Out of order motions

[Newteach201]

Hi!

Our association recently made a motion that passed but was later determined by the chair to be out of order because it was a violation of the bylaws. What could remedy this? We can fix it as nothing has happened yet. Please help. 

 

[Joshua Katz]

A motion that conflicts with the bylaws is a continuing breach and subject to a point of order at any time it is still in effect. So, at the next meeting, a point of order to that effect should be raised, and the motion should then be treated as if it were never passed.

[puzzling]

puzzling a bit.

On 10/2/2022 at 11:35 PM, Newteach201 said:

Hi!

Our association recently made a motion that passed but was later determined by the chair to be out of order because it was a violation of the bylaws. What could remedy this? We can fix it as nothing has happened yet. Please help. 

 

it was the chair who later determined ( i suppose after the meeting) that the motion  be out of order.

May the chair make a point of order at the next meeting?

or can he just rule (outside a meeting) that the motion was null and void / out of order?

Or what is the correct procedure for the chair? (especially if he is the only one who at this point thinks the motion is out of order) 

[Gary Novosielski]

The chair can raise a point of order at the next meeting, but cannot "rule" on anything outside of a meeting.  Rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal  (§24), and appeals can't happen outside of a meeting.

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/4/2022 at 7:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The chair can raise a point of order at the next meeting, but cannot "rule" on anything outside of a meeting.  Rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal  (§24), and appeals can't happen outside of a meeting.

If the chair raises a point of order at the next meeting, it would be a main motion because there is no motion pending in the meeting. 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 4:50 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

If the chair raises a point of order at the next meeting, it would be a main motion because there is no motion pending in the meeting. 

No, this is not correct. A Point of Order is an incidental motion, whether or not a motion is pending.

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

No, this is not correct. A Point of Order is an incidental motion, whether or not a motion is pending.

If it is an incidental motion, which relates to the pending business, it must be decided immediately before business can proceed. 6:15.

The point of order raised above does not have these characteristics.

[Baofeng Ma]

Incidental motions are all secondary motions, being made when a motion is pending. 5:2

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:35 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

If it is an incidental motion, which relates to the pending business, it must be decided immediately before business can proceed. 6:15.

The point of order raised above does not have these characteristics.

On 10/6/2022 at 6:46 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

Incidental motions are all secondary motions, being made when a motion is pending. 5:2

I would first note that while it is correct that incidental motions are all secondary motions, it is not correct that they are all made when a motion is pending or that they all relate to pending business.

"As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business

a) that it is desired to introduce,

b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or

c) that has just been pending." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15

It also goes slightly too far to say categorically that incidental motions must be decided immediately before business can proceed, as the text actually says "With but few exceptions, incidental motions are related to the main question in such a way that they must be decided immediately, before business can proceed." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15

"Few exceptions" means there are still some exceptions.

Still, I must admit that a Point of Order relating to a continuing breach arising from a previous meeting does not appear to neatly fit the description of an incidental motion, as described in 6:15. Notwithstanding this, it remains my understanding that a Point of Order, regardless of circumstances, is an incidental motion.

[puzzling]

On 10/5/2022 at 12:53 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

The chair can raise a point of order at the next meeting, but cannot "rule" on anything outside of a meeting.  Rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal  (§24), and appeals can't happen outside of a meeting.

That is correct,  but does the chair still have to act on the motion, or instruct others to act on them?

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 7:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

Still, I must admit that a Point of Order relating to a continuing breach arising from a previous meeting does not appear to neatly fit the description of an incidental motion, as described in 6:15. Notwithstanding this, it remains my understanding that a Point of Order, regardless of circumstances, is an incidental motion.

Yeah, the continuing breach is discussed in 23:6 saying “a continuing nature, whereby”, supporting your opinion. However I would rather say it is an incidental main motion based on 6:23 saying that “Counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motion.” to keep conceptually consistent.

[Baofeng Ma]

It looks that the point of order fits what is described here, Incidental main motion, 10:4, 2).

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:07 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

Yeah, the continuing breach is discussed in 23:6 saying “a continuing nature, whereby”, supporting your opinion. However I would rather say it is an incidental main motion based on 6:23 saying that “Counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motion.” to keep conceptually consistent.

One of the things I find most troubling regarding this suggestion is that, in all other cases, when a motion is an incidental main motion it has (generally) the Standard Descriptive Characteristics of a main motion, rather than the Standard Descriptive Characteristics of the secondary motion. It is not clear to me how the Standard Descriptive Characteristics of a main motion would be applicable for a Point of Order.

[Dan Honemann]

On 10/2/2022 at 6:35 PM, Newteach201 said:

Hi!

Our association recently made a motion that passed but was later determined by the chair to be out of order because it was a violation of the bylaws. What could remedy this? We can fix it as nothing has happened yet. Please help. 

 

Additional facts would be helpful.  What was the motion that passed, and what bylaw provision is asserted to have been violated by its adoption.

[Baofeng Ma]

To me it is resemblance to motion to suspend the rules. 25:2(1) “Can be made at any time when no question is pending”, 25:4 “In making the incidental motion to suspend the rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned”

Similarly when no question is pending, a point of order is an incidental motion trying to bring a question (a violation of the bylaws here) before the assembly. 

Edited October 6, 2022 at 02:25 PM by Baofeng Ma
Correction

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 9:24 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

To me it is resemblance to motion to suspend the rules. 25:2(1) “Can be made at any time when no question is pending”, 25:4 “In making the incidental motion to suspend the rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned”

Similarly when no question is pending, a point of order is an incidental motion trying to bring a question (a violation of the bylaws here) before the assembly. 

I agree with your analogy, but the citations in question appear to support the position that this is an incidental motion, not an incidental main motion.

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 10:42 AM, Josh Martin said:

I agree with your analogy, but the citations in question appear to support the position that this is an incidental motion, not an incidental main motion.

I would like to emphasize that the incidental motion could be treated as an incidental main motion just like the motion to suspend the rules when no question is pending. 

Practically I don’t know it is meaningful to distinguish between these concepts. For example, in one case that occurred in our unit meeting, after the amendment to the bylaws was adopted, I found the notice is less than 30 days. I raised a point of order (no question was pending then) and the chair ruled the adoption was null and void. The amendment was taken up at the next meeting. 

[puzzling]

itis all a bit problematic, even before the president makes the motion he should relinquish the chair

 

another problem is which rules apply the rules for (incidental) main motions:

- each member may speak twice in debate 

or the rules for point of order

- non debatable, new chair rules at once. and after appeal each member is allowed to speak once. (except the new chair)

-and also the voting rules differ.

not an easy problem

[Dan Honemann]

I suspect that Baofeng Ma and puzzling should calm down and wait for a few more facts.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 10:44 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

I would like to emphasize that the incidental motion could be treated as an incidental main motion just like the motion to suspend the rules when no question is pending. 

But it is also not necessarily correct that a motion to Suspend the Rules made when no motion is pending is an incidental main motion. A motion to Suspend the Rules can, in certain circumstances, be an incidental main motion, such as if it is made in regards to a situation not arising until later in the meeting, or if it is used to suspend a rule for the entire meeting (or a portion thereof) rather than in a particular instance. The fact that motion is not pending, in and of itself, however, does not mean Suspend the Rules is an incidental main motion.

But this also does not help to answer my question, which is how the Standard Descriptive Characteristics for a main motion can be applicable to a Point of Order. A motion to Suspend the Rules is not really all that different from most motions, in that it is still voted on by the assembly. So when it is made as an incidental main motion, it can quite easily be adapted to be handled like a main motion, except that a 2/3 vote is required.

A Point of Order, on the other hand, is a very different animal, in that no vote is taken on the Point of Order, but instead the motion is ruled upon by the chair, without debate or amendment. So it is not clear to me how it is possible to handle a Point of Order as an incidental main motion.

On 10/6/2022 at 10:44 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

Practically I don’t know it is meaningful to distinguish between these concepts. For example, in one case that occurred in our unit meeting, after the amendment to the bylaws was adopted, I found the notice is less than 30 days. I raised a point of order (no question was pending then) and the chair ruled the adoption was null and void. The amendment was taken up at the next meeting. 

The distinction is meaningful, generally speaking, because when a motion is made as an incidental main motion, it takes on many of the Standard Descriptive Characteristics of a main motion, such as it being debatable and amendable, as well as the rank in the order of precedence of a main motion, all of which would not necessarily be the case if the motion was made as a subsidiary, incidental, or privileged motion, depending on the particular motion

But what you appear to be suggesting is that such a Point of Order would be technically an incidental main motion but nonetheless be treated in the same manner as a Point of Order made as an incidental motion. I am not certain what the basis for this claim is, but I am in agreement that if it is correct, then this is not a meaningful distinction.

On 10/6/2022 at 11:06 AM, puzzling said:

itis all a bit problematic, even before the president makes the motion he should relinquish the chair

I see nothing from the facts provided suggesting that the President should relinquish the chair. Ruling on questions of order is the duty of the chair, and the chair certainly can make such a ruling on his own initiative.

Edited October 6, 2022 at 10:51 PM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/6/2022 at 8:22 AM, puzzling said:

That is correct,  but does the chair still have to act on the motion, or instruct others to act on them?

If the chair is about to rule that the motion violates the bylaws, there will be little if any action required.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/6/2022 at 12:06 PM, puzzling said:

it is all a bit problematic, even before the president makes the motion he should relinquish the chair

No.  If he relinquishes the chair he can't rule on the point of order.  And there's no reason why he should relinquish the chair, since the question of whether a motion violates the bylaws or not is a matter of no personal interest to the chair, except perhaps in some tortuously fabricated scenario.

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 5:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

But it is also not necessarily correct that a motion to Suspend the Rules made when no motion is pending is an incidental main motion.

It is a good point. I have not been aware of this because 5:3-4 says secondary motions are built on a pending motion. Could you give some examples of a motion to suspend the rules, which is still an incidental motion when no question is pending. Probably the examples could be based on 25:17-18 or somewhere in RONR (12th ed.) Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:49 PM, Baofeng Ma said:

I have not been aware of this because 5:3-4 says secondary motions are built on a pending motion.

As previously noted, this is what RONR says concerning incidental motions.

"As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business

a) that it is desired to introduce,

b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or

c) that has just been pending." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15

On 10/6/2022 at 6:49 PM, Baofeng Ma said:

Could you give some examples of a motion to suspend the rules, which is still an incidental motion when no question is pending. Probably the examples could be based on 25:17-18 or somewhere in RONR (12th ed.) Thanks.

RONR itself gives several such examples. Generally, a motion to Suspend the Rules made in this manner will be an incidental motion relating to a motion "that it is desired to introduce," as described in 6:15, although conceivably the other cases could arise as well.

"A motion to “take up a question out of its proper order,” or to consider one before a time to which it has been postponed, is an application of the motion to Suspend the Rules (see 14, 41)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:3

"In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension. Such a motion, for instance, may be “to suspend the rules and take up the report of the Building Committee,” or “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” When the purpose of a motion to Suspend the Rules is to permit the making of another motion, and the adoption of the first motion would obviously be followed by adoption of the second, the two motions can be combined, as in “to suspend the rules and take from the table (34) the question relating to…” The foregoing is an exception to the general rule that no member can make two motions at the same time except with the consent of the assembly—unanimous consent being required if the two motions are unrelated (see also 10:25, 27:10–11)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:4

"If the assembly, by a two-thirds vote, adopts a motion “to dispense with the regular order of business and proceed to” a certain subject, it has in effect voted to suspend the rules and pass all classes in the order of business which normally would precede that subject (see 41:37–39)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:12

"A member who has obtained the floor can say, for example, “Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to offer the courtesy resolutions before we receive the report of the special committee.” The chair then asks if anyone objects and, if so, proceeds to take a vote on suspending the rules, just as if a formal motion had been made." RONR (12th ed.) 25:16

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/7/2022 at 11:40 AM, Josh Martin said:

As previously noted, this is what RONR says concerning incidental motions.

"As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business

a) that it is desired to introduce,

b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or

c) that has just been pending." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15

RONR itself gives several such examples. Generally, a motion to Suspend the Rules made in this manner will be an incidental motion relating to a motion "that it is desired to introduce," as described in 6:15, although conceivably the other cases could arise as well.

"A motion to “take up a question out of its proper order,” or to consider one before a time to which it has been postponed, is an application of the motion to Suspend the Rules (see 14, 41)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:3

"In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension. Such a motion, for instance, may be “to suspend the rules and take up the report of the Building Committee,” or “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” When the purpose of a motion to Suspend the Rules is to permit the making of another motion, and the adoption of the first motion would obviously be followed by adoption of the second, the two motions can be combined, as in “to suspend the rules and take from the table (34) the question relating to…” The foregoing is an exception to the general rule that no member can make two motions at the same time except with the consent of the assembly—unanimous consent being required if the two motions are unrelated (see also 10:25, 27:10–11)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:4

"If the assembly, by a two-thirds vote, adopts a motion “to dispense with the regular order of business and proceed to” a certain subject, it has in effect voted to suspend the rules and pass all classes in the order of business which normally would precede that subject (see 41:37–39)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:12

"A member who has obtained the floor can say, for example, “Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to offer the courtesy resolutions before we receive the report of the special committee.” The chair then asks if anyone objects and, if so, proceeds to take a vote on suspending the rules, just as if a formal motion had been made." RONR (12th ed.) 25:16

A very good clarification. I learned a lot. Many thanks.