Was this motion out of order?

[Louise]

There were two motions made at a meeting last month.

 

Motion 1: Moved that Section B be deleted from the proposed policy: "Children using X must be 14 years of age or under."

 

This motion was defeated.

 

Then the following motion was proposed, and it passed:

 

Motion 2: Moved that Section B be amended to read, "Children using X should be 14 years of age or under."

 

A member is now suggesting that the second motion is null and void, since it effectively counteracts the point of the proposed policy (i.e. keeping big people from using X), and the deletion of that policy was already defeated at that meeting.

 

Is this a breach, and if so, was it necessary to raise a Point of Order at the time?

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

There were two motions made at a meeting last month.

 

Motion 1: Moved that Section B be deleted from the proposed policy: "Children using X must be 14 years of age or under."

 

This motion was defeated.

 

Then the following motion was proposed, and it passed:

 

Motion 2: Moved that Section B be amended to read, "Children using X should be 14 years of age or under."

 

A member is now suggesting that the second motion is null and void, since it effectively counteracts the point of the proposed policy (i.e. keeping big people from using X), and the deletion of that policy was already defeated at that meeting.

 

Is this a breach, and if so, was it necessary to raise a Point of Order at the time?

 

I would say the motion was in order. Changing "must" to "should" is not, to my mind, "substantially the same question" as removing the rule altogether.

 

Even if there was a breach of the "substantially the same question" rule, a member would have needed to raise a Point of Order at the time.

[Louise]

Thank you, Josh. You confirmed my hunch, but I wanted to be certain before I provided input into this situation.

[J. J.]

I would say the motion was in order. Changing "must" to "should" is not, to my mind, "substantially the same question" as removing the rule altogether.

 

Even if there was a breach of the "substantially the same question" rule, a member would have needed to raise a Point of Order at the time.

 

I disagree with the first point, though I believe that it would be subject to appeal.

 

I agree with the second part, which is the most important type.