Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Guest Sue

Recommended Posts

During the quarterly meeting of representatives, the elected president of a council of 20 boat clubs thanked a committee for its report on a recent event and said the upcoming meeting of past presidents would further discuss the report.  The matter of whether the council would sponsor the event the next year would be discussed at the next quarterly meeting.  No objection to this was voiced.  Later on, during new business, the committee chairs raised a ruckus, made and seconded a motion to sponsor the event the following year.  A yellilng match ensued, with the current president trying to keep order and civility and the committee chairs being uncivil.  The motion was not acted on.  Now, the committee chairs are doing an end run, calling club representatives and past presidents, trying to tear down the four elected officers and start a "rebellion."  Part of the strategy is claim that the president was out of order by not calling for "tabling" the discussion; thus, it was not allowed and their motion during new business should have been acted on.  Help us understand what's going on here in terms of Robert's Rules, please.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the quarterly meeting of representatives, the elected president of a council of 20 boat clubs thanked a committee for its report on a recent event and said the upcoming meeting of past presidents would further discuss the report.  The matter of whether the council would sponsor the event the next year would be discussed at the next quarterly meeting.  No objection to this was voiced.  Later on, during new business, the committee chairs raised a ruckus, made and seconded a motion to sponsor the event the following year.  A yellilng match ensued, with the current president trying to keep order and civility and the committee chairs being uncivil.  The motion was not acted on.  Now, the committee chairs are doing an end run, calling club representatives and past presidents, trying to tear down the four elected officers and start a "rebellion."  Part of the strategy is claim that the president was out of order by not calling for "tabling" the discussion; thus, it was not allowed and their motion during new business should have been acted on.  Help us understand what's going on here in terms of Robert's Rules, please.

 

Assuming that the committee chairs are members of the assembly that was meeting (this is not entirely clear), the President was out of order for not stating the question on the motion. I don't know where the President got the idea that he could ignore a motion which had been properly made and seconded. The fact that no one voiced any objection to the President's suggestion that this would not be discussed until the next quarterly meeting does not prevent a member from making a motion on the subject during New Business.

 

With that said, the committee chairs are hardly without fault. After the chair improperly ignored the motion, the appropriate course of action was for one of the members to calmly raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary, not to start a yelling match.

 

Lastly, if other members had wished to delay consideration of this motion until the next quarterly meeting, the appropriate motion would have been the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time, not the motion to Lay on the Table. See FAQ #12.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...