WHEN DOES A MAIN MOTION TAKE EFFECT

[sirbuilder99]

Hi Forum,

1)  Can someone point to the page in the 11th Edition where it states that motions take effect the moment they are approved unless there is language in the motion that states otherwise?

2)  I belong to a union where the Body approved a motion (on July 8th 2015) directing the Local's President to go to the bank and to sign the union's signatory cards so that he can execute union checks; up to then over the first 2 1/2 years of his administration, he refused to sign the signatory cards and no bank checks.   Six (6) months later (on January 13th, 2016) he got the Body in a special session to rescind / overturn the motion directing him to sign the bank signatory cards.  He is now claiming that since the original motion was rescinded, his refusal to start signing checks is not now a chargeable offense and that he is not in violation of the approved motion.  Others are saying that since the motion became effective immediately upon approval, he should have signed the bank signatory cards back then along with all the bank checks, and the date of the rescinding of the motion would be the date allowing him to stop signing the checks; hence he was in violation of the approved motion for the previous 6 months.

Note, the rescinding motion DID NOT make reference to any "retroactive date" or that the President was forgiven for his refusal to signing the signatory cards and bank checks upon the time the original motion was approved back in July 2015.

Who is / are correct in this scenario?

Any help would be very much appreciated.

Thanks,

Mitchell

 

[Joshua Katz]

So you told him to do it, he didn't do it for 6 months and nothing was done about it, the instruction to do it was rescinded, and now someone wants to make an issue of it?  I think it's true that he should have done it during those 6 months: rescind doesn't change the past, and yes, motions take effect when approved (however, I don't see why that matters here - certainly no one thinks they take effect, um, whenever they're rescinded?).  But I also think disciplinary action here is rather silly - by rescinding, the body has stated it doesn't care anymore that it be done (or, depending on the circumstances, that it no longer wants it done) making it rather hard to complain about it not being done.  Why on earth did no one complain for 6 months, and why did the body rescind the motion if it's a big deal?

[sirbuilder99]

Thanks for your response.  The special session was called by the president for the purpose of rescinding motions affecting his actions and he could have brought up these rescinding motions at regular Board meetings but he wanted a sure thing; knowing that a majority of members would not show up for a special meeting after the regularly scheduled meeting had been held earlier in the month, the vote was approved 9 yeas against 2 nays.  There are about 35+/- members on the Board with a quorum of 12 required; there were 2 abstentions in the vote to rescind.  Charges have been filed and we are in the middle of the hearing before the national union.  Some of us want justice in that the president should have immediately signed the back cards and the checks, but he outright refused to do so. 

[Joshua Katz]

Do your rules allow for special meetings, and if so, were all the requirements complied with?  I hate to say it, but if so, well, people should have shown up if the matter was important and the notice of the meeting said it would be considered.  If the rules weren't followed, that's another issue.

I agree that the instructions should have been followed immediately.  What I still don't see is why nothing was done about it for 6 months.   What, by the way, does justice consist of here?  It can't consist of signing the cards, since the body has no longer said that should happen.  What result is sought?  Why not bring the matter up again and, assuming the vote at the special meeting was unrepresentative, pass it again?  (Also, the 2 dissenters might have considered moving to reconsider and enter on the minutes.)

[sirbuilder99]

Joshua,  Do you know where in RRs is the clause that approved motions are effective immediately?

[jstackpo]

It is (only) sample dialogue but it is to the point:  page 120, lines 34ff.  Also, explicitly, on page 48 & 49.

[Joshua Katz]

I don't have my book in front of me, but let me ask it another way: when else could they become effective?  (Also, bylaw amendments take effect immediately.  Why would these motions, among all others, be singled out as taking effect earlier?)  As I said, I don't think this is even a relevant question in your case, but those involved seem to think it is, so that brings another question: who denies that they take effect immediately, and when do they claim motions take effect?

[sirbuilder99]

I have a bunch of morons in a leadership role in my Local and they will say anything to protect their interests and rear ends, including lying; they always ask, where is it written to challenge those in the "know.".

I'm just looking for something in writing from a voice of authority that demonstrates that all motions become effective when they are approved.

Thanks to you and Jstackpo

[Joshua Katz]

I can look it up when I get home.  But my advice is: do the same.  If they ask "where is it written?" do the same to their assertions.  "Motions do not take effect immediately." "When do they take effect, and where is that written?"

[sirbuilder99]

That would be appreciated, thank you.

[Richard Brown]

It seems to me that Dr. Stackpole answered the "where in RONR" question five posts ago!  Did Joshua and SirBuilder overlook it?

My question to SirBuilder, or the question for him to ask of others is:  "If an adopted motion does not become effective immediately upon adoption, exactly when do you think it does become effective?"   Of course motions become effective immediately upon adoption unless the motion itself or some other rule provides for a different effective date.

I understand Joshua's position that the rescission of the signature card motion could be construed as making disciplinary action moot,  but I do not agree that it DOES make it moot.  The requirement was in effect for six months and the president appears to have knowingly and intentionally ignored the direct "order" to go to the bank and sign the cards.  I think disciplinary action or, at a minimum, a motion of censure definitely are still in order (or at least permissible).  It's up to the society to determine whether to proceed with disciplinary action and whether to impose discipline.  The argument that rescinding the order (motion) to sign the signature cards in essence "excuses" the president's inaction and makes it moot might be persuasive and carry the day.  I fully understand that in this situation the members might believe that it should all just be forgotten at this point.

 

[Joshua Katz]

24 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

It seems to me that Dr. Stackpole answered the "where in RONR" question five posts ago!  Did Joshua and SirBuilder overlook it?

 

Yes, in my case.  Thank you.

24 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I understand Joshua's position that the rescission of the signature card motion could be construed as making disciplinary action moot,  but I do not agree that it DOES make it moot.

My position is not that it's moot, it's that it's silly.

[sirbuilder99]

Those sections appear not to specifically state that the motion becomes effective upon ratification / approval; but I also understand the other points..... if not then, then when?

Some argue upon approval of the minutes which we all know is not correct.

Part of the argument for charges is so that this won't happen again.  if nothing is done, then as a Body we are saying it's alright to ignore motions if you are the president as long as you get your quorum goon-squad of a Board to rescind it sometime in the future by calling special meetings when you know the majority of the Board members will probably not show.

[Joshua Katz]

See p. 48, line 25.  Why is its execution being ordered now if it hasn't yet taken effect?  Similarly page 120-121 - why is the treasurer taking actions now?  It might be hard to find an explicit quote because the point is too obvious to be mentioned in the book.  Here's some further logical points, though: if motions do not take effect when adopted, but at some later time, how do amendments work?  How do meetings recess or adjourn?  How are points of order and appeals handled?  How is a point of personal privilege regarding the room temperature handled?  Do we wait until the minutes are approved to turn up the AC?

Indeed, we all know the minutes claim is not correct.  We know it for the same reasons we know it can't be any other time.  (And a few other reasons, such as - when do the minutes get approved?  At the next meeting, you'll say - okay, but when does that approval take effect - presumably, the meeting after that, when those minutes are approved, but that's not right, because that approval doesn't take effect until...)

[sirbuilder99]

I got it!!  And yes I see it referenced.

This is what happens when a union has some "wise-guys" in it that want everything in writing or else they use it against you.

All very good points to make.

Thanks to all who commented. 

[Gary Novosielski]

In reading the original descriptions, I'm not clear which body approved the motion that the president was to sign the bank cards.  It appears that this may have been the general membership.

If that's the case, there is a question of whether the board has the authority to rescind or amend an action that the general membership has passed.  The usual answer to that question is a resounding No.

[Joshua Katz]

6 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In reading the original descriptions, I'm not clear which body approved the motion that the president was to sign the bank cards.  It appears that this may have been the general membership.

If that's the case, there is a question of whether the board has the authority to rescind or amend an action that the general membership has passed.  The usual answer to that question is a resounding No.

 

On 10/24/2017 at 9:12 AM, sirbuilder99 said:

I belong to a union where the Body approved a motion (on July 8th 2015) directing the Local's President to go to the bank and to sign the union's signatory cards so that he can execute union checks; up to then over the first 2 1/2 years of his administration, he refused to sign the signatory cards and no bank checks.   Six (6) months later (on January 13th, 2016) he got the Body in a special session to rescind / overturn the motion directing him to sign the bank signatory cards. 

I don't know what body approved it, but I thought it was a fair inference that the same body did both, since they both were referred to by the same name.  What do you see that suggests otherwise?