Fix a mistake

[Tom Coronite]

Our church has a diaconate which is essentially the executive board of the church. It acts for the church in between the church's annual meetings and is subordinate to the church.

Several months ago there was a proposal made at the diaconate (executive board) to "recommend to the congregation that we join the CCC" ( the CCC is an association of congregational churches). As this would be a matter of considerable importance it should be voted on by the congregation. This is why the motion was simply to recommend.

There was much debate on the motion in the diaconate at its October 2014 meeting. The motion was postponed to the April 2015 meeting. Diaconate meets monthly except July and August. I know the motion to postpone to April was improper.

Question: what is the effect of the improper motion to postpone? Does it stand because no point of order was raised? If so how can I have the original motion brought up at the March meeting? Or is the motion to postpone null and void?

[jstackpo]

Although the motion to postpone, as you noted, was improper and should have been ruled out of order, it doesn't really make much difference.  I suppose the parliamentary argument could go either way:

 

1)  Since "postpone" wasn't objected to (or "point-of-ordered") at the time, it is still in force and your "Join CCC" motion should come up automatically as a "General Order" at your April meeting.

 

2)  For all sorts of reasons related to the excessive time interval, your "Join CCC" motion has died and will not be automatically before you in April.  (This is rather like a motion that has been tabled and then left there through the next meeting - p. 302.)   But in this case it can me made all over again as "New Business".

 

However, since "General Orders" and "New Business" follow one right upon the other each other in the standard order of business - p. 26  -  it really doesn't matter which argument you agree with. (Or perhaps some other one.)

 

If, right after any committee reports (and any Special Orders), the chair doesn't bring up the "Join CCC" motion, make it yourself as New Business.  No time lost.

[Dan Honemann]

The rules "cannot be suspended in order to permit postponement of a motion to a future session that will be held after the next regular business session ... " (RONR, 11th ed., p. 265, ll. 7-9). As I consequence, the motion to postpone to the April meeting does not prevent the diaconate's assembly from taking up the postponed motion at its next regular meeting. In my opinion, it should come up automatically as a general order at that meeting, and a point of order to that effect can be raised at that time, if necessary.

[Tom Coronite]

In my opinion, it should come up automatically as a general order at that meeting, and a point of order to that effect can be raised at that time, if necessary.

 

I'm not sure what you mean.  It should come up as a general order at which meeting? April or March?

 

Are you saying that because the motion to postpone was improperly handled in october, the postponed motion should have come up as a general order in November, and failing that, in December, then January, etc?  And since it hasn't I can raise a point of order to have it raised next week at the March meeting?

[Tom Coronite]

Although the motion to postpone, as you noted, was improper and should have been ruled out of order, it doesn't really make much difference.  I suppose the parliamentary argument could go either way:

 

1)  Since "postpone" wasn't objected to (or "point-of-ordered") at the time, it is still in force and your "Join CCC" motion should come up automatically as a "General Order" at your April meeting.

 

2)  For all sorts of reasons related to the excessive time interval, your "Join CCC" motion has died and will not be automatically before you in April.  (This is rather like a motion that has been tabled and then left there through the next meeting - p. 302.)   But in this case it can me made all over again as "New Business".

 

However, since "General Orders" and "New Business" follow one right upon the other each other in the standard order of business - p. 26  -  it really doesn't matter which argument you agree with. (Or perhaps some other one.)

 

If, right after any committee reports (and any Special Orders), the chair doesn't bring up the "Join CCC" motion, make it yourself as New Business.  No time lost.

 

I think I would follow the "it makes no difference" position if our next meeting were in April.  But I'd like to raise it at the March meeting next week, and will.  Just curious as to the correct way.

 

Your #1 has the motion coming up in April.

Your #2 has it able to be raised in March.  That's the difference I'm looking at.

[Dan Honemann]

I'm not sure what you mean.  It should come up as a general order at which meeting? April or March?

 

Are you saying that because the motion to postpone was improperly handled in october, the postponed motion should have come up as a general order in November, and failing that, in December, then January, etc?  And since it hasn't I can raise a point of order to have it raised next week at the March meeting?

 

Actually, I missed the fact that regular meetings have intervened since the motion to postpone was adopted. As a consequence, I think it should come up as unfinished business at the next regular meeting, which I gather will be in March.

[Tom Coronite]

And no point of order necessary to do so?

[Gary Novosielski]

A point of order may be necessary if the chair does not bring it up.  

 

I agree that the chair should bring it up at the next meeting, as that meeting is within a quarterly interval.  

 

But it seems to me that if there were no meeting between October and April, then the motion should simply die a quiet death.  There's little practical effect, since the motion can be renewed in April, but I think the rule that prevents postponing a motion that far ahead should prevent it from coming up automatically; otherwise that rule is meaningless.

 

For future reference, a proper way to keep something on the back burner till some distant time is to refer it to a committee with instructions to report back at the desired time.

[Tom Coronite]

Good point.  

 

Am I understanding correctly, then (back to my original 2 questions) that the improper motion to postpone to April is to be considered as if the "to April" part didn't exist and the motion to postpone should be (should have been) brought up as unfinished business in Nov, Dec, Jan, etc... ?  That's what I'm getting.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

The motion to postpone made that item of business a general order. As a general order, I think it could be taken up during the time in the meeting for "General Orders". Since the only way for business to be carried over directly from one session to some later session beyond the next regular business session is by being referred to a committee, that means that this item of business is still within the control of the assembly and could be taken up.

[Tom Coronite]

 Since the only way for business to be carried over directly from one session to some later session beyond the next regular business session is by being referred to a committee...

 

Yup, exactly what I tried to get them to do back in October!

[Josh Martin]

Good point.

Am I understanding correctly, then (back to my original 2 questions) that the improper motion to postpone to April is to be considered as if the "to April" part didn't exist and the motion to postpone should be (should have been) brought up as unfinished business in Nov, Dec, Jan, etc... ? That's what I'm getting.

Yes, I think so. The motion to postpone should be carried out to the extent permitted under the rules. The maximum length of time the motion could have been postponed was to the November meeting. Therefore, the motion was a general order for that meeting. Since it was not reached before adjournment, it then became Unfinished Business for the December meeting, and has been Unfinished Business for every regular meeting since then (since it continued to not be reached before adjournment). It will now be Unfinished Business for the March meeting.

[Richard Brown]

I think I understand where we are with this at the moment, but I'm still confused on a couple of points. The original motion at issue was to postpone the motion from the October meeting to the April meeting when there were intervening meetings in November, December, January and February and there will also be an intervening meeting in March.  I think we all agree that the motion was improperly postponed (or attempted to be postponed) for SIX meetings.

 

The motion was clearly out of order, but, nonetheless, it was not objected to and was adopted.  No point of order was raised.  And the motion clearly said that it was being postponed to the April meeting.

 

This has me wondering whether the motion to postpone for six months was merely out of order or was void or whether it should be treated as something which it was not (i.e., a motion to postpone for only one meeting)?   Was it a continuing breach?  RONR says it is a rule that cannot be suspended.   If it is a rule that cannot be suspended, then it constitutes a continuing breach and can be objected to at any time by a point of order and the breach cannot be waived by the lack of a timely point of order.  Is that correct?

 

Regardless of whether it was proper, the adopted motion was to postpone the matter until the April meeting.  Is it appropriate to just simply ignore the fact that it was voted to postpone the matter until April and pretend that the motion consisted only of the words that the matter "be postponed" without any mention of the date to which it was being postponed?  Or that it be "postponed until the next meeting"?  That is what Josh suggested in post # 12 which he posted as I was typing this.  I agree that his suggestion makes sense, but should we be engaging in such fictions?  How should the minutes read?  Should they not reflect the way the wording of the motion the way it was actually adopted?  I'm hoping we all agree that the minutes should reflect what was actually adopted.

 

It seems to me that if the motion to postpone beyond the next meeting was out of order and is a rule that cannot be suspended or waived, that the motion to postpone to the April meeting can also be viewed as void and of no effect.  Does that leave the matter, then, in the same posture it would be in if the meeting had adjourned while the motion to join the CCC was still pending?  If so, then the matter of the motion to join the CCC is carried over to the next (November) meeting as unfinished business per page 358 lines 19-21.

 

I am aware that, as John S. pointed out, that as a practical matter it may not make any difference how the adoption of the inappropriate motion to postpone to April is treated because it can be brought up as a new motion in April.  That isn't my concern.  I'm concerned about the rules in play and how the inappropriate motion should be handled and whether it is a continuing breach and therefore void or has the breach been waived by the lack of a timely point of order or should it be treated as a fictional motion to postpone just until the next meeting.

 

I'm also concerned about the business of something remaining, perhaps unknowingly, as a general order for month after month, ad infinitum, with no end in sight, for the rest of eternity, able to be suddenly resurrected by some sharp (and perhaps devious) member waiting for months for a meeting with just the right makeup of his friends present to raise a point of order that there is actually a general order an item of unfinished business still pending from nine months ago (or nine years ago) to do such and such.   I recall this being discussed in a thread sometime last year.

 

Shouldn't there be a rule that a general order which was not reached at either of the next two meetings automatically dies and falls to the ground much as a motion laid on the table dies if not taken from the table at the next meeting?  It just doesn't make sense to me that RONR allows a motion that was postponed but not reached at the next meeting to remain as a general order for month after month and year after year, with no one except perhaps for one member remembering anything about it? 

 

What if it was something that requires previous notice, such as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted or for a bylaw amendment?  Previous notice was in fact given before the meeting at which it was originally due to be considered.  A devious member can just let it motion lie in wait until a meeting at which his friends make up the majority of members present and then have it called back up and get it passed.   This is something I hope the authorship team will ponder for the next edition.  It seems to me that unfinished business should also die of natural causes if not brought back up within one or two meetings.

 

Comments?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps this discussion could be continued in this thread that was recently posted in the Advanced Discussion forum.

[Josh Martin]

This has me wondering whether the motion to postpone for six months was merely out of order or was void or whether it should be treated as something which it was not (i.e., a motion to postpone for only one meeting)? Was it a continuing breach? RONR says it is a rule that cannot be suspended. If it is a rule that cannot be suspended, then it constitutes a continuing breach and can be objected to at any time by a point of order and the breach cannot be waived by the lack of a timely point of order. Is that correct?

Yes, this is correct. The rule cannot be suspended, so violating it constitutes a continuing breach.

Regardless of whether it was proper, the adopted motion was to postpone the matter until the April meeting. Is it appropriate to just simply ignore the fact that it was voted to postpone the matter until April and pretend that the motion consisted only of the words that the matter "be postponed" without any mention of the date to which it was being postponed? Or that it be "postponed until the next meeting"? That is what Josh suggested in post # 12 which he posted as I was typing this. I agree that his suggestion makes sense, but should we be engaging in such fictions? How should the minutes read? Should they not reflect the way the wording of the motion the way it was actually adopted? I'm hoping we all agree that the minutes should reflect what was actually adopted.

I am not intending to pretend anything or engage in any fiction. The assembly's motion was quite clearly to postpone the motion until the April meeting. Since this cannot be permitted, however, the chair should instead enforce the motion to the greatest extent possible under the assembly's rules - which would be to postpone it to the next meeting.

The minutes should indeed reflect the wording of the motion as it was actually adopted, perhaps with a marginal notation that this was later determined to be void and the motion was instead postponed to the next regular meeting.

It seems to me that if the motion to postpone beyond the next meeting was out of order and is a rule that cannot be suspended or waived, that the motion to postpone to the April meeting can also be viewed as void and of no effect. Does that leave the matter, then, in the same posture it would be in if the meeting had adjourned while the motion to join the CCC was still pending? If so, then the matter of the motion to join the CCC is carried over to the next (November) meeting as unfinished business per page 358 lines 19-21.

That would be another way of looking at it, I suppose. It makes no difference at this point, as the motion would be Unfinished Business at the time of the March meeting either way.

Shouldn't there be a rule that a general order which was not reached at either of the next two meetings automatically dies and falls to the ground much as a motion laid on the table dies if not taken from the table at the next meeting? It just doesn't make sense to me that RONR allows a motion that was postponed but not reached at the next meeting to remain as a general order for month after month and year after year, with no one except perhaps for one member remembering anything about?

The motion does not continue as a general order. If a general order is not reached before adjournment, it becomes Unfinished Business. It can then theoretically remain as Unfinished Business pretty much indefinitely, so long as there is never a break of more than a quarterly interval between regular meetings and there is not a periodic change in membership (as there would be in an elected body, such as a board). I don't see any problem with this.

I'd note that the situation we are currently discussing arose because of a violation of the rules, and the motion was not brought up at the following regular meetings because the assembly was mistakenly under the impression that it could be postponed until April. Under ordinary circumstances, a motion would not keep trailing along from meeting to meeting without any action on it unless the assembly repeatedly adjourned its meetings early. Additionally, under ordinary circumstances, the assembly (or at the very least, the chair and secretary) should be perfectly aware of General Orders and Unfinished Business scheduled to come before the assembly.

What if it was something that requires previous notice, such as a motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted or for a bylaw amendment? Previous notice was in fact given before the meeting at which it was originally due to be considered. A devious member can just let it motion lie in wait until a meeting at which his friends make up the majority of members present and then have it called back up and get it passed. This is something I hope the authorship team will ponder for the next edition. It seems to me that unfinished business should also die of natural causes if not brought back up within one or two meetings.

A member cannot simply let a motion "lie in wait." Unlike motions which are laid on the table, general orders and unfinished business don't need anyone to bring them up. They automatically come before the assembly at the appointed time. The only way this would not occur is if the assembly adjourns the meeting before the item would come up (which requires a majority vote) or if something has gone horribly wrong (as is the situation in this thread).

I'm more concerned with the potential for abuse if a motion could be "killed" in the manner you suggest, since it would permit a majority to kill the motion without debate, by adjourning the meeting before the matter was reached.