Guest Mike Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:01 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:01 AM At a previous business session a motion was made & approved that a certain salary severance be given to a out going staff member. At the next meeting someone made a motion to ask the Personel Committee to review the amount approved because the staff member had secured two part time jobs. My question is the 2nd motion to try to ask for the Personnel to review out of order? There was not a motion to amend. Is that motion out of order? Here is something I have research per from this site. Please give me clear understanding of the proper handling of this motion." the assembly wants to amend a motion it has previously adopted it needs to adopt a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (ASPA). The fact that the membership may change in the interim is not relevant. Nor is the fact that the original motion may have been adopted in May and might be amended in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:06 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:06 AM Stay tuned for my betters, but my initial reaction is that a committee can be tasked to research a question and come back with recommendations, even if those recommendations might require a motion to amend something previously adopted for their adoption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:17 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:17 AM Help me understand what the question of the chair concerning a previous motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gödel Fan Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:44 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 12:44 AM I'm not following that last question. My point is this: to change what the assembly has previously decided requires a motion to amend something previously adopted (2/3 vote, or majority with notice, or majority of the entire membership). However, directing a committee to research a topic and make recommendations doesn't (so far as I can tell) change something that was previously decided. So a majority vote can direct a committee to look into it, but when the committee returns with recommendations, if implementing those recommendations changes a past decision, then the motion to implement those recommendations would be a motion to amend something previously adopted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 2, 2015 at 01:12 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 01:12 AM Help me understand what the question of the chair concerning a previous motion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 2, 2015 at 01:27 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 01:27 AM A rule a parliamentarian stated that a moition to question the chair of the previous motion ?Anyone know anything that sounds similar ?In other words a motion that was made at the previous meeting has to stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted November 2, 2015 at 02:47 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 02:47 AM A rule a parliamentarian stated that a moition to question the chair of the previous motion ?Anyone know anything that sounds similar ?In other words a motion that was made at the previous meeting has to stand? An adopted main motion is in force until it is rescinded. Is that the rule being referred to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted November 2, 2015 at 03:08 AM Report Share Posted November 2, 2015 at 03:08 AM At a previous business session a motion was made & approved that a certain salary severance be given to a out going staff member.At the next meeting someone made a motion to ask the Personel Committee to review the amount approved because the staff member had secured two part time jobs. My question is the 2nd motion to try to ask for the Personnel to review out of order? There was not a motion to amend. Is that motion out of order? Here is something I have research per from this site. Please give me clear understanding of the proper handling of this motion. It seems to me that the motion is in order, unless the severance has already been paid. A rule a parliamentarian stated that a moition to question the chair of the previous motion ?Anyone know anything that sounds similar ?In other words a motion that was made at the previous meeting has to stand? If the assembly wants to amend a motion it has previously adopted, a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is necessary. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice for adoption. The proposed motion, however, does not amend the motion previously adopted. It directs the committee to investigate the issue. The committee might propose no change, or it might ultimately propose a change, and the committee would then recommend a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Now, what this means is that the originally adopted motion will still be in effect while the committee completes its review, which might mean that the severance gets paid and the review becomes moot. So if the member wishes to ensure this doesn't happen, then he should indeed make a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to cancel (or at least delay) the severance payment, so that the review can be completed. As a parliamentary matter, this is in order so long as the severance has not yet been paid. There might be some legal issues involved, but those are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.