Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Identical motions


GregoryHofer

Recommended Posts

I recently made a bylaw amendment motion in the Phoenix session of a meeting which as per our rules will be voted on in the next meeting later this year.

Another Member then went and made the exact same word for word bylaw amendment motion in the Orlando session of the same meeting apparently the Chair did not notice it was the same word for word bylaw amendment motion.

Doesn't RONR address this?  Isn't that second identical bylaw amendment motion out of order? If so, what Chapter and page is that stated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently made a bylaw amendment motion in the Phoenix session of a meeting which as per our rules will be voted on in the next meeting later this year.

Another Member then went and made the exact same word for word bylaw amendment motion in the Orlando session of the same meeting apparently the Chair did not notice it was the same word for word bylaw amendment motion.

 

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "Phoenix session of a meeting" and the "Orlando session of the same meeting." I think we'll need a bit more explanation on that before we know whether RONR addresses your issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is out of order right now.  (RONR doesn't talk directly about this problem although p.594 comes close.)

 

Whichever amendment gets, or got, acted upon first will be the "winner", and if adopted the other one is ignored.  If defeated  and the other comes up at a subsequent meeting (is that the situation?) that is equivalent to a renewal of the motion, and is proper  --  provided the process leading up to that second try followed all the bylaw amendment rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is out of order right now.  (RONR doesn't talk directly about this problem although p.594 comes close.)

 

Whichever amendment gets, or got, acted upon first will be the "winner", and if adopted the other one is ignored.  If defeated  and the other comes up at a subsequent meeting (is that the situation?) that is equivalent to a renewal of the motion, and is proper  --  provided the process leading up to that second try followed all the bylaw amendment rules.

 

I'm not sure that the rules on pg. 594 apply in a situation where the amendments are exactly the same. Under ordinary circumstances, I believe the second amendment would be out of order.

 

The idea of multiple "sessions" of "the same meeting" being held in different parts of the country, however, makes me wonder whether these are ordinary circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the rule quoted on Page 112 would apply to a redundant motion?

No motion is in order that would conflict with or that presents substantially the same question as one which has been temproarily but not finally disposed of wheather in the same or an earlier session and which remains within the control of the assembly.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was thinking the rule quoted on Page 112 would apply to a redundant motion?

No motion is in order that would conflict with or that presents substantially the same question as one which has been temproarily but not finally disposed of wheather in the same or an earlier session and which remains within the control of the assembly.

 

Yes, I would agree.

 

But you still haven't explained what all this business is with the "Phoenix session of a meeting" and the "Orlando session of the same meeting."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Josh,
We are a Union of Flight Attendants. We have 9 Flight Attendant domiciles or bases across the country.
We have 3 Membership meetings each year.
Each "membership meeting" consist of one session at each domicile.
The Chair and the Recording Secretary travel to each session and Members who live in the domicile

show up to conduct business.
 

We recess between each session to conduct the same agenda in each domicile then at the last

Domicile we adjourn. 

I know it's unusual and most likely another problem in itself but that is how we do it.
Question for you:  Are you in agreement that the second identical bylaw amendment is out of order becuase of what is stated on page 112 I copied above?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are a Union of Flight Attendants. We have 9 Flight Attendant domiciles or bases across the country.

We have 3 Membership meetings each year.

Each "membership meeting" consist of one session at each domicile.

The Chair and the Recording Secretary travel to each session and Members who live in the domicile

show up to conduct business.

 

We recess between each session to conduct the same agenda in each domicile then at the last

Domicile we adjourn. 

I know it's unusual and most likely another problem in itself but that is how we do it.

 

I was afraid it was something like that. RONR doesn't support an arrangement like this. If your organization's bylaws provide for such an arrangement, you'll have to interpret those bylaws and (one hopes) the extensive special rules of order your organization has to support such an unusual system. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

 

Are you in agreement that the second identical bylaw amendment is out of order becuase of what is stated on page 112 I copied above?

 

I haven't the slightest idea whether what is said on pg. 112 is applicable in a situation where a "meeting" consists of nine separate "sessions" of nine different groups of members held at nine different times and in nine different places. Since this conflicts with one of the most basic assumptions of RONR (see pg. 1, lines 12-14), it's difficult to say how the rules apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...