Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Guest Amy
 Share

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, Guest Amy said:

A motion was passed for an organization to do something.  It passed.

Then another person made a motion to pay for the something.  It did not pass.

Should the 2nd motion had been accepted?

 

What do you mean when you asked if the second motion should have been "accepted"? Are you asking whether it should have been allowed on the floor or are you asking if it should have been adopted?

Did the first motion provide, either directly or indirectly, that the "something" would be paid for if it cost money? For example, if the motion was to purchase something, that carries with it an implication that the something will be paid for.

A little more information would be helpful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Guest Amy said:

A motion was passed for an organization to do something.  It passed.

Then another person made a motion to pay for the something.  It did not pass.

Should the 2nd motion had been accepted?

 

 

 

 

Seems to me that the motion to "do" something should have included authorization to "pay for" the something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, g40 said:

Seems to me that the motion to "do" something should have included authorization to "pay for" the something.

Don't you think the authorization to pay for the something could be implicit in the motion? For example, if the motion is to purchase a Toshiba laptop computer model xxxx from Best Buy for $500, don't you think that includes authorization to pay for it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Don't you think the authorization to pay for the something could be implicit in the motion? For example, if the motion is to purchase a Toshiba laptop computer model xxxx from Best Buy for $500, don't you think that includes authorization to pay for it?

If the motion had been well-thought out in advance, I'm sure it would have been structured that way.

But it's not uncommon for a motion to be made without thinking through the budget.  For example:  "I move that we host a Membership Party on April 10 and invite Katy Perry to attend" -- that might get resounding approval.  Then "I move that amend the budget to allocate $250,000 to pay for Katy Perry's appearance fee" -- that might fail.  It's true that we lack information on this case, but I don't see it as far-fetched that a group might agree to something without agreeing to, or even thinking about, an exact cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Scott in NYC said:

If the motion had been well-thought out in advance, I'm sure it would have been structured that way.

But it's not uncommon for a motion to be made without thinking through the budget.  For example:  "I move that we host a Membership Party on April 10 and invite Katy Perry to attend" -- that might get resounding approval.  Then "I move that amend the budget to allocate $250,000 to pay for Katy Perry's appearance fee" -- that might fail.  It's true that we lack information on this case, but I don't see it as far-fetched that a group might agree to something without agreeing to, or even thinking about, an exact cost.

Okay, but in such a situation, the next step would be to reconsider the original motion, so that it may be defeated, or amended to something more practical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...