Motion for the future

[Guest Penny]

At a recent meeting to approve mileage and expenses for a member, the president questioned the appropriateness of the mileage and said there had been a previous motion to not allow such expenses.  No one could remember whether or not the action had taken place.  She then entertained a motion to require next years Board to look into the matter and it passed.  This will take place next June.  I know this is  wrong but cannot find a citation in RONR.  I'm sure I saw something about motions with an effective date in the future.  Any suggestions?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I see nothing wrong with treating a board as a "committee" -- i.e., to make a motion that the board "look into X".

And to report back, of course, with a recommendation about issue X.

 

Note that this motion has near-zero chance of fulfillment -- WIth no one in charge, surely, this motion will drop between the cracks and be long-forgotten by the time the 2015 board is installed.

And the 2015 board will make the identical motion.

And so on, 2016, 2017. . .

:-(

[Guest Penny]

I see nothing wrong with treating a board as a "committee" -- i.e., to make a motion that the board "look into X".

And to report back, of course, with a recommendation about issue X.

 

Note that this motion has near-zero chance of fulfillment -- WIth no one in charge, surely, this motion will drop between the cracks and be long-forgotten by the time the 2015 board is installed.

And the 2015 board will make the identical motion.

And so on, 2016, 2017. . .

:-(

I totally agree as that is why it came up in the 1st place.  What was the proper way to handle this?  By the way, she got mad and stomped out. . .again.

[Edgar Guest]

No one could remember whether or not the action had taken place. 

 

What can't be remembered? Whether there was a previous motion to not allow such expenses? Check the minutes. Whether such expenses were paid? Check the bank account.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

What was the proper way to handle this?

The proper way of "looking into [X]" is to CREATE A COMMITTEE.

 

There must always be a party in charge.

Just saying, "The board should look into it" is like saying, "Someone should do something."-- 'No responsibility' equals 'no work done.'

 

With a committee, there is always a committee chair (whose head is now on the block to execute the order in a timely fashion) to take responsibility, since the committee is likely due to report (or likely due to the ORDERED to report) by the next meeting.

 

And next meeting, when the chair calls for the committee report, and THERE IS NO REPORT, then either

(a.) the committtee can be completely discharged of doing item X. (i.e., admit defeat, and move on.)

(b.) the committee personnel can be swapped out/in with a new set of members (who will actually DO THE WORK).

(c.) the committee head can be [severed?] replaced, with a person who is more responsible.

 

***

 

Beware of the auxilliary verb "should" when placed inside a motion -- The land of "Shoulda-Coulda-Woulda" is where action items go to die.

[Timothy]

At a recent meeting to approve mileage and expenses for a member, the president questioned the appropriateness of the mileage and said there had been a previous motion to not allow such expenses.  No one could remember whether or not the action had taken place.  She then entertained a motion to require next years Board to look into the matter and it passed.  This will take place next June.  I know this is  wrong but cannot find a citation in RONR.  I'm sure I saw something about motions with an effective date in the future.  Any suggestions?

 

"When the outgoing portion of the board vacates membership, all matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground under provision ( c ) on page 237." (pg. 489)

[Timothy]

I see nothing wrong with treating a board as a "committee" -- i.e., to make a motion that the board "look into X".

And to report back, of course, with a recommendation about issue X.

 

Note that this motion has near-zero chance of fulfillment -- WIth no one in charge, surely, this motion will drop between the cracks and be long-forgotten by the time the 2015 board is installed.

And the 2015 board will make the identical motion.

And so on, 2016, 2017. . .

:-(

 

I don't think the intent was for this to be creating a committee, but even if it were, it would be a special committee and would cease to exist at the transition from the 2014 board to the 2015 board. This seems more like an incorrectly worded motion to postpone until next year, but it is effectively a motion to postpone indefinitely.

 

A better approach would be for this year's board to make a list of things they have been considering but haven't completed. They could hand that list off to next year's board and next year's board can do whatever they want with it.

 

However, if this year's board wants "to require next years Board to look into the matter," that is something they would need to get the general membership of the organization to adopt.

[Josh Martin]

I don't think the intent was for this to be creating a committee, but even if it were, it would be a special committee and would cease to exist at the transition from the 2014 board to the 2015 board.

 

The board may specify that the special committee shall last longer than that if it wishes. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 502-503)