Approved Motion

[Weldon Merritt]

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.

As noted by Josh Martin in Post #12, the chair may very well be on firm ground in ruling such a motion out of order on the ground that it "is  frivolous or absurd or ... contains no rational proposition" (RONR, p. 342, ll. 19-20), but not solely on the ground that it proposes an illegal act. The rulin would still be subject to appeal, but at least the chair could cite a specific RONR provisiosn in support of his ruling. 

[Timothy]

As noted by Josh Martin in Post #12, the chair may very well be on firm ground in ruling such a motion out of order on the ground that it "is  frivolous or absurd or ... contains no rational proposition" (RONR, p. 342, ll. 19-20), but not solely on the ground that it proposes an illegal act. The rulin would still be subject to appeal, but at least the chair could cite a specific RONR provisiosn in support of his ruling. 

 

Calling a motion "frivolous or absurd" when the person making the motion didn't intend for it to be is a good way to start a fight.

[Gary c Tesser]

Well then, let's stop a fight.  Gentlemen, please let's leave Timothy Fish to his beliefs.  Further attempts will be bootless.

[Josh Martin]

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.

 

I actually thought this comment was quite reasonable.

 

It is certainly conceivable that for a given organization, the assembly may interpret that it is beyond the scope of the organization's object to take an action which conflicts with non-procedural rules in local, state, or federal law. For example, I would imagine that in most cases, an organization which is an instrumentality of some government body would take such a view, as its continuing success (and perhaps even its existence) may be dependent on the good graces of the government body which oversees it.

 

I have also seen organizations which explicitly state in their bylaws that the organization cannot take any action in conflict with local, state, or federal law (without including the same "procedural" qualifier as RONR). In either of these cases, it is indeed correct that such a motion is out of order, although in the former case it is still possible to consider the motion by a 2/3 vote.

 

In summary, there is nothing in RONR or the common parliamentary law which prohibits an organization from adopting a motion which conflicts with non-procedural rules in the law, but an organization may certainly adopt its own rules prohibiting this if it wishes.