keefe Posted June 7, 2015 at 01:33 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 01:33 AM I am looking for clarification on Motion to Ratify. On page 124 it states the following: Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include:-action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not not mentioned in the call of the meeting. It is my understanding that no business can take place at a special meeting that is not included in the call of the meeting. (The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. Pg. 93) Further down on 93 it then states that "If, at a special meeting, action is taken relating to business not mentioned in the call, that action, to become valid, must be ratified, by the organization at a regular meeting (or at another special meeting properly called for that purpose.) So business not mentioned in the call take be taken but not moved on? Would that business then be postponed to a certain time (ie. next meeting)? I am sure this is much simpler than my brain is allowing it to be. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has information on this. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted June 7, 2015 at 01:59 AM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 01:59 AM The society is not bound by the action taken at a special meeting that was not specified in the call of the meeting. It may ratify such action at the next meeting. Or rule it null and void. If the action was carried out and the society does not want it to be done, it could discipline those responsible for the action. So those who take such action do so at their own risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:55 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:55 PM I am looking for clarification on Motion to Ratify. On page 124 it states the following:Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include:-action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not not mentioned in the call of the meeting.It is my understanding that no business can take place at a special meeting that is not included in the call of the meeting. (The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. Pg. 93) Further down on 93 it then states that "If, at a special meeting, action is taken relating to business not mentioned in the call, that action, to become valid, must be ratified, by the organization at a regular meeting (or at another special meeting properly called for that purpose.)So business not mentioned in the call take be taken but not moved on? Would that business then be postponed to a certain time (ie. next meeting)?I am sure this is much simpler than my brain is allowing it to be. I look forward to hearing from anyone who has information on this.Thank you.Business not included in the call of a special meeting cannot be considered at all. If the assembly improperly proceeds to do so anyway (perhaps because of the extreme urgency of the situation), the motion is null and void unless ratified at a regular meeting or a special meeting called for the purpose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:57 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 03:57 PM Keefe, it's no different from action taken without a quorum. It is null and void unless subsequently ratified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 7, 2015 at 07:11 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 07:11 PM It is null and void unless subsequently ratified. I seem to recall some here arguing that it's not null and void until it's officially declared to be null and void. Not that I'm one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 7, 2015 at 08:37 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 08:37 PM I seem to recall some here arguing that it's not null and void until it's officially declared to be null and void. Not that I'm one of them.Could be, but page 347 of RONR seems pretty clear on the point: "PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF A QUORUM. In the absence of a quorum, any business transacted (except for the procedural actions noted in the next paragraph) is null and void." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted June 7, 2015 at 09:03 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 09:03 PM It is null and void and a point of order can be raised at any time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 7, 2015 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 09:32 PM It is null and void and a point of order can be raised at any time. And, presumably, the chair could rule the point of order not well taken and the assembly could sustain that ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted June 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM Report Share Posted June 7, 2015 at 11:52 PM And, presumably, the chair could rule the point of order not well taken and the assembly could sustain that ruling. It could, but one would sincerely hope the assembly would not do this. Such a ruling would be clearly wrong and set an extremely dangerous precedent. It would be far more sensible for the assembly to acknowledge that the business is null and void, and Ratify it if it wishes to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edgar Guest Posted June 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 12:01 AM Such a ruling would be clearly wrong and set an extremely dangerous precedent. Well, in a black-and-white world, such a ruling might, indeed, be clearly wrong. But what if, in Mr. Brown's scenario, it wasn't clear whether a quorum was or wasn't present? Isn't the presumption that the action was legitimate until it's ruled (and sustained) that it wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 12:17 AM The state, or status, of an improperly adopted motion which is in "need" of ratification or in "need" of having a point of order raised about it in order to decide whether the motion was OK after all, or not, is rather like the quantum state of Schroedinger's Cat. You really don't know if the motion is OK (and the maker is off the hook for costs), or not, until (to jump back to S's Cat) you open the box and look at (or "measure") the cat: dead or alive? The "measurement" of the potentially improper motion is accomplished by the combined activity of raising a point of order, getting a ruling, appealing it, and voting on sustaining the appeal, or by ratifying the motion at a later date. Once that measurement is done, you know where you are. But it isn't really correct to say that, as in post #6, inquorate business is "null and void". It may be, it may not be; it is in a state of parliamentary indeterminancy up until the point that you look at it. It may stay there for a long long time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted June 8, 2015 at 02:35 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 02:35 AM But it isn't really correct to say that, as in post #6, inquorate business is "null and void". It may be, it may not be; it is in a state of parliamentary indeterminancy up until the point that you look at it. It may stay there for a long long time....Well, the quote in post # 6 is a copy and paste taken directly from the CD-ROM version of RONR 11th edition, and it appears to be identical to my printed edition, so perhaps your argument should be taken up with the authorship team. I suspect the quote is based on the stated assumption that the action was, indeed, taken at an inquorate meeting and that that fact is not in dispute. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted June 8, 2015 at 05:34 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 05:34 AM so perhaps your argument should be taken up with the authorship team.Oh, I do that all the time -- I have no idea if to any effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted June 8, 2015 at 10:48 AM Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 10:48 AM But it isn't really correct to say that, as in post #6, inquorate business is "null and void". It may be, it may not be; it is in a state of parliamentary indeterminancy up until the point that you look at it. It may stay there for a long long time.... So it isn't "really correct" to say that business transacted in the absence of a quorum is null and void, not because business transacted in the absence of a quorum is not always null and void but because there may not have been an absence of a quorum. Brilliant thinking! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keefe Posted June 8, 2015 at 04:15 PM Author Report Share Posted June 8, 2015 at 04:15 PM Thank you all for your input this helps a great deal in understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:34 PM Report Share Posted June 9, 2015 at 12:34 PM So it isn't "really correct" to say that business transacted in the absence of a quorum is null and void, not because business transacted in the absence of a quorum is not always null and void but because there may not have been an absence of a quorum. Brilliant thinking! Sure. Just as murder isn't always illegal because sometimes people don't commit murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.