Guest Chris Posted April 29, 2014 at 12:37 AM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 12:37 AM Our governing body recently passed a motion that said "that the members of the board affirm X". It passed by about 2/3rds voting yes. A day later I was looking at the motion and believe it to be unclear. Does it mean that all the members affirm X (which is technically not true)? Does it mean that in order to be a member of the board the person has to believe X? The intent of the motion was actually to say that the board affirmed X. However, I wonder if adding "the members" actually muddies up the motion. Does it? Should something official be done to clarify it? If so, what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bruce Lages Posted April 29, 2014 at 01:20 AM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 01:20 AM I think it would help us provide an answer if we knew what "X" was. A body can certainly adopt a motion endorsing something - a candidate, a position, a political platform, etc., but a motion to simply affirm something that was previoulsy adopted is most likely out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 10:10 AM Our governing body recently passed a motion that said "that the members of the board affirm X". It passed by about 2/3rds voting yes. A day later I was looking at the motion and believe it to be unclear. Does it mean that all the members affirm X (which is technically not true)? Does it mean that in order to be a member of the board the person has to believe X? The intent of the motion was actually to say that the board affirmed X. However, I wonder if adding "the members" actually muddies up the motion. Does it? Should something official be done to clarify it? If so, what? Inclusion of the words "the members of" did muddy the waters if the intent was simply to refer to the board itself. If you think that this may cause problems, you might want to offer a motion at your next meeting to amend this motion that was adopted by striking out the words "the members of". Look at Section 35 in RONR, 11th ed., for the rules governing the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:12 PM Report Share Posted April 29, 2014 at 05:12 PM Our governing body recently passed a motion that said "that the members of the board affirm X". It passed by about 2/3rds voting yes. A day later I was looking at the motion and believe it to be unclear. Does it mean that all the members affirm X (which is technically not true)? Does it mean that in order to be a member of the board the person has to believe X? The intent of the motion was actually to say that the board affirmed X. However, I wonder if adding "the members" actually muddies up the motion. Does it? Should something official be done to clarify it? If so, what? It certainly would have been better without "the members of". I'm surprised that someone who intended to vote No didn't move to strike that. But you can amend it after the fact, using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. (§35) Or if it's clear to everybody as is, just leave it alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.