motion denied

[Guest snuffed]

At a recent Church voters meeting during New business.  A person who had the floor made a new motion requesting a certain action be taken. The Chairman immediately said  I will not except this motion as this is not on the agenda. This meeting is adjourned.    Should he first have asked for a second?  Under New Business can a person not make a motion? Does he not have to have a motion and a second followed by a vote to adjourn?

[Scott Fischer]

Did the assembly adopt a proposed agenda or were you following a standard order of business? 

At the very least it would appear the chair improperly adjourned the meeting but the moment to object to that has passed.

Edited July 13, 2020 at 12:26 AM by Scott Fischer

[Guest snuffed]

 We were following a standard order of business. People objected to adjournment. then someone immediatley moved to adjourn and a vote was taken to adjourn.

[Rob Elsman]

No rule in RONR authorizes the chair to act on his own to adjourn a meeting short of some kind of event immediately threatening the health and safety of those present (e.g., riot, fire, flood, tornado, or earthquake).  As already stated, it appears from the facts provided that the assembly had not adopted a motion or rule to adjourn at an assigned hour, so the chair seems to have exceeded his authority when he said, "This meeting is adjourned".

The chair should, indeed, have asked if there was a second for the main motion.  If a second was made, the chair should have stated the question on the main motion.

I am not sure I understand what is meant by "People objected to adjournment".  Did a member raise a Point of Order or was there just general grumbling about the chair's misuse of his authority?  From this point on, it seems like there was a general breakdown in order and the chair was pretty much out of it.  I am not able to make heads nor tails of it, other than I sense everything spun out of order.

Whatever the case, and however it came about, a vote on a motion to adjourn seems to have been taken.  I am not sure of the result, but, whatever it was, the proceedings must have gone on accordingly.

It goes without saying, I think, that the chair is inexperienced and insufficiently trained in proper parliamentary procedure.  I also sense, though, that the members of the assembly are hardly any more experienced or trained than the chair.  It simply is not going to work for the assembly to meet and act as if parliamentary procedures are being followed.  We see here the result.  The chair errs, general order breaks down, and there is "objection" among the members in the midst of confusion.  Education is the key.  Education for the chair; education for the members.

[Josh Martin]

18 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

At a recent Church voters meeting during New business. A person who had the floor made a new motion requesting a certain action be taken. The Chairman immediately said  I will not except this motion as this is not on the agenda. This meeting is adjourned.

This seems to have clearly been improper, unless the assembly has its own rules on this subject I am not aware of.

18 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

Should he first have asked for a second?

He should have instead asked for a second, yes.

18 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

Under New Business can a person not make a motion?

Yes, so far as RONR is concerned, making motions which are not listed on the agenda/orders of the day is the entire purpose of New Business. Some assemblies mistakenly place items of business under New Business on an agenda but these are, in fact, either general orders or special orders.

18 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

Does he not have to have a motion and a second followed by a vote to adjourn?

Generally, yes. This is required unless one of the following applies:

1) The assembly has previously set a time for adjournment and that time has been reached.

2) The assembly has completed its entire order of business and, when the chair asks if there is any further business, no member responds.

3) There is an emergency (such as a fire), and it would risk the safety of the members to take the time to process a motion to adjourn.

It seems clear that #2 is not applicable here, since a member made a motion. I take it that #1 and #3 are also not applicable here.

18 hours ago, Scott Fischer said:

Did the assembly adopt a proposed agenda or were you following a standard order of business? 

In my view, the answer is the same either way. Even if the assembly had adopted a proposed agenda, if the agenda included New Business (which appears to be the case, since we are told this was "during New Business"), then it is still in order to introduce items of New Business during New Business.

Contrary to popular belief, adopting an agenda, in and of itself, does not prevent the introduction of items not listed on the agenda.

15 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

We were following a standard order of business.

If this is the case, then it is even less clear why the chair thought it mattered that the item was not listed on the agenda.

"In some organizations, it is customary to send each member, in advance of a meeting, an order of business or agenda, with some indication of the matters to be considered under each heading. Such an agenda is often provided for information only, with no intention or practice of submitting it for adoption. Unless a precirculated agenda is formally adopted at the session to which it applies, it is not binding as to detail or order of consideration, other than as it lists preexisting orders of the day (pp. 364ff.) or conforms to the standard order of business (pp. 25–26, 353ff.) or an order of business prescribed by the rules of the organization (pp. 16, 25)." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 372)

15 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

then someone immediatley moved to adjourn and a vote was taken to adjourn.

Well, this fact is pretty important, as this is quite a bit different from the chair declaring, on his own authority, that the meeting was adjourned.

The motion to Adjourn has very high rank. It is in order for a member to move to adjourn at almost any time during a meeting, it is not debatable, and a majority vote is sufficient for its adoption. In other words, even if the main motion was properly made and seconded, the assembly could have still adjourned if it wanted to - in which event consideration of this motion would have continued under Unfinished Business at the next meeting. It appears that the only error here is that the chair did not call for a second on the motion to Adjourn (and possibly that the member moving to Adjourn failed to seek recognition).

Edited July 13, 2020 at 06:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

15 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

 We were following a standard order of business. People objected to adjournment. then someone immediatley moved to adjourn and a vote was taken to adjourn.

I agree completely with the comments above by Mr. Elsman and Mr. Martin. Like Mr. Elsman,  I’m also curious as to the portion of the comment above that I have highlighted.  Guest Snuffed, can you elaborate? Was adjournment being discussed before someone actually made the motion to adjourn? I’m confused as to the sequence of events.

[Guest snuffed]

The motion made was to resolve an issue that the Chairman and a few others did not want brought up. He quickly adjourned to avoid discussion on the motion. People objected to him denying the motion and improper adjournment without a motion to adjourn. Someone quickly made a motion to adjourn and a quick second was made followed by a vote which resulted in adjournment.  Then chaos ensued and people left while others argued the way things were handled.  I am wondering if i can request a special voters meeting to vote on the motion that was made. and what actions can be taken to prevent this from happening again.  I always thought you could bring up new business under NEW BUISNESS.  It was obivious they were trying to control what the voters wanted to discuss.  Thanks for all of the responses.   It is a very dissapointing turn of events.

[Guest snuffed]

I want to address  this with Council immediately. I want to make sure I handle this in the proper manner so that It is resolved. I also want to make sure going forward that this does not happen again. 

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

I am wondering if i can request a special voters meeting to vote on the motion that was made

It depends on the rules your organization has on whether special meetings can be called and, if so, who has the authority to call or cause one to be called.

2 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

what actions can be taken to prevent this from happening again

The process is clear -- the result depends on which side has the majority support. Someone should have raised a Point of Order about the chair refusing to state a proper motion. If the chair ruled the point "not well taken" then two people would need to make and second an Appeal from the chair's decision. It takes a majority vote to overturn the chair's ruling. As the motion to adjourn was adopted, it appears that a majority sided with the chair (or were just tired and wanted to go home).
The takeaway is that there are no "RONR Police" and the majority decides what is the accepted course of action.

[Guest snuffed]

The Chair gave no chance for anyone to raise a point of order as he would not recognize anyone from the floor. Then arguments ensued among voters and people vacated. I want to pursue this injustice and want to make sure it is done properly.

[Atul Kapur]

My comments above are true regarding the meeting itself. If you feel an injustice has been done, then you may consider involving the justice system. This may be expensive, likely will only result in corrective action if the injustice is egregious, almost certainly will take time and be time-consuming, and will require you to consult an attorney.

I don't know your church so don't know if there is a higher authority that will hear your complaint about this particular issue. Well, to be precise, one that will hear your complaint and take concrete action to correct the issue.

Edited July 14, 2020 at 08:55 AM by Atul Kapur

[Guest snuffed]

I don't know your church so don't know if there is a higher authority that will hear your complaint about this particular issue. Well, to be precise, one that will hear your complaint and take concrete action to correct the issue.

 

Exactly the problem in this situation.   I know if seven voters request it a special voters meeting can be called for.  If special the subject has to be discussed.

[Rob Elsman]

We could send Knuckles Mervosh. 😉

[Joshua Katz]

11 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

I want to address  this with Council immediately. I want to make sure I handle this in the proper manner so that It is resolved. I also want to make sure going forward that this does not happen again. 

As an aside, you posted this shortly after another post. You might consider becoming a member, which would allow you to edit a post if you think of something you want to add rather than needed to make another post.

8 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

I want to pursue this injustice and want to make sure it is done properly.

It's worth remembering what RONR is. It's a set of rules that help an organization do its business efficiently and fairly. If an organization prefers to be inefficient and unfair, it will be - RONR is for those who want fairness and efficiency. That's why there's no real remedy when a majority decides not to follow the rules. 

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

My comments above are true regarding the meeting itself. If you feel an injustice has been done, then you may consider involving the justice system. This may be expensive, likely will only result in corrective action if the injustice is egregious, almost certainly will take time and be time-consuming, and will require you to consult an attorney.

 

Well, it seems to me that a few other things could be tried. For instance, they could discipline the president, and/or replace the president. But if a majority is fine with this, well, there you go.

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I don't know your church so don't know if there is a higher authority that will hear your complaint about this particular issue. Well, to be precise, one that will hear your complaint and take concrete action to correct the issue.

I think most churches do answer to a higher authority. 😉

5 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

If special the subject has to be discussed.

I don't know what you mean by this. What, exactly, do your bylaws say about special meetings?

[Josh Martin]

12 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

The motion made was to resolve an issue that the Chairman and a few others did not want brought up. He quickly adjourned to avoid discussion on the motion. People objected to him denying the motion and improper adjournment without a motion to adjourn. Someone quickly made a motion to adjourn and a quick second was made followed by a vote which resulted in adjournment. 

Okay. To be clear, it was improper for the chairman to declare the motion adjourned on his own authority. It looks like eventually, however, the correct process was followed. After members objected, "Someone quickly made a motion to adjourn and a quick second was made followed by a vote which resulted in adjournment." That is the correct process. The motion to adjourn has very high rank and it is not debatable.

12 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

I am wondering if i can request a special voters meeting to vote on the motion that was made.

That depends on what your bylaws say about special meetings.

12 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

and what actions can be taken to prevent this from happening again.

Well, you can try to educate the chairman and members and raise Points of Order in the future to try to stop the chairman from improperly refusing to recognize motions and/or to stop the chairman from declaring the meeting adjourned on his own. You can also try to elect a different chairman in the future. Or pursue disciplinary procedures to remove the current chairman so you can elect a new chairman sooner.

You can't, however, prevent the assembly itself from adjourning the meeting if that's what the assembly wants to do.

12 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

I always thought you could bring up new business under NEW BUISNESS.

Yes, this is obviously correct. (Unless, of course, the assembly has its own rules on this matter.)

12 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

It was obivious they were trying to control what the voters wanted to discuss. 

I don't quite know who "they" is referring to, but I would note that, to some extent the assembly does have the authority to control what people discuss. The assembly is free to adjourn the meeting by a motion, second, and majority vote, and it seems that this is (eventually) what happened. If the assembly can muster a 2/3 vote, it has even more tools at its disposal, such as the Previous Question and Object to Consideration of the Question.

Edited July 14, 2020 at 05:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I disagree with Mr. Martin about the motion to Adjourn.  My understanding of the facts is that the maker of the motion to Adjourn was not assigned the floor and was not entitled to be assigned the floor, since a main motion had been made and was awaiting a second and the stating of the question by the chair.  The motion to Adjourn was not in order, and the chair erred in not restoring order in this choatic situation and ruling the motion to Adjourn not to be in order in the current parliamentary situation.  It was improper for the question to be put.  This is exactly why our guest feels "snuffed" (like an altar candle?).

[Gary Novosielski]

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think most churches do answer to a higher authority. 😉

Except for the times when they let it go to voicemail.

[Bruce Lages]

14 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

 I am wondering if i can request a special voters meeting to vote on the motion that was made. and what actions can be taken to prevent this from happening again. 

Assuming that special meetings are authorized for your organization, I don't see that you can have a special meeting just to "vote on the motion that was made". From your description of the events at the meeting in question, it appears that the motion was made, but never seconded or stated by the chair - two steps necessary to place the motion before the assembly for their consideration. Therefore, that motion is now dead. if you do have a special meeting, the motion will need to be made again, seconded, and then discussed and voted on by the assembly.

If that motion had been pending at the time of adjournment, it could be called up at a special meeting called for that purpose, or it would be a general order at the next regular meeting, if held within a quarterly time period. I confess, though, that I am not certain if just the motion and a second are sufficient to automatically make it a general order for a future meeting, or if its statement by the chair, placing it before the assembly, is also required. I suspect it is the latter, since that is what makes an item 'pending'.

[Atul Kapur]

9 hours ago, Guest snuffed said:

 I know if seven voters request it a special voters meeting can be called for.  If special the subject has to be discussed.

I'm not so certain that calling a special meeting guarantees that the subject has to be discussed. If someone moves the motion that was denied, it could still be subject to Objection to Consideration or a Point of Order that the motion is not in order (RONR 11th ed., pages 110-113). Makes for a very short special meeting, but still possible.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I disagree with Mr. Martin about the motion to Adjourn.  My understanding of the facts is that the maker of the motion to Adjourn was not assigned the floor and was not entitled to be assigned the floor, since a main motion had been made and was awaiting a second and the stating of the question by the chair.  The motion to Adjourn was not in order, and the chair erred in not restoring order in this choatic situation and ruling the motion to Adjourn not to be in order in the current parliamentary situation.  It was improper for the question to be put.  This is exactly why our guest feels "snuffed" (like an altar candle?).

Thank you. I agree with this clarification. I agree that the correct procedure would have been as follows:

1) The member makes the motion under New Business.

2) The chair asks if there is a second. (Let's assume there is a second.)

3) The motion is seconded.

4) The chair states the question on the motion.

5) Most likely, the motion maker speaks in debate first on the motion (since the motion maker has preference in recognition).

6) THEN a member could seek recognition to obtain the floor and, after being recognized, move to adjourn the meeting. This would require a second and is not debatable. If adopted, the main motion would be taken up under Unfinished Business at the next regular meeting, if it is within a quarterly interval.

So yes, I think it is correct that, even although the assembly at least (after a lot of shouting) was able to stop the chair from declaring the meeting declared adjourned on his own authority, the procedure which followed was still not entirely above board.

14 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm not so certain that calling a special meeting guarantees that the subject has to be discussed. If someone moves the motion that was denied, it could still be subject to Objection to Consideration or a Point of Order that the motion is not in order (RONR 11th ed., pages 110-113). Makes for a very short special meeting, but still possible.

The assembly could also adjourn the meeting.

Edited July 14, 2020 at 08:39 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

2 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm not so certain that calling a special meeting guarantees that the subject has to be discussed. If someone moves the motion that was denied, it could still be subject to Objection to Consideration or a Point of Order that the motion is not in order (RONR 11th ed., pages 110-113). Makes for a very short special meeting, but still possible.

 

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

The assembly could also adjourn the meeting.

But that would be after the mover, using the right to preference in recognition, had the chance to discuss it. I was trying to find the most ruthless option to prevent any discussion.

[Rob Elsman]

"Snuffing" seems to have worked pretty ruthlessly.

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, and I was trying to put myself in that same ruthless mindset.