Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

"Conflicting" motion adopted by less than required vote


jstackpo

Recommended Posts

The continuing breach described on p. 251, paragraph (B) - a motion adopted in conflict with a previously adopted one - has an "escape clause" that allows for the "conflicting" motion to be not out of order if adopted by the vote requirements of R/ASPA.

Question: Would the "escape clause" apply in a case as described by Official Interpretation 18? That is, the chair made an error in stating the motion carried even though the R/ASPA vote requirements were not met and no timely point of order was raised.

I think the answer is "Yes" although this rather emasculates the power of the breach in paragraph ( B).

Of course this all assumes that three improper steps were taken -- three wrongs making a right!

It was wrong (improper) to entertain the "conflicting motion" in the first place, wrong to declare it adopted (with an insufficient vote), and wrong to fail to raise a point of order. But the net result is that the "conflicting motion" ends up on the books as in effect!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The continuing breach described on p. 251, paragraph (B) - a motion adopted in conflict with a previously adopted one - has an "escape clause" that allows for the "conflicting" motion to be not out of order if adopted by the vote requirements of R/ASPA.

I think it would be more accurate to say that if it can be clearly demonstrated that such a motion was adopted by the vote requirements required for R/ASPA, it does not constitute a continuing breach. The motion was still out of order.

Question: Would the "escape clause" apply in a case as described by Official Interpretation 18? That is, the chair made an error in stating the motion carried even though the R/ASPA vote requirements were not met and no timely point of order was raised.

No. The key sentence from OI 2006-17 is the following: "However, if it can be clearly established that the motion to make the contribution of $750.00 to the XYZ Charity was, in fact, adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the rule fixing the limitation on charitable contributions, then the motion to make the contribution is effective, even though it was not in order at the time it was made, considered, and adopted." So the requirements for R/ASPA must be met and it must be "clearly established" that this is the case.

And the chair was in error to declare it adopted because the motion is out of order. It is not proper to adopt a main motion which conflicts with a previously adopted main motion which is still in effect, by any vote, unless it is a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would be more accurate to say that if it can be clearly demonstrated that such a motion was adopted by the vote requirements required for R/ASPA, it does not constitute a continuing breach. The motion was still out of order.

Am I correct in assuming that the complementary interpretation for this statement also applies - that if it can be clearly demonstrated that the motion was not adopted by the vote requirements required for R/ASPA, even though declared adopted by the chair in error, it does constitute a continuing breach?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the chair was in error to declare it adopted because the motion is out of order. It is not proper to adopt a main motion which conflicts with a previously adopted main motion which is still in effect, by any vote, unless it is a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Are you sure of your phrasing there? It sounds to me that you are contradicting the language of p. 251 ( b ).

I don't see that the business of the R/ASPA vote threshold is restricted to motions phrased as R/ASPA. If a motion is made that is inadvertently in conflict with something previously adopted it is, I fully agree, out of order but it can still be adopted (because neither the chair nor any member realized it was out of order) and go into effect if the R/ASPA threshold is "clearly" satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you sure of your phrasing there? It sounds to me that you are contradicting the language of p. 251 ( b ).

If a motion is made that is inadvertently in conflict with something previously adopted it is, I fully agree, out of order but it can still be adopted (because neither the chair nor any member realized it was out of order) and go into effect if the R/ASPA threshold is "clearly" satisfied.

Let me restate it, then. If a main motion (other than R/ASPA) conflicts with a previously adopted motion which is still in effect, then the motion is out of order. If it can later be clearly demonstrated that the motion was adopted by the threshold required for R/ASPA, the motion was still out of order, but there is no continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very curious.

Given that this discussion arose from setting a schedule, just to make certain I understand clearly at a basic level, if 2/3rds adopts a calendar for the year(for the sake of simplicity I'll stick with 2/3rds throughout this hypothetical), and then at a later point 2/3rds wishes to amend the calendar previously adopted, the appropriate motion would be to ASPA which needs to carry by a 2/3rds majority, yes?

(The answer sets me up for my next question. TIA)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me restate it, then. If a main motion (other than R/ASPA) conflicts with a previously adopted motion which is still in effect, then the motion is out of order. If it can later be clearly demonstrated that the motion was adopted by the threshold required for R/ASPA, the motion was still out of order, but there is no continuing breach.

Agreed, but you didn't quite finish your restatement and answer the question: Is the originally out of order motion now in effect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very curious.

Given that this discussion arose from setting a schedule, just to make certain I understand clearly at a basic level, if 2/3rds adopts a calendar for the year(for the sake of simplicity I'll stick with 2/3rds throughout this hypothetical), and then at a later point 2/3rds wishes to amend the calendar previously adopted, the appropriate motion would be to ASPA which needs to carry by a 2/3rds majority, yes?

(The answer sets me up for my next question. TIA)

Yes, and a 2/3 vote is required if there was no previous notice; if there was notice a majority vote is sufficient.

Next question?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The continuing breach described on p. 251, paragraph ( B) - a motion adopted in conflict with a previously adopted one - has an "escape clause" that allows for the "conflicting" motion to be not out of order if adopted by the vote requirements of R/ASPA.

Question: Would the "escape clause" apply in a case as described by Official Interpretation 18? That is, the chair made an error in stating the motion carried even though the R/ASPA vote requirements were not met and no timely point of order was raised.

No, of course not. Aside from the fact that 251 ( b ) is inapplicable to motions to Amend Something Previously Adopted, the "escape clause" (as you put it) comes into effect only if the vote required for rescission or amendment has actually been obtained.

(...and we'll just shudder at the assertion that this "escape clause ... allows for the 'conflicting' motion to be not out of order if adopted by the vote requirements of R/ASPA.", and let it go at that.) :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am I correct in assuming that the complementary interpretation for this statement also applies - that if it can be clearly demonstrated that the motion was not adopted by the vote requirements required for R/ASPA, even though declared adopted by the chair in error, it does constitute a continuing breach?

Yes, although it is misleading. Invalidity of action thus taken is not dependent upon a demonstration that the motion was not adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend. The burden of proof shoe is on the other foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is all very curious.

Given that this discussion arose from setting a schedule, just to make certain I understand clearly at a basic level, if 2/3rds adopts a calendar for the year(for the sake of simplicity I'll stick with 2/3rds throughout this hypothetical), and then at a later point 2/3rds wishes to amend the calendar previously adopted, the appropriate motion would be to ASPA which needs to carry by a 2/3rds majority, yes?

(The answer sets me up for my next question. TIA)

Although the discussion in this thread may or may not have been prompted by something that came up in another, the discussion here is based solely upon, and is limited to, what has been posted here. We are not dealing here with facts found elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm having difficulty getting my head around the notion of a motion being out of order but still in effect.

I believe it's in effect because the particular breach that made it out of order was healed by the passage of time.

Think of it like a bad umpire's call. You look at the replay after the game is over and the runner who was called safe at home was clearly tagged out. But the final score remains unchanged.

Contrast that with a rider who's found, years after the fact, to have used PHDs (no, not the kind you have). His breach was considered to be so egregious (i.e. it had a "continuing" effect) that it was determined that he had no longer won the races he had won. In other words, the score was changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...