Continuing debate after a vote is taken and meeting is adjourned

[Guest Sarah]

Hello,

A difficult motion was passed at a meeting. One of the objectors is continuing to provide arguments via email, and does not want anything publicized until these arguments are addressed.

This strikes me as really, really out of order.

Am I right?

Sarah

[Joshua Katz]

58 minutes ago, Guest Sarah said:

This strikes me as really, really out of order.

 

What, precisely, strikes you as out of order? (As a technical matter, only what goes on at a meeting is out of order.)

The way I see it, there are a few things going on. Let's look at them one at a time.

A motion was passed - that's fine, and it should be executed, to the degree appropriate.

Objector continues to argue over email - RONR has nothing to say about what people email. It does say that, when the assembly has decided, those who disagree should cheerfully join in carrying out the motion, until such time as there is sufficient support to overturn it. However, how does that time come? Presumably through continued efforts to persuade, as this member is doing - i.e. he's just campaigning for what he wants, and there's no harm in that.

The object does not want anything publicized - people are free to want what they want, but is there is any reason to give it to him? So far as I can see, there isn't one. If the motion is the sort of thing that is appropriate to publicize, such as to hold a festival, publicize away. In short, the member can not want things publicized, but you don't have to listen. Of course, if the motion took place in executive session, then what happened in executive session may not be publicized. An issue here might be that I'm not quite clear on what is to be publicized - the action you decided to take, the motion itself, the debate on the motion, the ongoing email debate, etc?

[Richard Brown]

2 hours ago, Guest Sarah said:

Hello,

A difficult motion was passed at a meeting. One of the objectors is continuing to provide arguments via email, and does not want anything publicized until these arguments are addressed.

This strikes me as really, really out of order.

Am I right?

Sarah

Guest Sarah, while I understand your consternation, I agree with the response by Mr. Katz.  Nothing in RONR requires that, once a motion is adopted, all members quietly acquiesce and forever go along with with whatever the decision was that they disagree with.  While no member should actively attempt to undermine or thwart the will of the assembly, nothing prohibits those members who disagree with the decision from engaging in old fashioned lobbying to try to get it changed.  If their lobbying becomes such a nuisance that it is creating disharmony or interfering with the objects of the society, they can be disciplined for it... even expelled.  Perhaps it's a fine line, but members are free to lobby other members on issues affecting the society, even to attempt to change their minds on existing policies. 

For what it's worth, here is (I believe) the complete quote that Mr. Katz referred to from General Henry Robert on the issue.  It is on page xlix in the introduction to the 11th edition of RONR and comes from a statement by General Robert in his book Parliamentary Law which he published in 1923: 

"In an often quoted statement, the original author said: "The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal."  (Emphasis added)

Pay particular attention to the last few words:  ". . . until they can secure its repeal".  It looks to me like this is what your "objector" is doing.

If it becomes obnoxious or disruptive, the society can always consider disciplinary action. Such action can range from a simple reprimand or censure to expulsion.  A polite request from the president or a trusted friend to "please just drop it for now" might well suffice.

Edited February 22, 2019 at 06:30 PM by Richard Brown
Typographical correction

[Richard Brown]

Guest Sara, the unhappy member does have a parliamentary maneuver at his disposal:

As long as all or part of the motion he objects to has not yet been carried out, the objectionable member is free to introduce a motion to amend or repeal the previously adopted motion at the next meeting... or even at each future meeting.... until the provisions of the motion he wants repealed have been fully executed and amending or repealing it has become moot.

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Guest Sarah said:

does not want anything publicized until these arguments are addressed.

Guest Sarah, I didn't want Mr. Katz's reply to this part of your question to get overlooked by the other comments:

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

The objector does not want anything publicized - people are free to want what they want, but is there is any reason to give it to him? So far as I can see, there isn't one.

The organization passed the motion. I also do not see any reason why the organization cannot publicize the motion or otherwise put it into effect.

The time to make these extra arguments is while the motion is being debated. As others have said, at the next meeting the objector can try to have the decision reversed. But until then, the motion is adopted.