Motion

[Angie N]

Can someone please explain the difference between a motion to eliminate something vs a motion not to do something? 

I thought motions had to be in the affirmative. 

[Dan Honemann]

1 hour ago, Angie N said:

Can someone please explain the difference between a motion to eliminate something vs a motion not to do something? 

The former seeks to eliminate something while the latter seeks not to do something.

1 hour ago, Angie N said:

I thought motions had to be in the affirmative. 

Well, think again.  🙂

[Josh Martin]

5 hours ago, Angie N said:

Can someone please explain the difference between a motion to eliminate something vs a motion not to do something? 

I think I will need more context to provide a meaningful answer.

5 hours ago, Angie N said:

I thought motions had to be in the affirmative. 

Not exactly. RONR notes that it is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement for the sake of clarity, but it does not go so far as to say that motions have to be in the affirmative. In the case of a motion "not to do something" in particular, RONR notes that this should not be done if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all.

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move “that no response be made” to a request for a contribution to a fund, or “that our delegates be given no instructions,” unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken.

It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where the effect of the motion is to propose that something be done, since members may become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a motion. Rather than moving, for example, that the association go on record as “not in favor of the proposed public bond issue,” it should be moved that the association “oppose” or “declare its opposition to” the bond issue." RONR (12th ed.) 10:11-12

Edited September 9, 2020 at 01:04 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

5 hours ago, Angie N said:

Can someone please explain the difference between a motion to eliminate something vs a motion not to do something? 

I thought motions had to be in the affirmative. 

To help us address your question about a motion to eliminate something, please tell us what it is you have in mind or give us an example of what you mean by a motion to eliminate something. Such motions can quite definitely be appropriate and in order, but we need a little more information to give you a good answer.

[Angie N]

6 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I think I will need more context to provide a meaningful answer.

Not exactly. RONR notes that it is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement for the sake of clarity, but it does not go so far as to say that motions have to be in the affirmative. In the case of a motion "not to do something" in particular, RONR notes that this should not be done if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all.

"A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move “that no response be made” to a request for a contribution to a fund, or “that our delegates be given no instructions,” unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken.

It is preferable to avoid a motion containing a negative statement even in cases where the effect of the motion is to propose that something be done, since members may become confused as to the effect of voting for or against such a motion. Rather than moving, for example, that the association go on record as “not in favor of the proposed public bond issue,” it should be moved that the association “oppose” or “declare its opposition to” the bond issue." RONR (12th ed.) 10:11-12

Thank you so much! This explanation is very helpful. 

[Angie N]

6 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

To help us address your question about a motion to eliminate something, please tell us what it is you have in mind or give us an example of what you mean by a motion to eliminate something. Such motions can quite definitely be appropriate and in order, but we need a little more information to give you a good answer.

The motion to eliminate voting of the membership on fundraising activities that do not require membership funding. 

[Angie N]

10 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, think again.  🙂

I'm seeking to educate myself. The snarky comment is unnecessary and not welcomed. 

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, Angie N said:

The motion to eliminate voting of the membership on fundraising activities that do not require membership funding. 

What exactly is the reason that this practice is currently in effect? Is there a rule in place which requires it, or is it simply a custom? Additionally, what is the desired practice going forward? Would these activities instead be approved by some other body or person (the board, the President, etc.) or would they not require approval of any kind?

If there is a rule in place which requires this, the rule will need to be amended. Otherwise, an ordinary motion would suffice, although I think the motion would be more clear if it stated what the desired new practice is rather than simply saying that it will eliminate the current practice.

[Angie N]

This is a recommendation from the fundraising committee. I believe the desired outcome is that they don't want to bring any recommendations before the membership that does not cost the membership. Essentially they want the authority to have the events, etc without having to bring it before the membership to vote on when it doesn't cost the membership. 

[Josh Martin]

1 hour ago, Angie N said:

This is a recommendation from the fundraising committee. I believe the desired outcome is that they don't want to bring any recommendations before the membership that does not cost the membership. Essentially they want the authority to have the events, etc without having to bring it before the membership to vote on when it doesn't cost the membership. 

Assuming there are no rules on this matter that would need to be amended, I suppose the desired motion would be something along the lines of "That the fundraising committee be authorized to implement fundraising events if there is no cost to the membership."

[Angie N]

3 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Assuming there are no rules on this matter that would need to be amended, I suppose the desired motion would be something along the lines of "That the fundraising committee be authorized to implement fundraising events if there is no cost to the membership."

Thank you!  This sounds much clearer than the original motion.