Postponed with improper vote

[J. J.]

This is something similar to the thread, but I do not know if either question is answered directly in RONR. 

The society in my question meets once every two months, but for multiple day sessions.

In January, on Day 1 of the session a main motion, Motion #45, is postponed to the March meeting.  Unrealized at the time, a number of votes cast by people ineligible to vote are cast, enough to have  effected the result.

On Day 2 of the January session, a member realizes this, and, with nothing pending, raises a point of order.  The chair rules that as the votes of ineligible votes did effect the result, 23:6 and 25:9 were violated, and that the adoption of the motion to postpone Motion #45, is void. 

Does Motion #45 become pending?  If not, what do members at the January session have to do to consider it? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/9/2021 at 8:05 AM, J. J. said:

This is something similar to the thread, but I do not know if either question is answered directly in RONR. 

The society in my question meets once every two months, but for multiple day sessions.

In January, on Day 1 of the session a main motion, Motion #45, is postponed to the March meeting.  Unrealized at the time, a number of votes cast by people ineligible to vote are cast, enough to have  effected the result.

On Day 2 of the January session, a member realizes this, and, with nothing pending, raises a point of order.  The chair rules that as the votes of ineligible votes did effect the result, 23:6 and 25:9 were violated, and that the adoption of the motion to postpone Motion #45, is void. 

Does Motion #45 become pending?  If not, what do members at the January session have to do to consider it? 

In my opinion the answer is yes, motion #45 becomes pending again, although I suppose that additional facts could have an affect upon what should happen in this event.

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 9:08 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In my opinion the answer is yes, motion #45 becomes pending again, although I suppose that additional facts could have an affect upon what should happen in this event.

I agree.  I will clarify that Main Motion #45 does not require previous notice; it is a plain vanilla main motion. 

Changing one detail, however, the assembly does not catch the mistake until the March session.  However, the point of order is raised at the March session, but prior to the assembly reaching unfinished business, e.g. after the President's report.  Does Main Motion #45 come up at that point?  (Obviously, if Motion #45 is pending it could be postponed legitimately at that point as it is a pending main motion.)

 

 

Edited October 9, 2021 at 02:16 PM by J. J.

[Rob Elsman]

I agree with Mr. Honemann insofar as we have the complete set of facts.  However, with Mr. Honemann, I caution that additional facts could change things completely.

[Rob Elsman]

As to the second question, no.  A Point of Order does not promote the category of business of the main motion, nor does it set back the time at which the main motion was made.  It will take its regularly assigned place among the items of Unfinished Business.

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:20 AM, Rob Elsman said:

As to the second question, no.  A Point of Order does not promote the category of business of the main motion, nor does it set back the time at which the main motion was made.  It will take its regularly assigned place among the items of Unfinished Business.

Okay, why would this be a breach of a continuing nature at the January meeting, but not at the March meeting?

Edited October 9, 2021 at 02:27 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:26 AM, J. J. said:

Okay, why would this be a breach of a continuing nature at the January meeting, but not at the March meeting?

It is a breach of a continuing nature at the March meeting.

I suppose I should add that it will continue to be a breach of a continuing nature and subject to a point of order only up until Motion 45 is taken up at the time to which it was postponed. 

Edited October 9, 2021 at 02:41 PM by Dan Honemann
Added the last sentence

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:28 AM, Dan Honemann said:

It is a breach of a continuing nature at the March meeting.

I suppose I should add that it will continue to be a breach of a continuing nature and subject to a point of order only up until Motion 45 is taken up at the time to which it was postponed. 

I will agree that once Motion 45 becomes pending (no matter how) the breach has healed.

Could the chair rule, prior to Motion 45 becoming pending, that the motion to postpone Motion 45 is void and that Motion 45 may be made under new business?  I am not certain if that is better procedure than having the motion be brought before the assembly immediately, but I would not believe it creates a breach of a continuing nature either. 

[Rob Elsman]

As to the third question, no.  Renewing a main motion that has already been made and not disposed of is an improper main motion.  RONR (12th ed.) 10:26, item 5.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/9/2021 at 10:52 AM, J. J. said:

I will agree that once Motion 45 becomes pending (no matter how) the breach has healed.

Could the chair rule, prior to Motion 45 becoming pending, that the motion to postpone Motion 45 is void and that Motion 45 may be made under new business?  I am not certain if that is better procedure than having the motion be brought before the assembly immediately, but I would not believe it creates a breach of a continuing nature either. 

As has been noted, if a point of order is raised prior to the time to which Motion 45 was postponed, the chair should rule that the point of order is well taken and that Motion 45 will be taken up at the time when it is in order to do so under unfinished business. If, instead, the chair rules "that Motion 45 may be made under new business", and this is understood to mean that this is how it must be brought back if it is to be brought back, then that will be that unless an appeal it taken and the chair's ruling is reversed.

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 11:15 AM, Dan Honemann said:

As has been noted, if a point of order is raised prior to the time to which Motion 45 was postponed, the chair should rule that the point of order is well taken and that Motion 45 will be taken up at the time when it is in order to do so under unfinished business.

What would be the case if the chair rules just rules that the motion to postpone motion to postpone Motion 45 was out of order and that Motion 45 was not postponed?  The chair makes no ruling as to when Motion 45 can be brought up.

Further, if the chair would rule that Motion 45 should come up under unfinished business, would that be subject to appeal, to the effect that Motion 45 should come up immediately? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/9/2021 at 11:51 AM, J. J. said:

What would be the case if the chair rules just rules that the motion to postpone motion to postpone Motion 45 was out of order and that Motion 45 was not postponed?  The chair makes no ruling as to when Motion 45 can be brought up.

Well, you have some sort of idiot chair, since there has been no indication that the motion to postpone was out of order, it simply was not validly adopted. But anyway, if the chair makes no ruling as to when Motion 45 can be brought up, it will then be up to the assembly to decide. This can come about in many different ways.

 

On 10/9/2021 at 11:51 AM, J. J. said:

Further, if the chair would rule that Motion 45 should come up under unfinished business, would that be subject to appeal, to the effect that Motion 45 should come up immediately? 

Yes.

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 12:04 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, you have some sort of idiot chair, since there has been no indication that the motion to postpone was out of order, it simply was not validly adopted. But anyway, if the chair makes no ruling as to when Motion 45 can be brought up, it will then be up to the assembly to decide. This can come about in many different ways.

 

Yes.

An invalidly adopted motion could not present substantially the same question because the disposal of the same question, even temporarily, is null and void. 

[Rob Elsman]

You misunderstood, J.J.  The main motion that was invalidly postponed cannot be renewed, because the same main motion is still under the control of the assembly and not disposed of, temporarily or permanently.

[J. J.]

On 10/9/2021 at 1:39 PM, Rob Elsman said:

You misunderstood, J.J.  The main motion that was invalidly postponed cannot be renewed, because the same main motion is still under the control of the assembly and not disposed of, temporarily or permanently.

Is it still under the control of the assembly? 

[Rob Elsman]

Yes.

[J. J.]

On 10/10/2021 at 12:14 AM, Rob Elsman said:

Yes.

An act that is null and void could not put the motion under the control of the assembly. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/11/2021 at 12:35 AM, J. J. said:

An act that is null and void could not put the motion under the control of the assembly. 

Well, I suppose that this is an accurate statement, but it doesn't mean much. The only act which I can think of that puts a main motion under the control of the assembly (makes it the property of the assembly) is the act of the presiding officer in stating the question on it when it is first introduced. After that, it will remain the property of the assembly, and under its control, until such time as it has been permanently disposed of. 

In the hypothetical case that you have posited, if no point of order is raised during the January meeting concerning the invalidity of the adoption of the motion to postpone main motion #45, that motion will remain within the control of the assembly by having been postponed to the March meeting.  If, at that meeting, #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it. If #45 is adopted, its adoption cannot thereafter be declared to be invalid because its postponement was null and void. It may have been null and void but it wasn't that null and void.

So what then should be the effect of raising this point of order sometime during the March session prior to the time when #45 is taken up, and having that point of order declared to be well taken? I agree with you that no direct answer to this question will be found anywhere in RONR, and as a consequence the assembly will have to decide it for itself. As previously stated, I think that the assembly should decide that Motion 45 should be taken up at the time when it is in order to do so under unfinished business because that's what I think it is, the assembly never having finally disposed of it.

 

 

 

[J. J.]

On 10/11/2021 at 11:19 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, I suppose that this is an accurate statement, but it doesn't mean much. The only act which I can think of that puts a main motion under the control of the assembly (makes it the property of the assembly) is the act of the presiding officer in stating the question on it when it is first introduced. After that, it will remain the property of the assembly, and under its control, until such time as it has been permanently disposed of. 

In the hypothetical case that you have posited, if no point of order is raised during the January meeting concerning the invalidity of the adoption of the motion to postpone main motion #45, that motion will remain within the control of the assembly by having been postponed to the March meeting.  If, at that meeting, #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it. If #45 is adopted, its adoption cannot thereafter be declared to be invalid because its postponement was null and void. It may have been null and void but it wasn't that null and void.

So what then should be the effect of raising this point of order sometime during the March session prior to the time when #45 is taken up, and having that point of order declared to be well taken? I agree with you that no direct answer to this question will be found anywhere in RONR, and as a consequence the assembly will have to decide it for itself. As previously stated, I think that the assembly should decide that Motion 45 should be taken up at the time when it is in order to do so under unfinished business because that's what I think it is, the assembly never having finally disposed of it.

 

 

 

In this particular scenario, the breach would end, i.e. heal, of its own accord.  However, if the motion were to come up under new business, the breach would also end, would it not? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/13/2021 at 6:49 AM, J. J. said:

In this particular scenario, the breach would end, i.e. heal, of its own accord. 

In what particular scenario? As I said before, If #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed during the March meeting, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it.

On 10/13/2021 at 6:49 AM, J. J. said:

However, if the motion were to come up under new business, the breach would also end, would it not? 

I'm really not sure what you mean by this either. How does the motion (#45, I assume) "come up under new business". Is it the result of a point of order being raised, a call for the orders of the day, or simply by some member moving the adoption of #45 as if it were new business?

But putting all that aside, I suppose the real question is this: "At what point, if any, during the March meeting will this breach of the rules (declaring the motion to postpone as having been validly adopted) cease to have any continuing force or effect if no point of order is raised concerning it and motion #45 is not taken up at or prior to the time to which it was purportedly postponed?". In my opinion, once the time to which motion #45 was purportedly postponed is reached, it will then and thereafter be too late to raise any point of order concerning the invalidity of its postponement. Instead, a call for the orders of the day may be in order.

But this is simply my opinion. Others may have a better one

[J. J.]

On 10/13/2021 at 11:27 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In what particular scenario? As I said before, If #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed during the March meeting, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it.

I'm really not sure what you mean by this either. How does the motion (#45, I assume) "come up under new business". Is it the result of a point of order being raised, a call for the orders of the day, or simply by some member moving the adoption of #45 as if it were new business?

But putting all that aside, I suppose the real question is this: "At what point, if any, during the March meeting will this breach of the rules (declaring the motion to postpone as having been validly adopted) cease to have any continuing force or effect if no point of order is raised concerning it and motion #45 is not taken up at or prior to the time to which it was purportedly postponed?". In my opinion, once the time to which motion #45 was purportedly postponed is reached, it will then and thereafter be too late to raise any point of order concerning the invalidity of its postponement. Instead, a call for the orders of the day may be in order.

But this is simply my opinion. Others may have a better one

There may be another question, one that could see happening.  The assembly, for some reason skips over #45 at any point before new business becomes pending.  Is it out of order to bring that up under new business on the ground that it is still under the control of the assembly? 

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/14/2021 at 12:40 PM, J. J. said:

There may be another question, one that could see happening.  The assembly, for some reason skips over #45 at any point before new business becomes pending.  Is it out of order to bring that up under new business on the ground that it is still under the control of the assembly? 

No, it is certainly not out of order. As I said, I think a call for the orders of the day would be in order for the purpose of calling the chair's attention to the fact that he has failed to notice that the time has arrived to take it up.