Jim Anderson Posted December 27, 2016 at 12:55 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 12:55 AM At a Board meeting of our organization, a member made the following motion: "I move to enact a policy that our store shall not sell consignment or donated products" After the meeting was completed and this motion passed, a member brought up that this motion formed a negative statement in the motion and therefore should not have been allowed without re-wording in the "positive". My question is: does this motion fit the description of a "negative statement" in this motion as described on page 104 under "The Framing of Main Motions" and should it have been avoided or reworded somehow in the "positive"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:27 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:27 AM Was the store previously selling such goods? This doesn't look to me like negative language; negative language is language whose effect is to do nothing. Here, you're adopting a policy (or possibly rescinding an earlier policy). An example of negative language would: I move that we not enact a policy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:28 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:28 AM What would have happened if the motion failed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:30 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:30 AM Just now, Hieu H. Huynh said: What would have happened if the motion failed? They wouldn't have enacted a policy prohibiting consignment or donated goods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Anderson Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:38 AM Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:38 AM Our store, up to this point, does not sell consignment or donated products. The question came up due to a member wishing to place items he/she made in the store for sale with the understanding any proceeds would be donated to the organization. Mr. Godelfan is correct in what the outcome would have been if the motion failed. We simply would not have had such a policy and such items would be allowed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:45 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 01:45 AM It's unclear to me why you didn't want these donated items, but I think this is clearly a positive motion - it is to adopt a policy. If that were negative language, there would be no way to adopt such a policy, or any policy prohibiting something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Anderson Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:27 AM Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:27 AM I apologize for an error I made in the quoted motion made above. The corrected motion as actually stated at the meeting by the member: "I move that we do not allow donated items or products for sale at the Store" The intention was to create a policy if this motion was adopted (which if was). Does this corrected version still form a positive motion in your view? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:45 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:45 AM I think it's important that the assembly understands the effect of adopting or defeating a motion. Defeating a motion to not do something does not mean that you do it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:47 AM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:47 AM 18 minutes ago, Jim Anderson said: I apologize for an error I made in the quoted motion made above. The corrected motion as actually stated at the meeting by the member: "I move that we do not allow donated items or products for sale at the Store" The intention was to create a policy if this motion was adopted (which if was). Does this corrected version still form a positive motion in your view? The wording is a little less clear, but it still looks to me like a main motion to make a rule. It still looks like a positive motion; it would be a negative one if donated items or products were already prohibited, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Anderson Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:11 AM Author Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:11 AM Thank you very much for your replys Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:47 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 02:47 PM I agree with Godelfan. I see nothing wrong with the motion. You adopted a rule or policy restricting the items that can be sold. It is no different than the policy many businesses and organizations adopt prohibiting the sale of firearms or the possession of firearms on the premises. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:07 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:07 PM I agree with Godelfan too, except for the notion that the motion would be a negative one if the sale of donated items or products were already prohibited. If this were the case, it would appear that a motion "that we do not allow donated items or products for sale at the Store" would be out of order as being tantamount to a motion to reaffirm the already existing policy (RONR, 11th ed., p. 104, ll. 24-31). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Katz Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:08 PM Report Share Posted December 27, 2016 at 03:08 PM Just now, Daniel H. Honemann said: I agree with Godelfan too, except for the notion that the motion would be a negative one if the sale of donated items or products were already prohibited. If this were the case, it would appear that a motion "that we do not allow donated items or products for sale at the Store" would be out of order as being tantamount to a motion to reaffirm the already existing policy (RONR, 11th ed., p. 104, ll. 24-31). Yes, I misspoke. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts