Motion out of order after passed?

[grayduck]

A motion just passed and it was suddenly pointed out that its references to where to put it in the Constitution were wrong and an important preposition was missing.

It reads:

MOTION 2015/14

That the following be added to Section VI Sections and Procedures after the Code of Conduct.

CODE OF ETHICS

NESTA follows the “Code for the Education Profession in (country name).

It should have read

MOTION 2015/14

That the following be added to Section VI Meetings and Procedures.

CODE OF ETHICS

NESTA follows the “Code for the Education Profession of (country name)”.

Three errors:

1. "after the Code of Conduct" should have been deleted

2. "Sections" should have been "Meeting"

2. And "in" should have been "of"

It's a mess. Some members think it should be declared out of order and cancelled after the fact, even though it passed. Especially because the wrong preposition means it's referencing a non-existent code. If that happens, the mover says he has no problem making the corrections and moving it again for the next session.

What should we do?

(There's a complicated reason it was put up to vote in this form, no need to go into that. But the errors were not caught until afterwards)

[Gödel Fan]

Nonsensical motions aren't necessarily out of order.  Referencing a non-existent code doesn't mean an amendment to the Constitution (I'm assuming that's what was moved here) is out of order, so far as I know.  It might be a good reason to not adopt such a proposal, and, if it is adopted, to amend it again so that it makes sense.  

[Kim Goldsworthy]

You have two choices:

1.) Amend it.

2.) Rescind it and start over with a fresh motion.

 

[grayduck]

How do you "rescind" or "not adopt" a motion that has already passed?

[Dan Honemann]

A motion just passed and it was suddenly pointed out that its references to where to put it in the Constitution were wrong and an important preposition was missing.

It reads:

MOTION 2015/14

That the following be added to Section VI Sections and Procedures after the Code of Conduct.

CODE OF ETHICS

NESTA follows the “Code for the Education Profession in (country name).

It should have read

MOTION 2015/14

That the following be added to Section VI Meetings and Procedures.

CODE OF ETHICS

NESTA follows the “Code for the Education Profession of (country name)”.

Three errors:

1. "after the Code of Conduct" should have been deleted

2. "Sections" should have been "Meeting"

2. And "in" should have been "of"

It's a mess. Some members think it should be declared out of order and cancelled after the fact, even though it passed. Especially because the wrong preposition means it's referencing a non-existent code. If that happens, the mover says he has no problem making the corrections and moving it again for the next session.

What should we do?

(There's a complicated reason it was put up to vote in this form, no need to go into that. But the errors were not caught until afterwards)

 

 

"That the following be added to Section VI Sections and Procedures after the Code of Conduct." are, I gather, simply the enacting words of the motion to amend your constitution, incorrectly designating the Section (Section VI) to be amended as being "Section VI Sections and Procedures after the Code of Conduct." instead of "Section VI Meetings and Procedures." If your Constitution has no Section called "Sections and Procedures after the Code of Conduct.", there should be no doubt as to the Section of your Constitution that was amended. Adoption of this motion did not have the effect of amending the name of Section VI.

 

I think you will probably want to amend Section VI of your Constitution again by striking out "in" and inserting "of" in the language you just added to it.

[Dan Honemann]

How do you "rescind" or "not adopt" a motion that has already passed?

 

I think the suggestion in post #2 to "not adopt such a proposal" is based on an assumption that the proposal has not already been adopted.

 

Assume that, in post #3, the "it" in the first suggestion refers to your constitution, and just ignore the second suggestion. A motion to amend an organization's constitution or bylaws that has been adopted cannot simply be rescinded. The only way to undo what was done is to adopt another motion to amend the constitution or bylaws. 

[Gary Novosielski]

How do you "rescind" or "not adopt" a motion that has already passed?

 

Well, you can't "not adopt" something that has been adopted.  

 

You can, however rescind many motions using the motion to Rescind, also known as Repeal in some contexts.

 

However, considering your specific case, you can only rescind a motion to the extent that the action that it proposed has not yet been carried out.  For example, if a motion were passed to donate $20 to the Jeepien Philanthropic Phund, it could only be rescinded before the money was sent.  Once the motion is carried out, it's too late to rescind.

 

Bylaws amendments, once passed, are complete.  The action they propose (changing the bylaws) has already been carried out, as the bylaws have been changed.  The motion cannot be rescinded.

 

The way to remedy errors like this is to amend the bylaws again, by the same process as before, and fix the language that was incorrect.

[grayduck]

But will the amendment be enforceable between being being passed and amended? Where will I put it in the Constitution if there is no such section? Does it just "float" somewhere until everything can be clarified in an amendment?

The sticklers in our membership won't accept, "well it obviously goes here". They want it to be called out of order, regardless of if it passed. How do I respond to them?

[Gary Novosielski]

But will the amendment be enforceable between being being passed and amended? Where will I put it in the Constitution if there is no such section? Does it just "float" somewhere until everything can be clarified in an amendment?

The sticklers in our membership won't accept, "well it obviously goes here". They want it to be called out of order, regardless of if it passed. How do I respond to them?

 

As I understand your earlier post, although you named it incorrectly, there is, in fact, a Section VI.   Is there some reason to believe that it was intended to go somewhere else?

 

As for responding to them, is there some reason you are the one who will be responding to them?  I.e., are you the presiding officer?  If so, you will rule as you believe to be correct (subject to Appeal).   First, someone will have to raise a point of order at a membership meeting that the amendment should be considered null and void, and you would then rule on that point, giving your reasons.

 

If I were in the chair, I would probably rule the point not well taken, but there's no danger that I will be.

[grayduck]

Yes, I'm the officer. So I should put the amendment in Section VI and disregard the subsequent text "after the Code of Conduct" (that is in Section VII). But will the amendment be valid/actionable if the preposition has not been amended to reflect the actual title of the local ordinance?

 

My guess is that it would not be enforceable until "in" has been amended to "of" at the next meeting. It will be deadwood until that happens.

[Gary Novosielski]

Ultimately, that decision will be up to the membership, as a matter of bylaws interpretation.  

[Dan Honemann]

Yes, I'm the officer. So I should put the amendment in Section VI and disregard the subsequent text "after the Code of Conduct" (that is in Section VII). But will the amendment be valid/actionable if the preposition has not been amended to reflect the actual title of the local ordinance?

 

Well now, this additional information concerning the fact that there is actually a "Code of Conduct" in Section VII of your bylaws which may be the "Code of Conduct" referred to in the description of the Section of the Constitution proposed to be amended in the motion which was adopted changes things dramatically. It now appears that there may be some serious doubt as to which Section of your Constitution the motion proposed be amended. 

 

Under these circumstances, please disregard my response in post #5.

[grayduck]

I know. It's a mess. Sorry, I thought it was implied that there is a Code of Conduct. I should have been clearer.

 

But the mover of the motion intended it to go under Section VI Meetings and Procedures. The "after the Code of Conduct" was incorrectly added.

[Josh Martin]

The sticklers in our membership won't accept, "well it obviously goes here". They want it to be called out of order, regardless of if it passed. How do I respond to them?

Are these sticklers in your membership arguing that there is honestly some doubt about which section was to be amended? That is, some members were under the impression, when they voted, that some other section was being amended? Or are they just trying to invalidate an amendment they don't like because of a technicality?

[Gary Novosielski]

The new language says that NESTA will follow that professional code.  Okay.

 

So how would the effect of the new language change depending on what section it is included in?   

 

No matter where you put it, it says that you have to follow the professional code.  If you do, you're good; if not, you're violating the bylaws.  That's true whether it's in § VI or § VII or § LXIV.

 

I think it's proper to figure out where it ought to go, but I don't see a valid argument for not enforcing it in the meantime.

[grayduck]

Yes, the sticklers are trying to find a way to invalidate the amendment because they don't like it. They're trying to use both the reasons you mentioned: that the membership is confused about where it should and they may have been voting on that, and the grammatical error of "in" versus "of" meaning it doesn't refer to a real ordinance.

 

They'll certainly move for a rescind before they'll accept an amending. All for a wrong preposition.

[Gödel Fan]

If they move to "rescind" an amendment, you get to exercise that Motions Officer power and say it's out of order.  You can also tell them that the correct motion is to amend the bylaws by striking the portion that was added.

[Josh Martin]

Yes, the sticklers are trying to find a way to invalidate the amendment because they don't like it. They're trying to use both the reasons you mentioned: that the membership is confused about where it should and they may have been voting on that, and the grammatical error of "in" versus "of" meaning it doesn't refer to a real ordinance.

They'll certainly move for a rescind before they'll accept an amending. All for a wrong preposition.

The idea that a grammatical error will invalidate the amendment because the name of the ordinance referred to is not exactly right is ridiculous, and the wrong placement theory isn't much better. There are some circumstances where a change in placement may result in a change in meaning, but based on this response, it seems doubtful that is the case here.

Tell them that the errors are unfortunate but are by no means sufficient to invalidate the amendment. If they wish to seek to amend the bylaws again to try to remove the new section, they are certainly free to do so. Other members can offer amendments to fix the errors.

[grayduck]

Okay. They are being ridiculous. That'll be even more obvious next month when a motion is sent to the entire membership to change a preposition!

[Dan Honemann]

Okay. They are being ridiculous. That'll be even more obvious next month when a motion is sent to the entire membership to change a preposition!

 

I'm not prepared to call these members sticklers being ridiculous. Based solely upon what has been posted so far, it may make perfect sense for members to have believed that the Code of Ethics was to be added immediately following the Code of Conduct in Section VII.

 

What is the title of Section VII, and why would it make no sense to add the Code of Ethics to that Section following the Code of Conduct, since, on the face, these Codes seem to be related?

[grayduck]

Currently the sections are as follows (I'll only put in the headers)

 

SECTION VI MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES

Executive Committee Meetings

General Meetings

Committee Meetings

 

SECTION VII FORUM

Duties of the Forum Moderator

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR XXX WEBSITE

 

Originally the mover wanted to put it as a line in the main Constitution just before our #11 referencing Robert's Rules. But then I thought that since it was a Code of Ethics, it might be better in our Bylaws after our Code of Conduct. Similar things. Two Codes. But he correctly pointed out that that was the Forum Section and the Code of Conduct was for the Forum. So putting a general Code of Ethics in the Forum section would be wrong. He thought it would be better to go in SECTION VI MEETINGS AND PROCEDURES. Both of us hadn't cleaned up the wording before I was forced to submit the motions (another long story).

 

I'm tempted to just invalidate the vote for that motion and have the mover resubmit for a new vote at the next meeting. He's fine with that. That would be the easiest solution, although you guys seem to say I can't pull a motion that has already been passed, even with all the reference and grammatical errors. But maybe this is an example of what Josh wrote when he meant that placement in a section would result in a change in meaning.

[Dan Honemann]

Okay, so the Codes aren't really related, and it does appear that, since Section VII deals with your Forum, it is not reasonable to assume that the motion was intended as an amendment to Section VII rather than Section VI simply because of the reference to the Code of Conduct.

 

I'd say that the amendment should be has been made to Section VI, in accordance with the motion which was adopted, and sometime in the future you should amend Section VI of your Constitution again by striking out "in" and inserting "of" in the language you just added to it.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm tempted to just invalidate the vote for that motion and have the mover resubmit for a new vote at the next meeting. He's fine with that. That would be the easiest solution, although you guys seem to say I can't pull a motion that has already been passed, even with all the reference and grammatical errors. But maybe this is an example of what Josh wrote when he meant that placement in a section would result in a change in meaning.

 

I very much doubt that this is an example of that, and so does Josh, as he stated in his response.

 

The member you're referring to may be fine with it, but RONR is not.  Your bylaws have been amended, and although mistakes were made, these mistakes were made jointly by at least 2/3 of your members, who voted for the changes.  There is no proper method at this point to "invalidate" the will of the assembly, apart from correcting the bylaws by the standard amendment process.  Failing to do this properly would be, in my view, a much greater mistake than the ones already made, since it would be a purposeful and knowing violation of the rules.

[Guest]

We also had a motion that passed and was ruled out of order after the fact. Is it legal to bring the motion back at the next meeting, state after research the motion was found to be out of order and rewind the motion?

[Hieu H. Huynh]

6 minutes ago, Guest said:

We also had a motion that passed and was ruled out of order after the fact. Is it legal to bring the motion back at the next meeting, state after research the motion was found to be out of order and rewind the motion?

Please post as a new topic.