meeting after being struck down at prior meeting

[BHarris]

Greeting. I have a troubling issue with how my union has decided to vote on a controversial topic. Let me start at the beginning several years back:

Our union and a neighboring union have had a largely overblown disagreement over ALS coverage. This has led to bad blood between some members of both unions, unfortunately.

One specific member of the other union lives close to one of our members and has consistently harassed him to a culminating point of our member punching him in the face.

This event led to assault charges, which was eventually thrown out of court by the prosecutor ( for reasons unknown). Our member amassed some legal bills due to this.

During the October meeting, a motion was made to pay for half of our members legal bills. It was tabled to the next meeting so it could be added to the agenda for the November meeting due to the large amount of $$$ being asked for.

Those that felt strongly against supporting our member for his outburst, such as myself and my whole shift which was subsequently on shift during the November meeting, attended to speak their minds on the topic. After a round table it was obvious that the motion was not going to pass, and in lieu of showing support for such a poorly thought out motion, the person making it rescinded the motion after the round table instead of having it go to vote.

This topic was not on the agenda for the December meeting. During the December meeting, which fell on another shift, the motion was again made but by a different member this time. It was discussed and passed.

The topic was not in the agenda. The topic was not tabled for further discussion so it could be added to January's agenda. It's on the spot passage was defended under the context that it was "old business".

I have many questions regarding how this all went down, and due to how irate I am about it, I've decided to ask your advice first before going in guns blazing on the personal side of my feelings. I need hard and irrefutable violations to deal with this.

Please help me right this wrong, if there is a wrong to be found here.

Despondently signed,

BHarris

[Steven Britton]

From what you've described, although your business was not pristinely transacted, I see no rule violations that would cause a continuing breach of order as far as RONR is concerned. If the person's motion is withrawn or rescinded at one meeting, it could be renewed under new business at the next meeting and adopted.

Check your union's specific rules regarding notice.

[George Mervosh]

See this article on shift meetings... http://www.aipparl.org/pdf/ShiftMeetings.pdf

[Guest BHarris]

If the person's motion is withrawn or rescinded at one meeting, it could be renewed under new business at the next meeting and adopted.

I would agree that it should be considered new business, and treated the same way it was when it was initially brought up. Motion made, tabled to put on agenda for next meeting, and then voted on. The problem I have with it, is that it was considered old business and treated as such, even though there was a new motion made. And I personally believe that it was intentionally done this way to avoid bringing attention to it again, so those at that meeting can get the desired result, as compared to an informed result of the whole.

[Gary c Tesser]

The trouble here is that your union seems to follow this, as standard for processing motions: "Motion made, tabled to put on agenda for next meeting, and then voted on." This is not how Robert's Rules prescribes treating a motion: a motion for new business is routinely voted on at the meeting at which is was moved. Often within a few minutes (depending on how long debate lasts). So either your union has its own rules that require a new motion to be deferred to a later meeting -- or you have all erroneously believed that deferring a new motion is required by the general parliamentary law. It's not.

Part of the misunderstanding is in calling this motion for chipping in to pay this member's legal bills "old business." It's not. (Partly because there is no such thing as "old business." Really. It's a commonly-believed myth. But a myth it is.) As Steve Britton said, once the motion was dispensed with, in November, it was gone. "History." And it can be raised at any later session ("meeting") -- "renewed" -- afresh.

Again, this is according to Robert's Rules (as a codification of the general parliamentary law). You need to see whether all of you have been cheerfully doing it wrong for some time, or if, instead, your union has adopted these different procedures, in its bylaws or its special rules of order.

Please pick up a copy of RONR - In Brief. Read it. Before lunch tomorrow. Really. Stand there in the bookstore; it won't take much more than an hour. It's an eye-opener. Then come back and ask more. You do have your work cut out for you. But RONR - IB will put you months ahead of everyone else.

[rthib]

Please have someone read FAQ #12

People misuse of table is probably one of the most common mistakes made.

Nothing I read is long term RONR, but since no one seems to understand RONR based on behavior, I would look at bylaws also then ask someone to read the book.