Guest Amy Posted April 10, 2017 at 06:26 AM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 06:26 AM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hieu H. Huynh Posted April 10, 2017 at 09:22 AM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 09:22 AM It appears that the organization wants to do something but not pay for the something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 12:49 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g40 Posted April 10, 2017 at 12:57 PM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 12:57 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Brown Posted April 10, 2017 at 02:16 PM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 02:16 PM 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott in NYC Posted April 10, 2017 at 09:48 PM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 09:48 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted April 10, 2017 at 11:05 PM Report Share Posted April 10, 2017 at 11:05 PM 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts