Bill G. Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:09 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:09 PM We recently had a meeting where a pending ballot measure is pending and the group was deciding what position, if any, it should take on that measure. We had folks who represented the pro and con side of the issue give us presentations on the measure. After they left, a member made a motion to take no position on the measure. It received a proper second. Another member made a motion to oppose the measure. Before the chair had a chance to say anything, the de facto parliamentarian forcefully asserted that you couldn't have two motions pending at the same time before the group.As it turned out, the original motion passed overwhelmingly and the matter was resolved.The question that arose later on was the appropriateness of the second motion. Some believe that it was really an "amendment" to the first motion and should have been considered first, i.e. vote on whether to amend the first motion to reflect the groups opposition to the measure and if it passed, then vote to see how many members would vote to oppose the measure. Others beilieve that the original "call" was accurate.Any thoughts would be appreciated.thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:33 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:33 PM It sounds like an improper amendment, if it was intended as such, since its adoption would be the equivalent of rejecting the main motion motion that no position be taken. RONR (11th ed.), p. 138 2) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:41 PM Report Share Posted March 21, 2013 at 02:41 PM I don't think it would be an improper amendment. A motion to take no position being rejected does not imply that the assembly is either in support of or in opposition to a measure. As such, a motion to oppose the measure would be quite different from failing to take no position.However, I think that the first error made was accepting a motion to take no position at all. Since an assembly by default has no position, a motion to take no position has no effect and is therefore out of order.Once you had that pending, however, I would say that the parliamentarian was correct in suggesting that the motion to oppose the measure was out of order. Only one main motion may be pending at a time, and a motion to oppose a measure is certainly a main motion. If the member making the motion did not phrase it as an amendment, then it should not be interpreted as one, although I'm quite surprised that neither the chair nor the parliamentarian suggested to the member that he could move an amendment. It is clear what the desired outcome of the member was, and so the chair (and by extension the parliamentarian) should have suggested to that member the best way to go about that.(Interestingly, a point of order about a very similar matter with a motion to Refer was raised this week in the Senate of Canada) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted March 22, 2013 at 12:00 AM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 12:00 AM We recently had a meeting where a pending ballot measure is pending and the group was deciding what position, if any, it should take on that measure. We had folks who represented the pro and con side of the issue give us presentations on the measure. After they left, a member made a motion to take no position on the measure. It received a proper second. Another member made a motion to oppose the measure. Before the chair had a chance to say anything, the de facto parliamentarian forcefully asserted that you couldn't have two motions pending at the same time before the group.As it turned out, the original motion passed overwhelmingly and the matter was resolved.The question that arose later on was the appropriateness of the second motion. Some believe that it was really an "amendment" to the first motion and should have been considered first, i.e. vote on whether to amend the first motion to reflect the groups opposition to the measure and if it passed, then vote to see how many members would vote to oppose the measure. Others beilieve that the original "call" was accurate.The chair should have ruled the first motion out of order since it serves no purpose, since the same effect could be accomplished by doing nothing. The chair should have then admitted the second motion. Members who preferred that the assembly take no position on the issue could simply vote down the motion to oppose the measure, or a member could make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which would kill the motion without taking a direct vote on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 22, 2013 at 05:28 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 05:28 PM We recently had a meeting where a pending ballot measure is pending and the group was deciding what position, if any, it should take on that measure. ... a member made a motion to take no position on the measure. It received a proper second. Another member made a motion to oppose the measure. Before the chair had a chance to say anything, the de facto parliamentarian forcefully asserted that you couldn't have two motions pending at the same time before the group.... I think that the first error made was accepting a motion to take no position at all. Since an assembly by default has no position, a motion to take no position has no effect and is therefore out of order.The chair should have ruled the first motion out of order since it serves no purpose, since the same effect could be accomplished by doing nothing. ... Members who preferred that the assembly take no position on the issue could simply vote down the motion to oppose the measure, or a member could make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely, which would kill the motion without taking a direct vote on it.Adoption of the motion to take no position would have the effect of taking the position that no position shall be taken. The interesting question is what the effect of indefinitely postponing that motion would be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 22, 2013 at 06:58 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 06:58 PM Adoption of the motion to take no position would have the effect of taking the position that no position shall be taken. The interesting question is what the effect of indefinitely postponing that motion would be. Wouldn't it have the same effect as rejecting the motion itself? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted March 22, 2013 at 07:54 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 07:54 PM Wouldn't it have the same effect as rejecting the motion itself?Sure, ultimately it would have the same effect. The interesting part comes simply from describing it (hence the smiley).If no motion is offered, the assembly hasn't done anything, so although no decision was made to take no position on the measure, no position has (yet) been taken.If a motion to take no position on the measure is offered and adopted, the assembly has formally taken the position that no position shall be taken.If a motion to take no position on the measure is offered and rejected, the assembly has formally and expressly rejected the idea of formally taking the position that no position shall be taken.And if a motion to take no position on the measure is offered and indefinitely postponed, the assembly has formally declined to take a position on the idea of formally taking the position that no position shall be taken.And if I've got all that right, I do hereby proclaim myself winner of this month's Anti-Nothole Award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:14 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:14 PM And if I've got all that right, I do hereby proclaim myself winner of this month's Anti-Nothole Award. Or, better yet, this month's 2FP Trophy for something or other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:29 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:29 PM Or, better yet, this month's 2FP Trophy for something or other. That seems inadequate considering just how wonderful that was. I say we toss in the keys to the Porsche as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:51 PM Report Share Posted March 22, 2013 at 08:51 PM That seems inadequate considering just how wonderful that was. I say we toss in the keys to the Porsche as well.Inadequate? I wish I had one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:08 AM Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 at 12:08 AM Wouldn't it have the same effect as rejecting the motion itself?Yes, which in turn would have the same effect as adopting the motion itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:21 AM Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 at 10:21 AM Yes, which in turn would have the same effect as adopting the motion itself.No, not at all.As Shmuel has noted, "If a motion to take no position on the measure is offered and adopted, the assembly has formally taken the position that no position shall be taken." As a consequence of this, the assembly's subordinate board (assuming there is one) will be precluded from subsequently taking up a motion to adopt the measure since the membership's assembly has decided that no position on the measure shall be taken.On the other hand (again quoting Shmuel), "... if a motion to take no position on the measure is offered and indefinitely postponed, the assembly has formally declined to take a position on the idea of formally taking the position that no position shall be taken." In this case, the assembly's subordinate board will not be precluded from subsequently taking up a motion to adopt the measure should it wish to do so (which would also be true if the assembly had rejected the motion to take no position).Furthermore, if a motion to take no position on the measure is adopted, adoption of a timely motion to Reconsider, or the adoption of a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, will be needed in order to take a position on the measure, but if a motion to take no position on the measure is either rejected or postponed indefinitely, an ordinary, original main motion is all that will be required in order to take a position on the measure at any later session of the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted March 25, 2013 at 01:01 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 at 01:01 PM Is it proper to think that one helpful way of determining whether or not the initial motion "to take no position on the measure." or ones similar to it should have been admitted in the first place (RONR p. 104, l. 32ff), is looking at what restrictions would be placed upon a subordinate board if the assembly adopts the initial motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted March 25, 2013 at 02:07 PM Report Share Posted March 25, 2013 at 02:07 PM Is it proper to think that one helpful way of determining whether or not the initial motion "to take no position on the measure." or ones similar to it should have been admitted in the first place (RONR p. 104, l. 32ff), is looking at what restrictions would be placed upon a subordinate board if the assembly adopts the initial motion?Yes, this is something to be considered in determining whether or not some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion.It is also helpful to note the inherent differences between the subject matter of the motions described on p. 104, l. 35 to p. 105, line 1, and the one described on p. 105, ll. 12-15. In the latter instance, there may be good reason to ask that the organization expressly agree to take no position on the proposed public bond issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.