validity of a motion

[Guest Allan]

sirs, does  a procedural error in passing a motion make it invalid? ie an amendment to the original motion was included in the original motion and a single vote undertaken.

thanks in advance for a reply.

 

[jstackpo]

This particular "procedural error" (i.e., including an amendment in a main motion without a vote on adopting the amendment) does not invalidate the final disposition of the main motion as amended.

 

You could have raised a point of order when the chair skipped the "vote on adopting the amendment" step, but is too late now.

 

Presumably, the main motion, as amended, will appear in the minutes of the meeting - the official record of what was actually done at the meeting.

[Edgar Guest]

 . . . an amendment to the original motion was included in the original motion and a single vote undertaken..

 

It might constitute a "continuing breach" if the motion required previous notice and the included "amendment" was not "within the scope of the notice".

 

But Though if the "original motion" included an "amendment" then the "amended" motion was the original motion (at least at the time it was made). In other words, it's not an amendment (i.e. a change) if it's part of the original motion.

[Guest allan]

Thanjks for your replies....just to clarify as i should have flushed this out a bit more. an amendment to the main motion was deliberated and then a vote cast. as per robert's rules does it not state that once the amendment is passed it forms part of the original motion and then the "amended" motion is subsequently put to a vote.

in this case all that was undertaken was a vote on the amendment, which the chair assumed to be the 'amended motion" now i know we are splitting hairs here but as this issue is/was very emotional and shall we say perhaps discrimiatory (a smoking ban for club members and specific places to do so etc) that if we had a"proceedural error/oversite" perhaps it can be recinded and revisited again/ that way the chair saves face and the arious parties can deliberate fully. (which was not the case at the meeting) here is a copy of our bylaws and proceedural items relevant to this situation (very similar to RROO.)

 

“Amendments are voted on in the reverse order to that

in which they were proposed. If an amendment or

sub-amendment is defeated another may be moved.

When all amendments have been decided the original

motion, modified by any amendment which may have

been cared, shall be put to vote.”  (my highlight)

cheers

A

 

[jstackpo]

OK, but it is still too late now to raise a point of order about the breach in procedure.  Your "No smoking in the gazebo" rule now stands.

 

However.... you are (collectively) free to amend something previously adopted (ASPA) - see p. 305.  This will give you and your members another shot at least portions of the adopted motion, so you can fix it more to your (collective) liking.   By "portions" I am referring to the exact words of the ASPA motion, so compose it with care.

 

You can also rescind the whole thing, and start over.

[Guest Allan]

Thanks for your input, I as VP was chastised (twice)  by the chairman/pres as I did bring up the procedure (by direct verbal contact and not to the floor) prior to the vote.  as such it did appear a bit dictatorial. (yeah sour grapes perhaps me thinks/) that being said I will have the parties meet as a forum (the smokers and non) outside the meeting and have them re-submit a motion to recind and alter as/if  they decide.

 

this is a great forum for these discussions. thanks to all.

cheers

Allan

 

[Timothy]

Voting on the amendment but not voting on the main motion isn't something you want to make a habit of. One of the men I looked up to as a child would often propose amendments to motions in an effort to clarify the wording of motions and then after the amendments passed, he voted against the main motion because he opposed the main concept. That's the way it ought to be, because you are never assured that the main motion will be voted down and you want it worded in the best possible way if you end up living with it. So, the vote on an amendment may be significantly different from the vote on the main motion.

 

I don't see this as a continuing breach because anyone who might have voted against the motion had the opportunity to raise a point of order.

[Gary Novosielski]

And the chair should be advised that he has no business "chastising" a member for making a point of order--that's what you did, right? 

 

If not, you should have.  Grumbling in place is not the same as rising to a Point of Order.

 

Once a point of order is raised, the chair ultimately has two choices: Rule the point well-taken, or not well-taken.  Note that chastising the member is not among the choices open to the chair.

 

Regardless of the ruling, any two members (a mover and a seconder) may then Appeal From the Decision Of the Chair, and by majority vote of the body, overturn it.  The chair is free to argue his case, but chastising is still not an option.
 

[Gary c Tesser]

(snip)

This one was rather brilliant.