Making Motions

[Guest Casey]

 A Motion was made. Another member didn't like the particulars or the Motion Made and made another Motion. How do you handle. Do you somehow remove the first Motion?

 

[Atul Kapur]

I will assume that Motion One was properly made and seconded and stated by the chair, which are the steps required before the group can consider it.

It sounds like the maker of Motion Two had a different proposal on the same subject matter. That person could have moved Motion Two as a substitute for Motion One. Or that person could have said, in the debate on Motion One, "If you defeat this motion then I will move Motion Two." Or that person could have asked the maker of Motion One to try to withdraw it so that this person could move Motion Two.

There are more ways that it could have been handled (I haven't even mentioned a simple amendment to change the particulars that this person did not like) but these examples give you an idea of how Motion Two could replace Motion One. The point being that Motion One cannot simply be ignored once it has been stated by the chair and is before the assembly for consideration.

 

Edited October 5, 2018 at 10:42 AM by Atul Kapur
Cant leave well enough alone

[Hieu H. Huynh]

4 hours ago, Guest Casey said:

 A Motion was made. Another member didn't like the particulars or the Motion Made and made another Motion. How do you handle. Do you somehow remove the first Motion?

Would you provide more details on these motions?

[Guest Casey]

8 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Would you provide more details on these motions?

person that made the second motion did not prefer details of first motion made, and made a motion with different details

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest Casey said:

person that made the second motion did not prefer details of first motion made, and made a motion with different details

Casey, that really doesn't tell us anything. We really need more information about the nature of the two motions. We especially need to know if the second motion was related to the same subject matter as the first motion.  For example, was that a motion to handle the matter differently?

I really don't know what you mean when you say the second person did not prefer the details of the first motion. That leads me to believe that the two motions were related, or at least dealt with different ways of dealing with the same subject.

Edited to add: at this point I am inclined to agree with Dr. Kapur's post above, but we really need a little more information.

Edited again to add:  it would not have been proper to just ignore the first motion and deal with the second one, but if the second motion was in the nature of a substitute motion, it would be proper to deal with it first.

Edited October 5, 2018 at 12:56 PM by Richard Brown
Added last two paragraphs

[jstackpo]

Perhaps, if the meeting chairman had been a bit more experienced, he/she could have guided person #2 to phrase his wishes in the form of an amendment to the first motion.  The amendment would propose changes to the first motion that the person #2 would rather see it it.  They would then be debated and be adopted/defeated as the membership wished.  Then the meeting would turn back to the main motion (#1) as possibly amended for more amendments or a final decision.

[Joshua Katz]

Well, it seems to me that while all this is helpful for the future, it doesn't tell us much about what this organization should do. To answer that one: not much. If the chair declared a motion adopted, it is in effect, and it is too late to raise a point of order that two motions managed to be pending simultaneously. In the future, the chair should be more careful.