How to protest a resignation as without cause (non-profit)

[Shmuel Gerber]

1 hour ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

No, he substituted "prepositions" for "pronouns."
—Illogical Pennsylvanian

🙂

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 5/4/2019 at 12:47 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I discovered this on moving from NJ to PA, when my attempts at a restaurant to substitute a bowl of soup for a salad were having the opposite of their intended effect.

You ended up with a bowl of salad for a soup?

[Gary Novosielski]

41 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

You ended up with a bowl of salad for a soup?

I think I ended up with a soulful ballad on a sloop.   And it cost me 99¢ more.

[J. J.]

4 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I re-checked this. You are absolutely correct; they are different in the manner you described. However, I still maintain my previous position in this particular case for the stated reason.

If the proposed amendment transforms a one "parliamentary motion" into another, then it is out of order.  Since I am "absolutely correct" that the proposed amendment converts the motion from an incidental motion to a main motion, it is out of order.

That said, if the request was not granted, or was not before the assembly, then a motion to remove someone from a position, or preferring charges, is in order.  Why?  Each is a different motion. 

[Guest Zev]

Do you admit that once the request to be excused is adopted that the motion to dismiss is no longer possible? Or, if the order is inverted, that once the motion to dismiss him is adopted then the motion to grant a request that he be excused can no longer be adopted? Do you see the problem from this vantage point? In other words, which rule is to ultimately prevail, the rule that we cannot transform one parliamentary motion into another, or the rule that an amendment must be admitted if the amendment cannot be adopted as an independent resolution (page 137) if the amendment is not admitted and the motion is adopted? In my view the selecting by way of amendment of a motion that is a main motion rather than the original incidental main motion, although different, does not compare, in my opinion, to the seriousness of changing by way of amendment a motion to postpone into a motion to postpone indefinitely, as the example in the book (page 139). Page 137 lines 3-4 mentions specifically that in this case the motion to amend is germane and should be admitted. As a practical matter one faction in the excusal/dismissal question may demand his dismissal but the other side will not agree until the conditions of his dismissal are softened enough for their taste, and they will hold out for granting his excusal until the other side comes sufficiently down. So the question becomes: How do we get these two sides to come together, and which rule prevails?

[J. J.]

7 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Do you admit that once the request to be excused is adopted that the motion to dismiss is no longer possible? Or, if the order is inverted, that once the motion to dismiss him is adopted then the motion to grant a request that he be excused can no longer be adopted? Do you see the problem from this vantage point? In other words, which rule is to ultimately prevail, the rule that we cannot transform one parliamentary motion into another, or the rule that an amendment must be admitted if the amendment cannot be adopted as an independent resolution (page 137) if the amendment is not admitted and the motion is adopted? In my view the selecting by way of amendment of a motion that is a main motion rather than the original incidental main motion, although different, does not compare, in my opinion, to the seriousness of changing by way of amendment a motion to postpone into a motion to postpone indefinitely, as the example in the book (page 139). Page 137 lines 3-4 mentions specifically that in this case the motion to amend is germane and should be admitted. As a practical matter one faction in the excusal/dismissal question may demand his dismissal but the other side will not agree until the conditions of his dismissal are softened enough for their taste, and they will hold out for granting his excusal until the other side comes sufficiently down. So the question becomes: How do we get these two sides to come together, and which rule prevails?

I think once one of those was adopted, the other would be dilatory.

There is no problem, once one of those motions is no longer before the assembly with introducing the other motion.  The motion to accept a resignation from a position and one removing someone from a position (or starting the process by preferring charges or appointing an investigating committee) are two different things.  The "essential idea" of a motion to accept a resignation is different that the "essential idea" of a motion to remove someone from a position.  You are equating those two things and they are not the same.  You start from an incorrect premise and follow from that premise. 

[Guest Zev]

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

I think once one of those was adopted, the other would be dilatory. There is no problem, once one of those motions is no longer before the assembly with introducing the other motion. 

No doubt about this.

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

The motion to accept a resignation from a position and one removing someone from a position (or starting the process by preferring charges or appointing an investigating committee) are two different things.

I have admitted that this is true.

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

The "essential idea" of a motion to accept a resignation is different that the "essential idea" of a motion to remove someone from a position.

Yes.

2 hours ago, J. J. said:

You are equating those two things and they are not the same.  You start from an incorrect premise and follow from that premise. 

This is were we differ.

I do not believe I equated two dissimilar things. What I said was that

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Page 137 lines 3-4 mentions specifically that in this case the motion to amend is germane and should be admitted.

According to your scenario, whenever one of these motions is pending the opposing faction must wait until the motion is actually defeated before they can consider the alternative. The other faction is unwilling to see their motion defeated unless they are guaranteed some input into the other motion that is not yet pending. In my scenario the case is resolved by having a primary amendment with the essence of the other motion pending at the same time and the assembly making a choice between the two after perfecting them. I know I can do such a thing because page 289 states specifically that I can amend a motion for a Request To Be Excused From A Duty as is indicated on page 290 line 16 (SDC 6). And if a main motion is made to dismiss him then that motion could also be amended to grant him his request instead.

3 hours ago, J. J. said:

There is no problem, once one of those motions is no longer before the assembly with introducing the other motion.

I have some trouble believing that any of factions are willing to jump into the void before knowing what they end up with. Motions to substitute are made for exactly this reason.

[J. J.]

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

 

According to your scenario, whenever one of these motions is pending the opposing faction must wait until the motion is actually defeated before they can consider the alternative. The other faction is unwilling to see their motion defeated unless they are guaranteed some input into the other motion that is not yet pending. In my scenario the case is resolved by having a primary amendment with the essence of the other motion pending at the same time and the assembly making a choice between the two after perfecting them. I know I can do such a thing because page 289 states specifically that I can amend a motion for a Request To Be Excused From A Duty as is indicated on page 290 line 16 (SDC 6). And if a main motion is made to dismiss him then that motion could also be amended to grant him his request instead.

I have some trouble believing that any of factions are willing to jump into the void before knowing what they end up with. Motions to substitute are made for exactly this reason.

Germaneness has nothing to do with this.  It has not been ruled out of order because it is non-germane.   There has been no suggestion that it has been.

No, you must have missed:

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

 

There is no problem, once one of those motions is no longer before the assembly with introducing the other motion.  

It is perfectly possible that one of these motions could be postponed and the other introduced.  I would permit one motion to be subject to Lay on the Table, and once no longer pending, the other motion to be introduced.

[Josh Martin]

19 hours ago, J. J. said:

If the proposed amendment transforms a one "parliamentary motion" into another, then it is out of order.  Since I am "absolutely correct" that the proposed amendment converts the motion from an incidental motion to a main motion, it is out of order.

JJ, is a motion to accept a resignation, in fact, an incidental motion? It seems to me that raising the issue might be an incidental motion, but the motion itself might be a main motion. The text notes that the question of accepting a resignation is a question of privilege, and questions of privilege are main motions.

“A request to be excused from a duty essential to the functioning of a society or assembly is a question of privilege affecting the organization of the assembly; and so also is the filling of a vacancy created by the acceptance of a resignation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 291)

“It is important to understand the distinction between the device Raise a Question of Privilege and the question of privilege itself. The point to be decided in connection with the former is whether a certain question shall be admitted for consideration with the status and priority of the latter. The "raising" of a question of privilege is governed by rules appropriate to the device's high rank in the order of precedence of motions. When a question of privilege is taken up after it has been raised and has been admitted by the chair, however, depending on the form in which it was introduced, it is handled as a request (32, 33) or it is treated as a main motion and is debatable and amendable and can have any subsidiary motion applied to it—regardless of whether it interrupted, or awaited the disposal of, the pending business. Questions of privilege can also be introduced while no motion is pending, either as requests or by being moved and seconded just as any other main motion; in that case, the device of "raising" a question of privilege does not enter in.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 225)

While the latter citation is found in the section on Raise a Question of Privilege, it seems that it may also be applicable here. If motions to grant these requests are, in fact, main motions, it seems to me that amendments relating to disciplining the person submitting the request for a resignation would be germane and in order.

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

Page 137 lines 3-4 mentions specifically that in this case the motion to amend is germane and should be admitted.

Yes, but I am inclined to think that the “should be admitted” part assumes that the amendment is otherwise in order. If it is in fact correct that these motions are incidental motions (and I am not entirely certain of this), I concur with JJ that amendments which would have the effect of converting them into main motions are not in order.

Edited May 6, 2019 at 10:39 PM by Josh Martin

[J. J.]

34 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

JJ, is a motion to accept a resignation, in fact, an incidental motion? It seems to me that raising the issue might be an incidental motion, but the motion itself is a main motion. The text notes that the question of accepting a resignation is a question of privilege, and questions of privilege are main motions.

“A request to be excused from a duty essential to the functioning of a society or assembly is a question of privilege affecting the organization of the assembly; and so also is the filling of a vacancy created by the acceptance of a resignation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 291)

“It is important to understand the distinction between the device Raise a Question of Privilege and the question of privilege itself. The point to be decided in connection with the former is whether a certain question shall be admitted for consideration with the status and priority of the latter. The "raising" of a question of privilege is governed by rules appropriate to the device's high rank in the order of precedence of motions. When a question of privilege is taken up after it has been raised and has been admitted by the chair, however, depending on the form in which it was introduced, it is handled as a request (32, 33) or it is treated as a main motion and is debatable and amendable and can have any subsidiary motion applied to it—regardless of whether it interrupted, or awaited the disposal of, the pending business. Questions of privilege can also be introduced while no motion is pending, either as requests or by being moved and seconded just as any other main motion; in that case, the device of "raising" a question of privilege does not enter in.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 225)

While the latter citation is found in the section on Raise a Question of Privilege, it seems that it may also be applicable here. If motions to grant these requests are, in fact, main motions, it seems to me that amendments relating to disciplining the person submitting the request for a resignation would be germane and in order.

 

Yes, I would say the motion, that the motion "that the resignation be accepted" is an incidental motion (pp. 289-90).  That said, something raised under the device of a Question of Privilege is not necessarily a main motion and would include an incidental motion.  P. 225 does specifically refer to sections 32 and 33, the first be a Request to Be Excused From a Duty (and the second being Requests and Inquiries).

Earlier in the thread, I think I mentioned that accepting the resignation of an officer would likely constitute a Question of Privilege; I do not know that this is the resignation of an officer. 

In this case, we are talking about removing a pastor.  A pastor may not be an officer of the assembly.  He may be an employee; in some denominations, the pastor/pastors are not actually members of that congregation.  Is the post of pastor "essential to the functioning of a society or assembly?"  From a procedural standpoint, no.  Unless he some duty within the assembly, the meeting could be conducted without him.  From a non-procedural standpoint, maybe.

Edit:  I did refer to the motion to remove someone, an officer, as being a question of privilege  I do agree that a motion "that the resignation be accepted," could, in some circumstances, be raised under the device of a question of privilege. 

Edited May 6, 2019 at 11:23 PM by J. J.

[Guest Zev]

I don't know about you guys, but I have learned something very important about this subject. While a good deal of our exchange was factual, Mr. Martin reminded us of a detail in the incidental motion that had escaped me. After reading his posting I would have liked to have kicked myself for not having said the same thing much earlier in this thread. The resulting tone may have been different but the length possibly much shorter. My excuse is that memorizing 240,000 words is not the easiest thing in the world. My ultimate goal, however, is to be able to memorize fifty-two cards and the order in which they are played. In the meantime, thank you Mr. Martin and kudos to you for the insight.

Oh, and I'll have a soup AND salad.