Approved Motion

[Guest Barbie, Secretary]

Can a Motion that was seconded and adopted at one meeting be changed without being voted upon?

[Guest Teresa]

What do you do if a motion made is against the law

[Timothy]

Can a Motion that was seconded and adopted at one meeting be changed without being voted upon?

No

 

 

What do you do if a motion made is against the law

 

Don't carry out an illegal action, obviously. If the chair is aware that it is against the law, then the chair should declare the motion out of order. If the chair doesn't do so, any member can raise a point of order.

[Chris Harrison]

Don't carry out an illegal action, obviously. If the chair is aware that it is against the law, then the chair should declare the motion out of order. If the chair doesn't do so, any member can raise a point of order.

Just because an action is against the law doesn't necessarily make a motion to take such an action procedurally improper.  The only time RONR says it would be is when the law in question is procedural in nature (RONR p. 111 ll. 6-10, p. 343 ll. 14-17). 

 

For example, here in Virginia our Freedom of Information Act specifically prohibits the use of voting by secret ballot (which is procedural in nature).  If a motion to hold a vote by ballot were made in a meeting of an organization who was subject to that law said motion should be declared out of order.  On the other hand, if a motion were made to rob a bank while I would argue strenuously in debate that I have no desire to be enrolled in a "Scared Straight" program that I can't get out of for 15-20 years the motion in of itself wouldn't be improper.

[Weldon Merritt]

Just because an action is against the law doesn't necessarily make a motion to take such an action procedurally improper.  The only time RONR says it would be is when the law in question is procedural in nature (RONR p. 111 ll. 6-10, p. 343 ll. 14-17). 

 

For example, here in Virginia our Freedom of Information Act specifically prohibits the use of voting by secret ballot (which is procedural in nature).  If a motion to hold a vote by ballot were made in a meeting of an organization who was subject to that law said motion should be declared out of order.  On the other hand, if a motion were made to rob a bank while I would argue strenuously in debate that I have no desire to be enrolled in a "Scared Straight" program that I can't get out of for 15-20 years the motion in of itself wouldn't be improper.

I agree. This was made clear in the fifth bullet on p. xxi of the 10th edition: "rules of parliamentary procedure are concerned with the process by which a deliberative assembly arrives at a decision, and not with the wisdom, or even legality, of the decision itself."  Although that specific langauge does not appear in the 11th edition, there has been no substantive change in the underlying rule.

[Timothy]

I suppose it could be argued that RONR could be adopted by an anti-government group who has no desire to follow the law of the land. But such a group would not believe that the law of the land applies to them, so making a motion that violates the law of the land would be in order. However, assuming that a group believes the law of the land applies to them and has a desire to follow it, I see no reason to say that motion that is known to violate it is in order. If is up to the society to decide whether the law applies to them or not, but once they've decided it does, it would be improper to allow a motion that violates it.

[jstackpo]

Earlier editions, and Robert himself in very early editions, did include an "Against the law is out of order" rule, but, as noted the rule was more recently particularized to "Against parliamentary or procedural law is out of order".

 

The basic reason is that parliamentarians are not trained in the law and have no business advising clients on the law.  (I guess parliamentarians are considered competent to advise on parliamentary law, but I'm not sure how that distinction gets made. Perhaps it is when the law or procedural rules in the law closely echo the rules in RONR.)

[Timothy]

Earlier editions, and Robert himself in very early editions, did include an "Against the law is out of order" rule, but, as noted the rule was more recently particularized to "Against parliamentary or procedural law is out of order".

 

The basic reason is that parliamentarians are not trained in the law and have no business advising clients on the law.  (I guess parliamentarians are considered competent to advise on parliamentary law, but I'm not sure how that distinction gets made. Perhaps it is when the law or procedural rules in the law closely echo the rules in RONR.)

 

I have no reason to doubt what you say, but it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that most parliamentarians are more qualified to tell their clients that they can't vote to hang the chairman of the board from the nearest tree than they are to tell them what the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requires. 

[jstackpo]

What "make sense" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Be careful offering legal advice without a license (or whatever the piece of paper is called that lawyers get when they pass the Bar Exam).  It may well be against the law  --  but I'm not offering legal advice here -    - yeah, right.

[Josh Martin]

I suppose it could be argued that RONR could be adopted by an anti-government group who has no desire to follow the law of the land. But such a group would not believe that the law of the land applies to them, so making a motion that violates the law of the land would be in order. However, assuming that a group believes the law of the land applies to them and has a desire to follow it, I see no reason to say that motion that is known to violate it is in order. If is up to the society to decide whether the law applies to them or not, but once they've decided it does, it would be improper to allow a motion that violates it.

 

A more likely scenario than an "anti-government group who has no desire to follow the law of the land" is an organization which, while generally law-abiding, may find on rare occasions that violating certain laws is the best method for achieving its objectives. Think of civil rights organizations in the 1950s and 60s.

 

I have no reason to doubt what you say, but it doesn't make sense. I'm pretty sure that most parliamentarians are more qualified to tell their clients that they can't vote to hang the chairman of the board from the nearest tree than they are to tell them what the Virginia Freedom of Information Act requires. 

 

I'm not sure hyperbolic examples such as murdering the chair are particularly helpful. The areas of the law where organizations are likely to get in trouble are usually more nuanced. Additionally, I actually would note that professional parliamentarians usually try to gain at least a passing familiarity with procedural laws in their state (although we are certainly no more qualified to provide legal advice on those subjects than on others).

[Timothy]

What "make sense" is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Be careful offering legal advice without a license (or whatever the piece of paper is called that lawyers get when they pass the Bar Exam).  It may well be against the law  --  but I'm not offering legal advice here -    - yeah, right.

 

My point is that if the assumption of RONR is that parliamentarians are qualified to give legal advice concerning how the parliamentary law of the land, it is a bad assumption. Yes, there are some parliamentarians who are better qualified than others. A society may even have a parliamentarian who is a lawyer that has spent a good deal of time studying those particular statutes, but the validity of a motion should not depend on who the parliamentarian might be or whether there is a parliamentarian at all.

 

 

A more likely scenario than an "anti-government group who has no desire to follow the law of the land" is an organization which, while generally law-abiding, may find on rare occasions that violating certain laws is the best method for achieving its objectives. Think of civil rights organizations in the 1950s and 60s.

 

 

I'm not sure hyperbolic examples such as murdering the chair are particularly helpful. The areas of the law where organizations are likely to get in trouble are usually more nuanced. Additionally, I actually would note that professional parliamentarians usually try to gain at least a passing familiarity with procedural laws in their state (although we are certainly no more qualified to provide legal advice on those subjects than on others).

 

The comment about murdering the chair was to highlight how ridiculous it would be to say that it would be correct for the chair to declare a motion for a ballot vote out of order on the grounds that it violates the law while not being able to declare other motions out of order for the same reason. I've never seen a bylaw that reads, "This society shall not murder its officers." Organizations realize that doing so is not permitted by law, so they don't need such a bylaw or a special rule of order to tell them to follow the law.  It is true the laws an organization is likely to get in trouble with are more nuanced, but the same thing that would make it wrong for the society to hang the chair makes it wrong for them to violate those other laws as well. The fact that a law is more nuanced doesn't make it any more proper, but it makes it less likely that the society will realize that a motion is improper. 

[Josh Martin]

The comment about murdering the chair was to highlight how ridiculous it would be to say that it would be correct for the chair to declare a motion for a ballot vote out of order on the grounds that it violates the law while not being able to declare other motions out of order for the same reason. I've never seen a bylaw that reads, "This society shall not murder its officers." Organizations realize that doing so is not permitted by law, so they don't need such a bylaw or a special rule of order to tell them to follow the law.  It is true the laws an organization is likely to get in trouble with are more nuanced, but the same thing that would make it wrong for the society to hang the chair makes it wrong for them to violate those other laws as well. The fact that a law is more nuanced doesn't make it any more proper, but it makes it less likely that the society will realize that a motion is improper. 

 

This is all well and good, but the fact remains that if a member makes a motion which conflicts with a non-procedural rule in the law, the chair cannot rule the motion out of order on that basis. The appropriate course of action is for the more sensible members to convince the assembly in debate why the motion is a bad idea (although there may be rare circumstances where the assembly chooses to proceed anyway). If such a motion is frivolous or absurd, the chair may rule the motion out of order, as with any other motion which is frivolous or absurd.

[Timothy]

This is all well and good, but the fact remains that if a member makes a motion which conflicts with a non-procedural rule in the law, the chair cannot rule the motion out of order on that basis. The appropriate course of action is for the more sensible members to convince the assembly in debate why the motion is a bad idea (although there may be rare circumstances where the assembly chooses to proceed anyway). If such a motion is frivolous or absurd, the chair may rule the motion out of order, as with any other motion which is frivolous or absurd.

 

 "A main motion that proposes action that is outside the scope of the organization's object as defined in the bylaws or corporate charter is out of order unless the assembly by a two-thirds vote authorizes its introduction." RONR p. 113 10-13

 

Unless the bylaws declare civil disobedience to be in the scope of the organization's object, a motion that requires an illegal action is in fact out of order. So, the chair should declare the motion out of order and if the assembly still wants to consider it, they should overrule him with a two-thirds vote.

[Edgar Guest]

Unless the bylaws declare civil disobedience to be in the scope of the organization's object, a motion that requires an illegal action is in fact out of order..

 

Civil disobedience usually is a tactic; a means to an end, not an end in itself.. An organization's object could be, for example, the promotion of racial equality. Without specifying the means by which that goal might be achieved.

[Timothy]

Civil disobedience usually is a tactic; a means to an end, not an end in itself.. An organization's object could be, for example, the promotion of racial equality. Without specifying the means by which that goal might be achieved.

 

Yes, but some organizations might seek to promote racial equality through a legal means while others might be more open to illegal actions. So illegal actions may be within the scope of some organizations but not others. While it is not for us here to judge whether an illegal action is within the scope of the organization or even if the action is legal, the fact that the person asking the question asked how to handle a motion that is against the law implies that she believes it is outside the scope of what the organization is supposed to be doing. That alone is enough to justify her raising a point of order. If the chair believes it is beyond the scope of the organization, then that would be enough for the chair to rule the motion out of order.

[Edgar Guest]

So illegal actions may be within the scope of some organizations but not others.

 

I think it would be unusual (and unwise) for the section of an organization's bylaws that define its Object (which RONR (p.571) says should be "general in its applications") to specify which methods will be used in achieving that object. it would certainly be unusual (and unwise) to stipulate that illegal actions are an option (which doesn't mean they're not).

[Timothy]

I think it would be unusual (and unwise) for the section of an organization's bylaws that define its Object (which RONR (p.571) says should be "general in its applications") to specify which methods will be used in achieving that object. it would certainly be unusual (and unwise) to stipulate that illegal actions are an option (which doesn't mean they're not).

 

I'll leave you to your opinion of the wisdom of it, but it is more common than you might think. Consider the following statement:

 

We believe that civil government is of divine appointment, for the interests and good order of human society,; and that magistrates are to be prayed for, conscientiously honored, and obeyed; except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only Lord of the conscience, and the Prince of the kings of the earth.

 

This statement is taken from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which many churches have either adopted or based their doctrinal statements on.

[jstackpo]

T. Fish (#17) wrote in part:

 

"except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ..."

 

That is a pretty broad exception.   Determining said "will" (and what might be "opposed" to it) has been a bit problematic over the centuries.

[Edgar Guest]

This statement is taken from the New Hampshire Confession of Faith, which many churches have either adopted or based their doctrinal statements on.

 

Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately) that says nothing about what the Object of those "many churches" might be.

 

And, as Mr. Stackpole suggests, one could easily imagine a church deciding that, for example, a law permitting slavery might be opposed to the will of Mr. Christ.

[Timothy]

T. Fish (#17) wrote in part:

 

"except only in things opposed to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ..."

 

That is a pretty broad exception.   Determining said "will" (and what might be "opposed" to it) has been a bit problematic over the centuries.

 

Hence the need for a doctrinal statement.

 

 

Unfortunately (or, perhaps, fortunately) that says nothing about what the Object of those "many churches" might be.

 

And, as Mr. Stackpole suggests, one could easily imagine a church deciding that, for example, a law permitting slavery might be opposed to the will of Mr. Christ.

 

It is the case in many churches that one can't hope to understand what they are saying in the Object without reading the doctrinal statement. 

 

But it isn't necessary for us to understand what a church means by the statement unless we happen to be a member of that church. 

[Edgar Guest]

But it isn't necessary for us to understand what a church means by the statement unless we happen to be a member of that church. 

 

Amen.

[g40]

I am not an attorney, but it is my opinion that in a wide variety of situations dealt with by organizations operating under RONR, it is very often the case that whether something proposed is "against the law" is not a simple matter. In addition, a great many "laws" provide for government agencies, etc. to write implementing regulations for the laws.

[invity]

Thanks for this updations.

[Gary Novosielski]

I suppose it could be argued that RONR could be adopted by an anti-government group who has no desire to follow the law of the land. But such a group would not believe that the law of the land applies to them, so making a motion that violates the law of the land would be in order. However, assuming that a group believes the law of the land applies to them and has a desire to follow it, I see no reason to say that motion that is known to violate it is in order. If is up to the society to decide whether the law applies to them or not, but once they've decided it does, it would be improper to allow a motion that violates it.

I think the reason to say it is that RONR explicitly says so.  Only procedural rules in the law would supersede RONR. 

 

A society is otherwise able to determine on a case by case basis whether a given action, legal or not, should be carried out. 

[Timothy]

I think the reason to say it is that RONR explicitly says so.  Only procedural rules in the law would supersede RONR. 

 

A society is otherwise able to determine on a case by case basis whether a given action, legal or not, should be carried out. 

 

The thing is, at the point at which the chair would call such a motion out of order, he has the law of the land on one side and RONR on the other. He has determined that it is of utmost importance that the organization follow the law of the land on the issue. So, it really doesn't matter whether RONR says he can call it out of order or not, he calls it out of order. Supposing that there is someone of your opinion concerning this, they can raise a point of order that he can't call the motion out of order. To that, the chair will state that the point of order is not well taken. The person can appeal the decision of the chair. Whether the assembly sustains the decision of the chair or not, they will have had to vote on a point of order before they have a chance to consider the motion that the chair believes to be illegal.