Divisibility of a Ruling that an Adopted Motion was Null and Void

[Weldon Merritt]

Suppose a motion that was divisible on demand was adopted, with no one demanding its division. Subsequently, either in response to a Point of Order or the chair's own initiative, the chair rules that one part of the motion created a continuing breach. May that part (only) of the motion be ruled null and void, leaving the other part intact? Or since the motion was not divided, and was adopted by a single vote, must the entire motion stand or fall together? 

[Weldon Merritt]

Just a quick follow-up. Suppose the motion was not divisible on demand, but legitimately could have been subject to a Division of the Question. Would that make a difference in the answer?

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Suppose a motion that was divisible on demand was adopted, with no one demanding its division. Subsequently, either in response to a Point of Order or the chair's own initiative, the chair rules that one part of the motion created a continuing breach. May that part (only) of the motion be ruled null and void, leaving the other part intact? Or since the motion was not divided, and was adopted by a single vote, must the entire motion stand or fall together? 

Since these are instances in which a group of separate main motions are offered and adopted under a single enacting motion, I would think that any one of this group of motions, standing alone, might be determined to be null and void without affecting the others.

[Dan Honemann]

10 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Just a quick follow-up. Suppose the motion was not divisible on demand, but legitimately could have been subject to a Division of the Question. Would that make a difference in the answer?

Yes, I suppose in this instance the entire motion will be null and void, but I'm not at all comfortable dealing with this as a purely hypothetical question.

[Weldon Merritt]

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, I suppose in this instance the entire motion will be null and void, but I'm not at all comfortable dealing with this as a purely hypothetical question.

Fair enough. I'll make it less hypothetical.

A motion "that Board meetings be electronically recorded, and the recordings be provided to the Secretary for accuracy, and with Board members permitted to review the recordings," had been adopted at a previous meeting. Subsequently, a motion was adopted "to delay the effect of the original motion, and to appoint a committee consisting of [specified members] to investigate whether electronic recording of Board meetings was legal, and if it was determined to be legal, to then develop policies and procedures for recording of meetings, including appropriate protections, for the Board’s consideration at its next meeting."

Actually, in considering it further, I'm not sure if the motion is divisible, since the reason for delaying the effect of the first motion is to allow investigation by the committee. But for purposes of my question, let's assume it is divisible, and that it would be in order as a stand-alone motion.

It is the second part of the motion that creates a problem. While the assembly may create a special committee, thee bylaws give the president to authority to appoint the members. so the motion as adopted is in violation of the bylaws. In this instance, could the chair rule the second part null and void, and leave the first part intact?

[Dan Honemann]

39 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Fair enough. I'll make it less hypothetical.

A motion "that Board meetings be electronically recorded, and the recordings be provided to the Secretary for accuracy, and with Board members permitted to review the recordings," had been adopted at a previous meeting. Subsequently, a motion was adopted "to delay the effect of the original motion, and to appoint a committee consisting of [specified members] to investigate whether electronic recording of Board meetings was legal, and if it was determined to be legal, to then develop policies and procedures for recording of meetings, including appropriate protections, for the Board’s consideration at its next meeting."

Actually, in considering it further, I'm not sure if the motion is divisible, since the reason for delaying the effect of the first motion is to allow investigation by the committee. But for purposes of my question, let's assume it is divisible, and that it would be in order as a stand-alone motion.

It is the second part of the motion that creates a problem. While the assembly may create a special committee, thee bylaws give the president to authority to appoint the members. so the motion as adopted is in violation of the bylaws. In this instance, could the chair rule the second part null and void, and leave the first part intact?

I gather that the President was not present at the meeting at which this motion appointing a committee to investigate, etc. and report back to the Board at its next meeting was adopted. So will the chair (president?) be ruling on the validity of this motion at the next meeting of the Board when the committee submits its report? 

And by the way, I agree that this in not a divisable motion.  🙂

[Weldon Merritt]

56 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

So will the chair (president?) be ruling on the validity of this motion at the next meeting of the Board when the committee submits its report? 

Yes. So if the motion is not divisible, then certainly it would have to stand or fall as a whole. But if the it were divisible (unfortunately, I don't have a good example in mind), could the part relating to the committee be ruled null and void while leaving the other part intact? 

[Dan Honemann]

27 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

Yes. So if the motion is not divisible, then certainly it would have to stand or fall as a whole. But if the it were divisible (unfortunately, I don't have a good example in mind), could the part relating to the committee be ruled null and void while leaving the other part intact? 

Tell us exactly what happens at this meeting.

[Weldon Merritt]

25 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Tell us exactly what happens at this meeting.

Unfortunately, I won't be at the meeting. It is a real situation that was brought to my attention (at least the initial scenario is), but I'm not directly involved. If I am able to find out what happens at the next meeting, I will come back and let you know.