What exact rule(s) are being broken by the mover?

[jhk13]

This is a real question,  I need help with exactly which rule(s) are being broken and by whom.

I'm going through my New 12th edition but I'm becoming frustrated as I can't zero in on what I'm looking for. 

Thank You jhk 

 

Based on almost exact events.

 

motion comes to the floor and is seconded, 

"move $100.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Same Councillor asks for the floor and is granted, I would like to make a new motion,

"move $99.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

 

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Same Councillor asks for the floor and is granted, I would like to make a new motion,

"move $98.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

 

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Same Councillor asks for the floor and is granted, I would like to make a new motion,

"move $50.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

 

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Same Councillor asks for the floor and is granted, I would like to make a new motion,

"move $30.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

 

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Mover gets tired and stops on this topic but does it again on promotional pens.

Help..............

[Rob Elsman]

Each main motion proposes a technically different question, so each one is in order, just as each subsidiary motion to strike out and insert words is also in order.

On the other hand, motions that are clearly intended to obstruct the transaction of business are dilatory and are not in order.

Since I was not there, I cannot tell you which case actually applies.  On the one hand, members have the right to make motions in pursuit of making their judgment the judgment of the assembly.  On the other hand, no member has the right to obstruct the transaction of business with absurd or frivolous motions.

 

[J. J.]

It could be argued that the subsequent motions are dilatory (39:1-3).  Doing it this way seems to be, generally, an attempt at obstructing business. 

If I were chairing the meeting, I might consult with them member and indicate that it would not be dilatory if the motion was offered with a blank, i.e. a motion "to move [blank] from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot." The council would then fill in the blank. 

[Richard Brown]

I think the motions have become clearly dilatory and should have been ruled out of order. The member who kept making the motions could also be subjected to a motion of censure or even a motion to have him removed from the meeting. 

btw, each time the member made his slightly modified motion, rather than being handled in the normal way by debate and then a vote, each motion could have been subjected to an objection to consideration which would have required an immediate vote, without debate, on whether the motion shall even be considered. It takes a 2/3 vote in the negative to refuse to consider a motion.

See section 26, Objection to consideration of a question.
 

Edited February 10, 2021 at 10:14 AM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Dan Honemann]

5 hours ago, jhk13 said:

This is a real question,  I need help with exactly which rule(s) are being broken and by whom.

I'm going through my New 12th edition but I'm becoming frustrated as I can't zero in on what I'm looking for. 

Thank You jhk 

 

Based on almost exact events.

 

motion comes to the floor and is seconded, 

"move $100.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

This gets voted down. 2 in favour, 6 Not In Favour.

 

Same Councillor asks for the floor and is granted, I would like to make a new motion,

"move $99.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot."

 

 

This motion to "move $99.00 from reserves to buy light bulbs for the parking lot." is not in order because it presents substantially the same question as the motion which had just been rejected, and the chair should have so ruled.

[Richard Brown]

Agreeing with JJ and Mr. Honemann, the question is not whether the subsequent motions were technically slightly different from the original motion, but whether they were substantially the same motion. The second motion and most of the subsequent motions were indeed substantially the same motion and were out of order as being dilatory.

Edited February 10, 2021 at 10:49 AM by Richard Brown
Edited the wording of the first sentence slightly

[Guest Puzzling]

Just to give the Reference 

RONR 12th edition 10:26 point 3

[Dan Honemann]

I think it is a mistake (although not a major one) to refer to such motions as being improper because they are dilatory.  They are not in order for a very distinct reason, and that reason is that they present practically the same question as one previously decided at the same session (see, e.g., RONR, 12th ed., 8:15, 10:26 (3), 12:17 (1), 38:1).

Section 39 is divided into two subsections, Dilatory Motions and Improper Motions, and motions that present practically the same question as one previously decided at the same session are included within the latter category, and not the former. 

[jhk13]

Thank You Very Much for your replies. You have no idea how much I truly appreciate that you took the time to help me. 

jhk