GregoryHofer Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:06 PM Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:06 PM I believe it is stated in RONR somewhere that a motion can still be out of order even if it is discoved after the fact.After the second, after the vote which approved the motion as written.If a organization finds out anytime after a motion is approved that it is out of order, then it becomesout of order and any action that results from that motion is out of order as well?Can someone quote a page number in RONR where this is stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Harrison Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:09 PM Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:09 PM Unless the reason the motion was out of order is based on one (or more) of the exceptions to the timeliness rule on RONR p. 251 it is too late to do anything now (RONR pp. 250-251). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:14 PM Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:14 PM If there is a violation of due process, it would be void as a violation of "rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (p 251 e.)." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GregoryHofer Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM Author Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 at 10:58 PM So in this case, our President stepped outside of the Executive Board Room Meeting to use the bathroom.When he was out of the room they motioned to suspend him pending a hearing as allowed per our bylaws.They had previously tried to suspend him when he was in the room but he would rule their motion to suspend out oforder based on other provisions in our International Constitution. Does this sound possible or even legit to you Parliamentariansout there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:19 PM Report Share Posted May 20, 2013 at 11:19 PM So in this case, our President stepped outside of the Executive Board Room Meeting to use the bathroom.When he was out of the room they motioned to suspend him pending a hearing as allowed per our bylaws.They had previously tried to suspend him when he was in the room but he would rule their motion to suspend out oforder based on other provisions in our International Constitution. Does this sound possible or even legit to you Parliamentariansout there?A main motion which conflicts with the Constitution is indeed null and void, so it may be ruled out of order after the fact. As usual, such a ruling is subject to appeal. Whether the motion does conflict with the Constitution is beyond the scope of this forum and will be up to the organization to interpret. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.