Delaying Vote of agenda item in special meeting?

[Guest Mr. Smith]

A special meeting has been called to vote on a labor contract. The proposed contract information is being released only in the meeting and not before hand. What action can be taken to delay vote for one week to allow members to read through the proposed contract and think it over? Can I make a motion to postpon the vote for 1 week?

[Josh Martin]

What action can be taken to delay vote for one week to allow members to read through the proposed contract and think it over? Can I make a motion to postpon the vote for 1 week?

 

I'm guessing that there is not currently a meeting scheduled for one week after the special meeting, so you'll need to make one. The motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn can do that. You can move that when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet again in one week. After that's accomplished, you can then make a motion to postpone consideration of the contract to the adjourned meeting. The motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn requires a second, is amendable but not debatable, and requires a majority vote for adoption. The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time requires a second, is debatable and amendable, and requires a majority vote for adoption.

[Guest Mr. Smith]

Hello Mr. Martin,

Thank you for your time and advise in this matter. I am not versed in parliamentarian protocol but I am making efforts to be so. The special meeting has been called to present the labor contract and for a vote to either accept or decline the proposal. It appears, to myself and other members, that the board is making an attempt to pass the proposed contract with as little time for the members to consider the full scope of it. There will be approximately 1 hour to review the proposal and vote on it unless a postponment can be made. You are correct that there is no meeting scheduled. My question is at what point would I make the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn? Before or after the proposed contract has been presented? I do not want to make a motion and have someone make a point of order on me. Again, thank you for your time and advise.

 

 

[Gary c Tesser]

You always run the risk of someone raising a point of order on you any time you open your mouth or stick your neck out. What you need is to be sure that what you have proposed is proper, so that any point of order that is raised -- asserting that what you have done violates a rule -- is wrong, because you have not violated a rule -- so that the chair will rule that the point of order is wrong ("not well taken"), because you did not violate a rule; or, if you made no mistake but the chair ruled, wrongly, that the point of order is "well taken," meaning that the chair agrees that you have done something wrong, then you or one of the allies whom you have beforehand lined up on your side will appeal from the chair's ruling, and the assembly will vote on it.

[Gary c Tesser]

Don't take this as gospel because I'd want to double-check, wh;ich I haven't, but off the top of my head I'd say you can move to establish a continuation-meeting for this current one ("Fix the Time To which to Adjourn") at any time after the meeting has begun (when the chairman calls it to order). If you do that before the principal business has been moved -- whether to accept the proposed contract or not -- then the motion you have moved is a pure main motion (which corresponds to the parliamentary motion, the privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn), debatable and amendable. If you don't get to make this motion until after the meeting's principal business -- the motion to accept the contract -- is pending, then your motion to establish a follow-up meeting is the privileged motion (so that it is, for example, and primarily, not debatable).

For that matter, I'm pretty sure that you can make one motion to accomplish all your goals at once (if you are making your motion when no other motion is pending): to set up a continuation meeting, and to postpone the anticipated motion to accept the contract to that selfsame continuation meeting. (Both, with nothing else pending, would be incidental main motions.)

But I might be missing something.

[Guest Mr. Smith]

Thank you very much. Talking to other members, the theme appears to be that things are being rushed and the members don't like it. I should have an overwhelming majority for a motion to continue the meeting for another day. I do not think you are missing anything. The only items on the agenda is the contract.

[Gary c Tesser]

Thank you very much....

You're welcome.

... I do not think you are missing anything.

Stick around.

[Josh Martin]

For that matter, I'm pretty sure that you can make one motion to accomplish all your goals at once (if you are making your motion when no other motion is pending): to set up a continuation meeting, and to postpone the anticipated motion to accept the contract to that selfsame continuation meeting. (Both, with nothing else pending, would be incidental main motions.)

But I might be missing something.

 

A motion to Suspend the Rules would be needed in order to make both of these motions at once - which would require a second, is not debatable or amendable, and requires a 2/3 vote for adoption. Other than that, I don't think you're missing anything. 

 

Since the OP says he would have an "overwhelming" majority in favor of this, adopting a motion to Suspend the Rules may be feasible.

[Guest Curious]

A special meeting has been called to vote on a labor contract. The proposed contract information is being released only in the meeting and not before hand. What action can be taken to delay vote for one week to allow members to read through the proposed contract and think it over? Can I make a motion to postpon the vote for 1 week?

 

Is there no previous notice requirement to the members when your labor agreement is to be voted on?  It seems odd not have such a requirement for something this important.

[jstackpo]

There is a notice (not a "previous notice" - see p. 93) requirement for Special Meetings, but it appears from what Mr. Smith wrote, such a notice has been given:  the consideration of the new contract.

[Guest Curious]

There is a notice (not a "previous notice" - see p. 93) requirement for Special Meetings, but it appears from what Mr. Smith wrote, such a notice has been given:  the consideration of the new contract.

 

Yes, sir, but people tend to improperly conflate the notice of a special meeting and previous notice, although the former could be the vehicle to deliver the latter.  I'm asking Mr. Smith about the latter only.

[jstackpo]

I suppose that Mr. Smith could raise a point of order that the notice given ("Consider the new contract") is, or was, inadequate for the purpose of the meeting and, hence, no discussion or vote should take place at the meeting.  If he is backed up by the membership (majority vote) present, that will stop things.

[Josh Martin]

I suppose that Mr. Smith could raise a point of order that the notice given ("Consider the new contract") is, or was, inadequate for the purpose of the meeting and, hence, no discussion or vote should take place at the meeting. 

 

I don't find that Point of Order particularly persuasive, if RONR is controlling, but it's possible that the organization's rules require more detailed information about the contract in the notice.

[Guest Mr. Smith]

The by-laws state that a notice be given 48 hours before special meetings along with description of agenda. Side note states to be descriptive as possible. I suppose this verbage is debatable in regards to what needs to be descriptive as possible? The topic or the substance of topic? The By Laws do not declare either unfortunately.

[Josh Martin]

I suppose this verbage is debatable in regards to what needs to be descriptive as possible? The topic or the substance of topic?

 

Yes, it is debatable.

[Guest Mr. Smith]

Well, no go. I made motion to fix time which to adjurn and president said denied. Made motion to suspend rulles, denied. Members in audiance kept looking to me to do something to delay the vote but the president would not allow anything to be brought forward. Complete ignorance on his part. Now to selek recourse. Suggestions?

[Josh Martin]

Well, no go. I made motion to fix time which to adjurn and president said denied. Made motion to suspend rulles, denied. Members in audiance kept looking to me to do something to delay the vote but the president would not allow anything to be brought forward. Complete ignorance on his part. Now to selek recourse. Suggestions?

 

I'm sorry. If I realized the chair would be denying legitimate motions, I would have advised reading up on Point of Order (pgs. 247-255), Appeal (pgs. 255-260), and Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting (pgs. 650-653).

 

What exactly is the situation now? Has the new contract been voted on? If so, what was the outcome?

[Guest Mr. Smith]

I was not aware the chair would do so either. I was also unaware that the rest of the board would be uneducated on procedures. I brought up a point of order and he just looked at me. I even asked the lawyers who had been assisting in negotiations if they knew parliamentary procedure and they replied, "We're unaware of your particular by-laws." I was just stunned. Then the president made a motion to adjourn. I almost blottede out, Why bother with protocol now." I chosed the high ground and said nothing. The contract passed and we lost money.

[jstackpo]

Dictatorship is alive and well in 'murrica.

[Guest Curious]

Since the contract was adopted I fear Mr. Smith overestimated his support

[Guest Mr. Smith]

Aahhh, the Support was for delay, not defeat of contract. The members did not want the contract to be voted on until the information could be digested. But you are right in one regards curious, everyone wanted the delay and talked a big game but remained silent as parliamentary procedure was tarred and feathered and ran out of town.

[Josh Martin]

I brought up a point of order and he just looked at me.

 

For future reference, if the chair simply ignores a Point of Order, the proper procedure is in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 650-651. There's also information on what to do if the chair ignores a motion, since now I wonder whether the chair ruled your original motions out of order or simply ignored them.

 

If the chair did rule your motions out of order, the appropriate tool actually would have been an Appeal, since the chair had already made a ruling. He might have ignored that too, so take a look at pgs. 650-651 again.

 

The contract passed and we lost money.

 

With a signed contract, I'm afraid you'd need legal advice to see what recourse (if any) is available to you now.

[Guest Mr. Smith]

Thank you Mr. Martin and to all the others for your help. I do not believe I will be seeking legal council against the board as it would only sour working relations more. All motions were simply "denied." The chair continued by stating there was only one thing left for us to do. "Vote, and vote yes." My course of action will be to mend the relationship and educate myself and the board on parliamentary procedures to ensure this overt abuse of power does not occure again. I am still upset by the eventy so I will wait a couple days to talk to the president. After all, he attacked my character by emplying I was doing something underhanded. I'm not sure if he's the kettle or the pot on that one. Yep, I'm still upset. Lol.

Thank you again everyone. I truly appreciate the time you've spent assisting me.

[Josh Martin]

All motions were simply "denied."

 

I'd treat this as a ruling that the motion was out of order and assume the chair was simply unaware of the proper terminology (and unaware that he's supposed to provide the reasoning behind his rulings).

 

The chair continued by stating there was only one thing left for us to do. "Vote, and vote yes."

 

Okay, so you can add to your other problems the fact that the chair is supposed remain impartial while presiding, and clearly is not dong so.