Guest Jim Closs Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:13 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:13 PM I am the secretary for an international veteran’s organization, and not well versed in Robert’s Rules but am periodically asked to make decisions based on my interpretation of them. During a recent board of directors meeting, a motion was made and seconded, with a lively debate afterwards. During the debate, the maker of the motion decided to withdraw the motion, and after a brief recess, I interpreted that the motion had already been properly presented and was now already under consideration and could not therefore be withdrawn. The board then considered and defeated the motion. A day after the meeting, the maker of the motion sent an e-mail to all of the board members asking that the motion withdrawal be upheld and quoted Robert’s Rules (9thed., p. 40), stating: "...before the question on a Motion has been stated, any member who believes that the maker will immediately withdraw the motion if a certain fact is pointed out to him can quickly rise and say (without waiting for recognition) "Mr Chairman, I would like to ask if the member would be willing to withdraw his motion, in view of [stating the reason for the suggested withdrawal]." If the maker withdraws his motion, the chair says "The motion is withdrawn," and proceeds to the next business." Today, in my promised review of Robert’s, I have reached the conclusion that my initial reading was correct. In § 4 of the 10thed., on page 38 is the statement: “Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify his motion or withdraw it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly’s consent; but while the motion is pending the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment before acting upon it.” Our organization is relatively small and we operate with few committees, and therefore more often than not have questions stated by the board members themselves and seldom have a chair stating a question. That said, our members individually function in the same capacity as a chair in the quoted statement. My questions: even if my reading of Robert’s was incorrect, and the board subsequently proceeded on the assumption that the reading was correct, can the member (motion maker) after-the-fact then request their withdrawal be accepted? Additionally, would not the minutes reflect the proceedings of the meeting regardless of a proper or improper reading of Robert’s? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:26 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:26 PM My questions: even if my reading of Robert’s was incorrect, and the board subsequently proceeded on the assumption that the reading was correct, can the member (motion maker) after-the-fact then request their withdrawal be accepted? Additionally, would not the minutes reflect the proceedings of the meeting regardless of a proper or improper reading of Robert’s? 1) No.2) Yes. You were correct that a member may not unilaterally withdraw a motion after the question has been stated by the chair and placed before the assembly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Closs Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:30 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:30 PM Thanks both of your clarifications help tremendously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:36 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:36 PM 1) No.2) Yes. You were correct that a member may not unilaterally withdraw a motion after the question has been stated by the chair and placed before the assembly. And even if the chair failed to formally state the question on the motion, once debate on the motion began (you say that a motion was made and seconded, with a lively debate afterwards) it was then too late for the maker of the motion to withdraw it without the assembly's consent. In other words, you were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jim Closs Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:44 PM Report Share Posted January 20, 2014 at 08:44 PM Again, thanks. I appreciate the confirmation and validation on my reading of the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted January 24, 2014 at 02:00 PM Report Share Posted January 24, 2014 at 02:00 PM And since you and the board are learning so much about the 9th and 10th editions, you may as well go ahead and add the 11th (i.e., current) edition to your collection. [This message is proudly sponsored by the Unofficial RONR Authors' Guild Revenue Enhancement Department.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.