Improper Motion

[Guest Aaron R.]

Hello everyone, I have a quest regarding improper motions that have passed a members vote.

A motion was made by a member and passed by the members to make changes to our range at a recent meeting. The issue is that our bylaws state "All proposals concerning the range, purchasing and rules must originate in the range committee." Being our bylaws state this I see this as being an improper motion. Am I wrong in my thinking? The person who made the motion is not part of the committee.

What actions if any should I / can I take against this motion?

TIA

[Joshua Katz]

18 minutes ago, Guest Aaron R. said:

What actions if any should I / can I take against this motion?

 

I had initially typed out a response, but looking again, I'm not sure there is anything you can do. The rule states that the proposal must come out of committee and, presumably, then be passed by the members. The members passed it anyway, so the failure for it to come first from the committee can no longer be subject to a timely point of order. 

[Weldon Merritt]

I concur. The time to have raised a Point of Order would have been at the time the motion was before the assembly for consideration. 

[Guest Puzzling]

17 hours ago, Guest Aaron R. said:

Hello everyone, I have a quest regarding improper motions that have passed a members vote.

A motion was made by a member and passed by the members to make changes to our range at a recent meeting. The issue is that our bylaws state "All proposals concerning the range, purchasing and rules must originate in the range committee." Being our bylaws state this I see this as being an improper motion. Am I wrong in my thinking? The person who made the motion is not part of the committee.

What actions if any should I / can I take against this motion?

TIA

What is exactly in the bylaws?

If it only says what is mentioned I think nothing can be done anymore.

But maybe (hopefully) the bylaws say more than what is mentioned. Also read the rules about committees in general and the range  committee in particular.

I am a bit puzzling if maybe previous notice of an other vote is needed. (And those maybe create a continuing breach of order)

 

 

 

[J. J.]

9 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

What is exactly in the bylaws?

If it only says what is mentioned I think nothing can be done anymore.

But maybe (hopefully) the bylaws say more than what is mentioned. Also read the rules about committees in general and the range  committee in particular.

I am a bit puzzling if maybe previous notice of an other vote is needed. (And those maybe create a continuing breach of order)

 

 

 

Such a rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order and could be suspended (2:21).  Its violation would not be a breach of a continuing nature (10:26(1) and 23:6(2). 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 7/9/2021 at 6:24 PM, Guest Aaron R. said:

Hello everyone, I have a quest regarding improper motions that have passed a members vote.

A motion was made by a member and passed by the members to make changes to our range at a recent meeting. The issue is that our bylaws state "All proposals concerning the range, purchasing and rules must originate in the range committee." Being our bylaws state this I see this as being an improper motion. Am I wrong in my thinking? The person who made tAAhe motion is not part of the committee.

What actions if any should I / can I take against this motion?

TIA

As others have noted, a Point of Order  now would no longer be timely.

If a similar occasion arises, you could raise a Point of Order that the motion is not in order since it did not originate in the range committee, which should be ruled well taken, or if you wanted to be a little less confrontational you could wait for debate and then move that, in compliance with the bylaws, the motion be Referred to the range committee.  If that motion failed, you could still raise the Point of Order.

[Guest Zev]

The thing that concerns me is that a fight could ensue over the fact that the bylaws use the word "originate" and yet the motion instead was referred to them, which is not the same thing. An enterprising member might move that the "Range Committee be discharged of the motion referred to them." Members of the Range Committee might complain with "We didn't even get a chance to see the motion!" to which an answer might be "Hey! We gave you guys all of fifteen seconds. Where were you all that time?" I know, it sounds kind of silly, but not impossible.

Perhaps the bylaws should be changed to eliminate the words "originate in" and insert "have the recommendation of." In this fashion it would not matter where the motion originated and the Range Committee would have its chance to issue a recommendation and fulfill what appears to be the original intent of those that adopted the current bylaws.

[Gary Novosielski]

10 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The thing that concerns me is that a fight could ensue over the fact that the bylaws use the word "originate" and yet the motion instead was referred to them, which is not the same thing. An enterprising member might move that the "Range Committee be discharged of the motion referred to them." Members of the Range Committee might complain with "We didn't even get a chance to see the motion!" to which an answer might be "Hey! We gave you guys all of fifteen seconds. Where were you all that time?" I know, it sounds kind of silly, but not impossible.

Perhaps the bylaws should be changed to eliminate the words "originate in" and insert "have the recommendation of." In this fashion it would not matter where the motion originated and the Range Committee would have its chance to issue a recommendation and fulfill what appears to be the original intent of those that adopted the current bylaws.

Does "have the recommendation of" imply that the recommendation must be positive?  To me that sounds more ambiguous than "originate".

I agree that such a fight could conceivably ensue, and if so, then the more stringent interpretation should definitely apply. A point of order should be raised at the first sign of swords or firearms.

Discharging the committee would take a 2/3 vote, which would be enough to suspend the rule anyway, so at that point the fight is over.

Edited July 11, 2021 at 04:20 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Zev]

26 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Does "have the recommendation of" imply that the recommendation must be positive?  To me that sounds more ambiguous than "originate".

I am surprised by your question. We know that committees issue recommendations that are favorable and some that are unfavorable.

27 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Discharging the committee would take a 2/3 vote, which would be enough to suspend the rule anyway, so at that point the fight is over.

I agree. But the potential silliness by the committee members and the mover of the motion to Discharge is still there! 😃

[Richard Brown]

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

The thing that concerns me is that a fight could ensue over the fact that the bylaws use the word "originate" and yet the motion instead was referred to them

Nothing said by the original poster indicates that the motion was even  referred to the range committee. The committee was bypassed altogether. 

8 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Perhaps the bylaws should be changed to eliminate the words "originate in" and insert "have the recommendation of." In this fashion it would not matter where the motion originated and the Range Committee would have its chance to issue a recommendation and fulfill what appears to be the original intent of those that adopted the current bylaws.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski’. To me, this suggestion is even worse and will only cause confusion and uncertainty. The language that a proposal must  “have the recommendation of the range committee” implies that a proposal must receive the favorable recommendation of the range committee, yet it does not say so explicitly.   Language which is less ambiguous should be used. 

The language that certain types of proposals “must originate in the range Commitee’ seems quite clear to me. But, as others have said, this provision is in the nature of a rule of order and it’s breach does not constitute a continuing breach. 
 

 

[Guest Zev]

13 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The language that a proposal must  “have the recommendation of the range committee” implies that a proposal must receive the favorable recommendation of the range committee, yet it does not say so explicitly.   Language which is less ambiguous should be used. 

Oh OK. I see now what you guys are talking about. If you think that the single word "recommendation" implies a favorable recommendation then by all means any new text should make certain that the committee is not obliged one way or the other.