adopting a motion that was made someone who is not allowed to make a motion

[Guest GDH]

Hi,

I'm a Senator in an assembly.

The agenda stated there is a "motion to reconsider."

I rose for a parliament query and asked about the date of the motion and who made it. I received the answer for the date and that the secretary of the senate made the motion. I then asked the presiding officer if the secretary is a voting member of the Senate, to which the presiding officer (following some pressure from the SOS) erroneously answered "yes". The motion to reconsider, as presented by the SOS, has passed, and then the original motion was reversed. The SOS is not a voting member of our Senate, and therefore could not make the motion to reconsider. 

My question is: What happens when a motion which was made by a person who is not allowed to make motions/the specific motion passes? Who and how is one supposed to challenge such passing of an (illegal?) motion?

Thank you

[Atul Kapur]

It is too late now to challenge the adoption of the motion to Reconsider and the reversal of the original motion.

It is not clear from what you've told us whether a non-voting member can make motions in your organization (being deprived of one of the two rights doesn't necessarily mean that you are also deprived of the other).

Even if the Secretary was not allowed to make the motion, the Point of Order had to be made at the time it was moved. It sounds like you made a Parliamentary Inquiry (asked a question) which the chair answered. If you wanted to push the point, you should have then raised a Point of Order that the Secretary was not entitled to make the motion. Presumably, the chair would have ruled your point "not well taken" (ruled against you) and you could have Appealed that ruling. But all this needed to occur before the motion was debated. Once debate started, it was too late to object.

[Guest GDH]

Thank you for the fast reply.

According to our by-laws, the Secretary of the Senate is not a voting member of the Senate, and therefore cannot make motions, and especially cannot make a "motion to reconsider", which in my understanding requires a voting member to make a motion. 

But from your answer I understand that once debated, the motion stand. Is this correct?

[Atul Kapur]

Once debate starts, it is too late to challenge how the motion came before the assembly.

The adoption of the motion to Reconsider and the reversal of the original motion are valid and stand as the judgement of the assembly.

Practically, I don't see any harm in this outcome. The majority of the assembly wanted to Reconsider the original motion (after all, it was adopted) so if the Secretary was barred from making the motion, presumably someone else would have (this presumes that your rules were followed about timing of making the Reconsider motion).

You did the right thing at the time to get clarification. You could have pushed the point, as explained previously.

[Richard Brown]

Guest GDH, just in case you are having any doubts about Dr. Kapur’s response, I concur with his answer. It is too late now to raise a point of order that the secretary had no authority to make such a motion.

[jstackpo]

6 hours ago, Guest GDH said:

According to our by-laws, the Secretary of the Senate is not a voting member of the Senate, and therefore cannot make motions,

Is the "can't make motions" rule part of your bylaws?  

[Guest GDH]

I want to thank all of you for your answers and share my frustraion with the situation.

As you probably guessed, I am not fully immersed with Roberts' Rules. I believe that most other Senators in my Assembly are as knowledgeble as I am with these rules. The Secretary, who is in charge of the Assembly's agenda and preparations, is the one knowing the Rules the best. In this case, she used Robert's Rules, specifically the motion to reconsider, to circumvent the institution's rules (The Senate defeated a motion that violated some by-laws in the prior meeting, and that defeat was to be reconsidered) and did that by breaking our by-laws. I believe that no Senator could have argued the motion to reconsider, an unusual motion that takes deep knowledge of RR, aseffectively as the Secratery, who was not allowed to make the motion (or argue for it).

I understand that by now I have nothing to do about that. So in short, the SOS used RR to break our by-laws, and that is "by the book".

[Dan Honemann]

 

23 minutes ago, Guest GDH said:

I want to thank all of you for your answers and share my frustraion with the situation.

As you probably guessed, I am not fully immersed with Roberts' Rules. I believe that most other Senators in my Assembly are as knowledgeble as I am with these rules. The Secretary, who is in charge of the Assembly's agenda and preparations, is the one knowing the Rules the best. In this case, she used Robert's Rules, specifically the motion to reconsider, to circumvent the institution's rules (The Senate defeated a motion that violated some by-laws in the prior meeting, and that defeat was to be reconsidered) and did that by breaking our by-laws. I believe that no Senator could have argued the motion to reconsider, an unusual motion that takes deep knowledge of RR, aseffectively as the Secratery, who was not allowed to make the motion (or argue for it).

I understand that by now I have nothing to do about that. So in short, the SOS used RR to break our by-laws, and that is "by the book".

No, the SOS did not use Robert's Rules to break your bylaws, and doing something in violation of the bylaws or in violation of the rules in RONR is not "by the book".

And by the way, if you are right and the motion previously defeated and now adopted does, as you seem to assert, violate your bylaws, then its adoption may be null and void. Take a look at what is said on page 251 of your copy of RONR (11th ed.), and see if (a) on lines 9-10 applies (and don't overlook the footnote).

 

[Gary Novosielski]

It is not clear to me that the motion to Reconsider was in order in the first place. It is clear it the motion to be reconsidered was not adopted earlier in the same meeting or the previous day.

 

 

Edited November 17, 2019 at 02:57 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Gary Novosielski said:

It is not clear to me that the motion to Reconsider was in order in the first place. It is clear it the motion to be reconsidered was not adopted earlier in the same meeting or the previous day.

But the fact that the motion to reconsider may have been improper for more than one reason is hardly of any relevance at this point.

[Joshua Katz]

On 11/16/2019 at 10:52 AM, Guest GDH said:

I understand that by now I have nothing to do about that. So in short, the SOS used RR to break our by-laws, and that is "by the book".

The lack of a remedy does not mean it was by the book. It means there's no remedy now - but there is a remedy if timely.

On 11/16/2019 at 10:52 AM, Guest GDH said:

In this case, she used Robert's Rules, specifically the motion to reconsider, to circumvent the institution's rules (The Senate defeated a motion that violated some by-laws in the prior meeting, and that defeat was to be reconsidered)

Let's back up. First, there was a motion (at meeting 1). The motion violated the bylaws, but was not adopted so no harm - although it would have been proper to raise a point of order rather than just defeating the motion. 

On 11/16/2019 at 10:52 AM, Guest GDH said:

I believe that no Senator could have argued the motion to reconsider, an unusual motion that takes deep knowledge of RR, aseffectively as the Secratery, who was not allowed to make the motion (or argue for it).

So your rules allow for a non-member Secretary who is not permitted to debate? 

In any event, whatever deep knowledge is required for the motion to reconsider, the Secretary may not have it exactly right, since it was probably out of order at meeting 2, for multiple reasons. The proper action here (which would actually be easier anyway) would simply be to make the motion again.

Anyway, then what happened? If the motion to reconsider passes, the motion is back before the assembly just as it was prior to its adoption or defeat. Did the motion to reconsider pass? If so, did the motion pass? If so, a breach of the bylaws is a continuing breach and you can still raise a point of order. It seems to me, though, that the motion to reconsider did nothing here but get in the way.

[Guest GDH]

thank you again for the answers.

The motion to reconsiderd passed.

The original motion, which was defeated the first time, passed as well.

[Atul Kapur]

As Mr. Honemann has said, if the motion is in contravention of your bylaws then it is null and void. You can raise a Point of Order at the next meeting.

And, if you think the association was misled, then you can likely move to Rescind the motion which was adopted (there are some motions that cannot be rescinded).

I, too, disagree that the Secretary "used Robert's Rules" to do anything improper. From your description she did not follow RONR. However, the book doesn't enforce itself. It requires a Presiding Officer and members who are knowledgeable about the rules within it. Fortunately, it doesn't take too long to learn a lot. Start with RONR In Brief. If many of your members are in the same boat, then you can hire a parliamentarian to assist the chair during the meetings and/or do some training with your assembly.