Defeated motion

[Karen Bayless]

I want to be sure I have this correct.  A motion that has been defeated by a foundation's board at their monthly meeting can be brought up again at another meeting...and then again at another meeting...etc. etc.?  This is getting rather tiresome.

 

Thank you.  I think I understand this correctly but before going into battle over it again tomorrow, I want to be sure I have it right.  And I'm not the one making the motion.

[jstackpo]

You are correct.  This presumes your monthly meetings are separate sessions.  They most likely are.

[Karen Bayless]

Thanks.  Just frustrating but thought after I read the ENTIRE RRO that I was correct in my decision.

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

This bad penny need take up hardly any time if no one except the maker wants to debate it. Move the Previous Question as soon as possible after the motion is stated by the chair. You will have to endure at most one speech by the maker.

[Karen Bayless]

Well it is a close vote every time but I keep stating my disagreement with her and have others who won't say anything but vote with me.  They don't like to rock the boat.  

 

I'll go ahead and clarify what is happening.  This foundation supports a local municipal animal shelter.  Our mission is to raise funds to help with things that the city cannot.  We meet in a meeting room at the shelter.  This board member keeps trying to move us from there because the acoustics aren't fabulous.  While I understand that, it is the ONLY time that some of these board members ever step foot into the shelter.  We have our director, medical director, volunteer coordinator and kennel coordinator  who are city employees attend part of our meeting.  For them to ALL take time from their jobs to travel to another location is ridiculous.  AND we are all as board members supposed to be volunteering or at least having a presence at the shelter if only to visit with staff.  Some of us do much more.  Anyway, I'm tired of fighting with this woman and was hoping that there was some way to kill this once and for all but apparently I will just have to continue the battle for us to keep meeting at the shelter.

Edited March 14, 2018 at 05:40 PM by Karen Bayless

[George Mervosh]

Was the meeting location initially agreed upon in a meeting via a vote of the board?

[Richard Brown]

19 hours ago, Karen Bayless said:

I want to be sure I have this correct.  A motion that has been defeated by a foundation's board at their monthly meeting can be brought up again at another meeting...and then again at another meeting...etc. etc.?  This is getting rather tiresome.

 

Thank you.  I think I understand this correctly but before going into battle over it again tomorrow, I want to be sure I have it right.  And I'm not the one making the motion.

I agree with the previous responses and am also interested in the answer to the question asked above by Mr. Mervosh.

You do have another option in addition to someone moving "The Previous Question".... which might require waiting until after the persistent member has made her speech. She is, after all, entitled to preference in recognition. 

Your other option is for someone to "Object to Consideration of the Question" as discussed on pages 267-270 of RONR.  That motion is subject to special rules, but can very quickly end any consideration of the motion being objected to.  It must be made immediately after the motion being objected to, before debate begins.  It can be made when someone else has the floor and does not require a second.  The member objecting to consideration does not have to be wait to be recognized, but may shout out the motion much like one would make a point of order.  The chair can even raise the objection.  The objection to consideration (which is itself actually a motion) must be put to an immediate vote without debate.  It requires a two thirds vote to sustain the objection to consideration. 

It is a rarely used motion, but is perfect for situations such as you describe, where a member makes the same motion at meeting after meeting and the overwhelming majority of the other members don't want to waste any time with it.  If you are considering using it, I urge you to read the rules concerning its use on pages 267-270 of RONR.  It might also be a good idea to let the chair know ahead of time what you are considering doing, as it is a motion he might not be familiar with and will not know how to handle.

 

Edited March 14, 2018 at 07:01 PM by Richard Brown
Added last sentence

[Guest Who's Coming to Dinner]

2 hours ago, Karen Bayless said:

WAnyway, I'm tired of fighting with this woman and was hoping that there was some way to kill this once and for all but apparently I will just have to continue the battle for us to keep meeting at the shelter.

You could amend your bylaws to specify the meeting room at the shelter. Then your unhappy member would have to comply with the requirements to propose a bylaws amendment every time; perhaps that would dissuade her.

[Karen Bayless]

On 3/14/2018 at 12:32 PM, George Mervosh said:

Was the meeting location initially agreed upon in a meeting via a vote of the board?

That is a good question.  I don't know the answer because the Foundation board was in existence for a couple of years before I was asked to join.  What are the implications?  I am searching now to see if I even have a copy of the bylaws to see if the meeting place was set in there but can't find one as yet.

 

Object to consideration of the question is good information.  Thank you for bringing that to my attention.  Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it would work here as it is not an overwhelming majority that does not wish to debate this.  The last vote was 4-3 to move but the chair stated that since 2/3 did not support the motion it was defeated. 

FYI we just had our monthly board meeting and the topic/motion was not brought up so I have some time to fine tune this before our meeting in April.

[Josh Martin]

54 minutes ago, Karen Bayless said:

That is a good question.  I don't know the answer because the Foundation board was in existence for a couple of years before I was asked to join.  What are the implications?  I am searching now to see if I even have a copy of the bylaws to see if the meeting place was set in there but can't find one as yet.

If the meeting location has been previously adopted, then changing it is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Adopting such a motion requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. Additionally, it would make this an incidental main motion, so Objection to Consideration would not be in order.

54 minutes ago, Karen Bayless said:

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that it would work here as it is not an overwhelming majority that does not wish to debate this.  The last vote was 4-3 to move but the chair stated that since 2/3 did not support the motion it was defeated. 

If a minority of more than 1/3 is willing to discuss this at every meeting, then the situation becomes more difficult. I’d at least try the previously mentioned tactics first - usually, even the supporters of a motion will get sick of talking about it eventually.

If they still persist, the board may need to consider adopting special rules of order. A special rule of order may be adopted by a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. In a small board, the latter of these may be easier to attain. The board could, for instance, adopt a rule providing a “waiting period” for a main motion which has been defeated. While such a rule may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, a motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable.

Edited March 16, 2018 at 12:00 PM by Josh Martin

[Dan Honemann]

23 hours ago, Karen Bayless said:

The last vote was 4-3 to move but the chair stated that since 2/3 did not support the motion it was defeated. 

This seems to indicate that the chair is of the opinion that these motions to move the location of your board meetings are motions to amend a standing rule previously adopted by your board.

As Mr. Martin has stated, such a motion requires a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership of your board, or simply a majority vote if previous notice (as described in RONR, 11th ed.,  pp. 121-122) has been given.

If such notice was given, or if your board has only seven members, the chair was mistaken (made a mistake when he declared that the motion was defeated), but it's too late for anyone to complain about that now.

Edited March 17, 2018 at 10:28 AM by Daniel H. Honemann
Inserted the parenthetical explanation.

[Atul Kapur]

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If they still persist, the board may need to consider adopting special rules of order. A special rule of order may be adopted by a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. In a small board, the latter of these may be easier to attain. The board could, for instance, adopt a rule providing a “waiting period” for a main motion which has been defeated. While such a rule may be suspended by a 2/3 vote, a motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable.

I had thought about suggesting a SRO, but it wouldn't necessarily solve the issue of debating the topic ad nauseam. A motion to Suspend the Rules which prevent re-introduction of the motion is not debatable. However, the tenacious member could move to Amend the Special Rule of Order, which would be debatable and requires only a majority of the entire membership (or, for completeness, a 2/3 vote with previous notice).

All of these options would appear to be moot if a majority is in favour of moving, as indicated by the 4-3 vote mentioned above.

 

[Dan Honemann]

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above."  (RONR, 11th ed., p. 486)

It seems to me that a rule such as the one suggested by Mr. Martin will conflict with the rules in RONR concerning renewal of motions. 

[Guest Zev]

Would it be fair to say that the assembly's bylaws would have to be amended so as to establish any "waiting period" for defeated motions?

[jstackpo]

I would think a Special Rule of Order (page 17) would be sufficient. 



 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 3/16/2018 at 12:22 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

"The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above."  (RONR, 11th ed., p. 486)

It seems to me that a rule such as the one suggested by Mr. Martin will conflict with the rules in RONR concerning renewal of motions. 

I'd guess that the board of a foundation is not subordinate to any assembly of members of the society, and so that restriction would not apply.

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I'd guess that the board of a foundation is not subordinate to any assembly of members of the society, and so that restriction would not apply.

And I'd guess is that that is probably a good guess.