Out of Order Motion That Passed

[Guest131313]

Hello. If a motion passed in a meeting where the Parliamentarian was not present and it is Out of Order, does a new motion need to be made or can it be overturned at the next meeting with the reason why it is Out of Order? 

[Gary Novosielski]

A lot depends on why it is being considered to be Out of Order.

We'll need considerably more detail than that.

[Guest Guest131313]

My apologies. If our organizational document states that the President shall be an authorized approved on our accounts then another section states that the Treasurer and another officer (Financial Secretary or President) may be authorized users on the account, would it be out of order if a motion was made to only have the Treasurer and Financial Secretary as authorized users? A similar motion was made in a meeting but that seems to be out of order but I wanted to cross my t’s and dot my eyes. Hopefully this detail helps. 

[Atul Kapur]

"No main motion is in order that conflicts with the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws" RONR (12th ed.) 10:26(1)

23:6 explains that this constitutes a 'continuing breach' so a  point of order can be raised as long as the motion is in force: "The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order 
must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby 
the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed. Instances of this kind occur when: 
a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly"

So, at the next meeting, you can raise a point of order that this motion is in conflict with the bylaws. If the point is ruled well taken, then the motion is null and void.

[Richard Brown]

Guest 131313, I agree with Dr. Kapur. If the bylaws specified that the president shall be an authorized signer on all accounts, a motion to prohibit the president from being such an authorized signer would conflict with the bylaws, Is out of order, is null and void and constitutes a continuing breach.

The matter can be resolved by a ruling of the chair (or by the assembly on an appeal) that the motion is out of order and is null and void. It can also be cured by rescinding or amending the offending motion. The preferred method from a parliamentary standpoint is that the chair or the assembly rule that the offending provision is out of order and therefore null and  void and to be sure that ruling is entered in the minutes.

[Guest Guest 131313]

Thank you ALL so much for your responses and the citations. This is very helpful! 

[Bruce Lages]

I see that the OP's second response refers to "our organizational document". The responses so far assume that this 'organizational document' is on the level of the corporate charter, constitution, or bylaws. If there's any chance that this organizational document is not on that level, I believe the answer to the OP's question could be different. Perhaps Guest Guest 131313 could clarify the nature of this organizational document if he or she is still with us.

[Richard Brown]

Bruce, I agree, and I actually intended to post a follow up comment to that effect. However, there were so many other posts that I wanted to respond to that I simply forgot to come back to this one. Thank you for bringing it up!