Guest Henri Posted June 24, 2014 at 01:09 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 01:09 PM What is the correct procedure if the meeting has adjourned without a vote on the amended main motion? The amendment was voted on and approved but not the final amended main motion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 24, 2014 at 01:25 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 01:25 PM What is the correct procedure if the meeting has adjourned without a vote on the amended main motion? The amendment was voted on and approved but not the final amended main motion. If the main motion, as amended, was pending when the meeting adjourned, it will become the first item of unfinished business at your next meeting if your meetings are not separated by more than a quarterly time interval ( see pp. 89–90). RONR (11th ed.), p. 358 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Henri Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:16 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:16 PM Actually, the chairman went on to the next agenda items. The meeting adjourned and now the group realizes it incorrectly moved on. Is the procedure still as you stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:44 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:44 PM Actually, the chairman went on to the next agenda items. The meeting adjourned and now the group realizes it incorrectly moved on. Is the procedure still as you stated? No. None of the ways business automatically comes over to the next session seem to apply to this situation, so just make the motion anew (in any form) at your next meeting and go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:50 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 07:50 PM I see no reason why they can't just take it up as unfinished business at the the next meeting. The items of business they handled at the previous meeting would've been out of order and if someone had raised a point of order would've been set aside until the motion was voted on. So, effectively, the motion was still pending when the meeting adjourned and should be the first item under unfinished business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 24, 2014 at 08:21 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 08:21 PM I see no reason why they can't just take it up as unfinished business at the the next meeting. The items of business they handled at the previous meeting would've been out of order and if someone had raised a point of order would've been set aside until the motion was voted on. So, effectively, the motion was still pending when the meeting adjourned and should be the first item under unfinished business. The response in post #4 is entirely correct. The motion that was dropped cannot be taken up at the next meeting as unfinished business because, based upon the facts provided, it isn't unfinished business. If it is to be taken up again at a future meeting, it will have to be made again as new business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 24, 2014 at 08:43 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 08:43 PM Hmmm, since it is a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law" (FPPL) - p. 59 - that the assembly "must" dispose of a pending issue before going on to other business, this would call into question the propriety of all business that was indeed taken up after the amended main motion was "skipped over" or "dropped" rather than being properly disposed of. Further since a violation of an FPPL is a continuing breach of order - p. 251 ( d ) - a point of order need not be timely, which gives the enemies of whatever might have been adopted after the main motion in question was dropped ample time to raise the point of order that any or all of those motions are null and void. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 24, 2014 at 09:02 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 09:02 PM Hmmm, since it is a "fundamental principle of parliamentary law" (FPPL) - p. 59 - that the assembly "must" dispose of a pending issue before going on to other business, this would call into question the propriety of all business that was indeed taken up after the amended main motion was "skipped over" or "dropped" rather than being properly disposed of. Further since a violation of an FPPL is a continuing breach of order - p. 251 ( d ) - a point of order need not be timely, which gives the enemies of whatever might have been adopted after the main motion in question was dropped ample time to raise the point of order that any or all of those motions are null and void. The assembly disposed of the amended motion by dropping it and moving on to other things. Perhaps they thought that they had adopted the main motion as amended by adopting the amendment, but if so they were in error. Before going further out on this limb, take a look at the last portion of General Robert's response in Q&A #8 in PL (pp. 409-410). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 24, 2014 at 09:17 PM Report Share Posted June 24, 2014 at 09:17 PM Oh, I like going out on (strong) limbs -- the view is always much nicer there than close in to the trunk surrounded by foliage. If it is of no particular consequence to drop a motion without finishing with (formally disposing of) it, why grace the requirement to dispose of a pending motion before going on with the rule that it is a "fundamental principle"? Seems like overkill. I agree that calling all the following business into question is a bit silly, and that a prompt point of order to take care of the pending business is appropriate (as Henry the 1st said), but the (unnecessary - ?) lifting of the "finish it now" rule to an FPPL somewhat clouds the issue. What makes it "fundamental"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timothy Posted June 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 at 11:48 AM The assembly disposed of the amended motion by dropping it and moving on to other things. Perhaps they thought that they had adopted the main motion as amended by adopting the amendment, but if so they were in error. Before going further out on this limb, take a look at the last portion of General Robert's response in Q&A #8 in PL (pp. 409-410). It seems like quite a stretch to say that "the assembly disposed of [it]." They may have thought they did, but there may have been many different opinions of what they thought they did. Perhaps they thought they adopted it. Perhaps they thought they tabled it. Perhaps they thought they postponed it. Or maybe they just forgot to vote on it. In any case, now that they are aware of a breach, it is necessary for them to clarify the situation. If it must be taken up as new business, then there is the possibility that it won't be taken up at all and the people who think they adopted it will carry it out, while the people who think it failed will continue accordingly. But if they take it up as unfinished business and dispose of it properly, there is no question as to what should be done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM Report Share Posted June 25, 2014 at 12:28 PM Cautionary note to Guest Henri and others: The response in post #4 is entirely correct. The motion that was dropped cannot be taken up at the next meeting as unfinished business because, based upon the facts provided, it isn't unfinished business. If it is to be taken up again at a future meeting, it will have to be made again as new business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.