Procedure - Order of Motions

[Guest Jeff N]

My organization passed an Annual Spending Plan motion to authorize its Treasurer to create a spending plan (aka budget) for the organization, suggested expenses, reserves and other items to include, and allowed the organization to vote on the Spending Plan which the Treasurer would then implement.

Due to the stack of motions on the docket, the Spending Plan motion was moved to June or July, but a website subcommittee introduced an motion to authorize its expenses and have the Treasurer execute their expenditures. Their rationale was basically that there is plenty of money in the budget for it.  The Treasurer offered a friendly amendment to simply authorize the full Annual Spending Plan.  The meeting ran out of time before the amendment could be approved or rejected.

Now it comes to my attention that there may be a Robert's Rule that the full budget takes precedence over a motion to spend a few line items without a budget. Is this true and if so,  where can it be found?

[Jeff N,]

19 minutes ago, Guest Jeff N said:

My organization passed an Annual Spending Plan motion to authorize its Treasurer to create a spending plan (aka budget) for the organization, suggested expenses, reserves and other items to include, and allowed the organization to vote on the Spending Plan which the Treasurer would then implement.

Due to the stack of motions on the docket, the Spending Plan motion was moved to June or July, but a website subcommittee introduced an motion to authorize its expenses and have the Treasurer execute their expenditures. Their rationale was basically that there is plenty of money in the budget for it.  The Treasurer offered a friendly amendment to simply authorize the full Annual Spending Plan.  The meeting ran out of time before the amendment could be approved or rejected.

Now it comes to my attention that there may be a Robert's Rule that the full budget takes precedence over a motion to spend a few line items without a budget. Is this true and if so,  where can it be found?

TIMING
March meeting - Treasurer is authorized to create a spending plan and present it for vote/approval. Motion carries
April meeting - Website subcommittee presents its expenditure motion stating there is enough money in the budget - with no budget presented. (some of its numbers are inaccurate)  Treasurer presents friendly amendment to vote on the full spending plan to some resistance, but discussion ends abruptly at the meeting end time. (The organization does not accept motions to extend.) The friendly amendment to adapt the full spending plan (aka budget) was neither accepted nor rejected.

[Rob Elsman]

4 hours ago, Guest Jeff N said:

Now it comes to my attention that there may be a Robert's Rule that the full budget takes precedence over a motion to spend a few line items without a budget. Is this true and if so,  where can it be found?

Nowhere. 😐

[Alicia Percell, PRP]

I agree with Mr. Elsman that there is nothing in Robert's Rules which provides that, "the full budget takes precedence over a motion to spend a few line items without a budget."

I think there are several problems here, though.

The treasurer's motion looks to me to have been out of order for more than one reason.  First, it is not germane to the motion to merely authorize expenditures for the website committee.  It goes well beyond that.  The general rule on whether an amendment is germane can be found in RONR (12th ed.) 12:6 which says:

"An amendment must always be germane -- that is, closely related to or having bearing on the subject of the motion to be amended.  This means that no new subject can be introduced under pretext of being an amendment (see 12:16-21)."

The spending plan would contain a lot of other new subjects which were not contained within the motion limited to the website committee expenditures.

IF this amendment came up under an agenda item that was specifically for a report from the website committee, it would not be germane to the topic of the agenda item, either.

It is likely too late to raise such a point of order, but not enough information was given for me to know for certain.  Did the chair state the amendment before time ran out?  If so, then a point of order should have been raised right then to question whether it was germane.  See 23:5-6 for the timeliness requirement of a point of order and that, unless it falls into particular exceptions (which don't seem to apply here), that

"The general rule is that if a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs.  For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion.  After debate on such a motion has begun -- no matter how clear it is that the chair should not have stated the question on the motion -- a point of order is too late."

If you got to the point of debating the amendment, it's too late to raise a point of order about it when you reconvene.  If not, though, this point of order could be raised when the issue comes back.

But you also called it a "friendly" amendment and mentioned that time expired before it could be either accepted or rejected.  Please note that there are no special advantages given by Robert's Rules to an amendment perceived to be "friendly."  See 12:91 which says:

"The term 'friendly amendment' is often used to describe an amendment offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in the belief that the amendment will either improve the statement or effect of the main motion, presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or will increase the chances of the main motion's adoption.  Regardless of whether or not the maker of the main motion 'accepts' the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted on formally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is handled under the same rules as amendments generally (see 33:11-19)."

So maybe if there was a perception that friendly amendments were different, maybe the chair didn't state the amendment formally, and maybe you didn't get far enough to preclude a future point of order about whether the amendment is germane.

The next issue I would point out is that you said, "Due to the stack of motions on the docket, the Spending Plan motion was moved to June or July..."  Once the group has voted to postpone an item to a future meeting, it is out of order for the Treasurer to then try to introduce that motion during the current meeting, whether or not it is couched as an amendment to another motion.  See 39:5 that "motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force," and the Treasurer's motion would conflict with the prior decision to postpone it to a future meeting.

I do not know how frequently your group meets, but there are hints that perhaps you meet monthly, since you referenced "June or July?"  If so, please note that it is improper to postpone anything beyond the next session, so if you met monthly, an April meeting cannot postpone something to a date later than the May regular meeting, thus postponing to "June or July" would not be allowed.  8:12 provides that, "It is improper, for example, to postpone anything beyond the next regular session -- which would be an attempt to prevent that session from considering the question."  But of course, this means that at the next meeting, the spending plan could be brought up, so the postponement from April would no longer be the reason that the treasurer's motion would be out of order as an amendment to the website committee's motion.  Then you're back to the question of whether it is germane to the website committee's motion, and whether the amendment progressed so far in the April meeting that it is too late to raise a point of order about it.