Motion passed later Finance committee determined not feasible

[Guest Guest]

During a Board Meeting a member made a motion (that passed) to spend more money on speakers/programs. Later, while preparing the budget, the Finance Committee determined that it was not feasible.

 

For future reference, how should the Chairman have handled the motion? Should it have been referred to Finance first as it was not a budget item?

 

What happens to this motion? Does it die? Does it need to be rescinded?

 

Thank you.

[jstackpo]

As with Alice in Wonderland:  Budget First, appropriations later.

 

Since you were  --  apparently  --  operating without an adopted budget, I suppose the chair, if alert, could have just ruled the motion out of order.  As it is now, with the budget adopted (I presume), the best bet, as I see it, would just be to amend the motion that was previously adopted (cf. p. 305) with the appropriation within the limits of available money. 

 

(Maybe the appropriate word is "authorization" [to spend money], not "appropriation". I get the two mixed up, and "appropriation" is not found in RONR anyway.)

[Sean Hunt]

During a Board Meeting a member made a motion (that passed) to spend more money on speakers/programs. Later, while preparing the budget, the Finance Committee determined that it was not feasible.

 

For future reference, how should the Chairman have handled the motion? Should it have been referred to Finance first as it was not a budget item?

Unless your board has special rules to the contrary, motions should never be referred automatically to a committee. The board as a whole may have been well advised to refer it to the Finance Committee, but the committee is subservient to the board and not the other way around. If the board decides to act without consulting the committee, that is their prerogative.

What happens to this motion? Does it die? Does it need to be rescinded?

 

Thank you.

It depends on the exact wording of the motion. If it is still in effect, it may need to be rescinded. I gather that it was something like "Next year, the organization will spend twice as much money on speakers/programs." If this is the case, the motion is ongoing and will not expire until the end of next year. Any budget which was contrary to this motion would be out of order, so it would have to be rescinded first before a different budget could be introduced.

[Guest Guest]

There was an exisiting budget and a new one is adopted each year.

 

The person making the motion wanted the organization to bring in speakers/programs that cost more money to perhaps encourage better attendance at the semi-annual District meetings.

 

The motion occured at the Board Meeting and not the general membership meeting. And when the Finance Committee met to consider the next year's budget they determined that the funds were not available for this increase in Speaker's fees.

[Guest Guest]

The Standing Rules state:  "Any motions requiring the expenditure of money not allocated in the budget must be referred to the Finance Committee before being presented to the Board.

 

We can't afford it so what is the proper way to handle the situation now?

[Josh Martin]

The Standing Rules state:  "Any motions requiring the expenditure of money not allocated in the budget must be referred to the Finance Committee before being presented to the Board.

 

We can't afford it so what is the proper way to handle the situation now?

 

A rule of this nature is a special rule of order, not a standing rule. Such a rule can be suspended anyway, so it's too late to raise a Point of Order.

 

The proper course of action at this time would be for the board to Rescind the motion regarding the speakers. The Finance Committee may recommend that the board does this, if it wishes. The motion to Rescind requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

[Guest Guest]

For future knowledge... does the Parliamentarian raise the Point of Order or should he/she advise the President that before the motion can come before the Board that it first needs to be referred to the Finance Committee. If the latter situation applies, is the motion tabled or how does it need to be handled. 

 

Your comments have all been helpful in figuring this out and knowing how to handle it in the future.

[Josh Martin]

For future knowledge... does the Parliamentarian raise the Point of Order or should he/she advise the President that before the motion can come before the Board that it first needs to be referred to the Finance Committee. If the latter situation applies, is the motion tabled or how does it need to be handled. 

 

Your comments have all been helpful in figuring this out and knowing how to handle it in the future.

 

The Parliamentarian should quietly advise the President on this matter. The motion is certainly not tabled. The motion to Lay on the Table is used to temporarily set aside a pending motion in order to take up some other urgent business. The motion to Commit or Refer is used to send a motion to a committee, but that is unnecessary here because of your rules on this subject. The chair should announce that, due to the society's rules on this subject, the motion is automatically referred to the Finance Committee.

[jstackpo]

Unless the parliamentarian is a member of the association (a bad idea) he/she is SOLELY an advisor to the chair  --  doesn't raise points of order or anything else, just warns the chair when trouble looks to be pending.

 

Or keeps quiet if the presiding officer prefers it that way.

[Josh Martin]

Unless the parliamentarian is a member of the association (a bad idea) he/she is SOLELY an advisor to the chair  --  doesn't raise points of order or anything else, just warns the chair when trouble looks to be pending.

 

Or keeps quiet if the presiding officer prefers it that way.

 

I don't know that it is a bad idea for a member of a society to serve as its parliamentarian, so long as the member understands and is willing to follow the duties of impartiality associated with the position. (Although based on the questions we get about member-parliamentarians, this appears to be a lot to ask for.)

[Dan Honemann]

I don't know that it is a bad idea for a member of a society to serve as its parliamentarian, so long as the member understands and is willing to follow the duties of impartiality associated with the position. (Although based on the questions we get about member-parliamentarians, this appears to be a lot to ask for.)

 

I'd say that nine times out of ten the member parliamentarian knows next to nothing about parliamentary procedure, and serves as parliamentarian of an organization that very seldom needs one but has adopted bylaws that call for one.

[Guest Guest]

As an interested member, I'm asking questions and trying to learn. This is the first step. And you are helping and contributing to our learning. A great service.

[jstackpo]

Great!  Keep coming back.

 

And to wile away the hours when nobody responds to your questions get a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link. Or in your local bookstore.

[Edgar Guest]

As an interested member, I'm asking questions and trying to learn.

 

Then stop being a guest named "Guest" and become a member of this humble forum. No salesman will call and there are many benefits. Like 10% off at your local tavern (just kidding).