Improper motion recorded in minutes?

[Guest Sally]

A motion was improperly interjected during the discussion of a motion made and seconded. No second was given the improperly made motion, and it was ignored. Should the minutes record the improper motion?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:57 PM, Guest Sally said:

A motion was improperly interjected during the discussion of a motion made and seconded. No second was given the improperly made motion, and it was ignored. Should the minutes record the improper motion?

Ordinarily, yes, a motion made but not seconded is recorded with the fact that it died without a second.

But in this case, I'm not convinced the motion was actually made.  Was the person recognized to speak at that point?  Did the chair accept the motion?  it "was ignored" by whom?

[puzzling]

On 10/6/2022 at 4:36 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Ordinarily, yes, a motion made but not seconded is recorded with the fact that it died without a second.

But in this case, I'm not convinced the motion was actually made.  Was the person recognized to speak at that point?  Did the chair accept the motion?  it "was ignored" by whom?

What do you mean by "Did the chair accept the motion?" 

 

[Josh Martin]

On 10/5/2022 at 8:57 PM, Guest Sally said:

A motion was improperly interjected during the discussion of a motion made and seconded. No second was given the improperly made motion, and it was ignored. Should the minutes record the improper motion?

Generally speaking, main motions that are not withdrawn are recorded in the minutes, even if the motion was not seconded or was improper.

I would note, however, that if a motion is improperly made, the chair should rule it out of order rather than simply ignoring it.

It would also be helpful to have additional facts regarding in what manner the motion was "improperly made."

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 3:43 AM, puzzling said:

What do you mean by "Did the chair accept the motion?" 

 

I understand it is “state the question”. 

After a motion is made and seconded, the next step is to state the question. 4:15.

48:4,6) supports Gary’s opinion: record any main motion made, even not seconded.
It says “All main motions or motions to bring a main motion again before the assembly that was made or taken up”

 

[Baofeng Ma]

If the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made improperly. 4:4.

Making a main motion is out of order during discussion of a motion made and seconded. 5:4. Don’t record it in the minute.

Only record certain secondary motions. 48:4,7)

Edited October 6, 2022 at 03:34 PM by Baofeng Ma
Correction

[Richard Brown]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:22 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

If the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made improperly. 4:4.

Shouldn't that be, "if the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made properly, rather than "not made improperly"?  It seems to me such a motion is not properly made.

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 11:29 AM, Richard Brown said:

Shouldn't that be, "if the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made properly, rather than "not made improperly"?  It seems to me such a motion is not properly made.

Corrected. 

[Guest sally]

On 10/5/2022 at 11:36 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Ordinarily, yes, a motion made but not seconded is recorded with the fact that it died without a second.

But in this case, I'm not convinced the motion was actually made.  Was the person recognized to speak at that point?  Did the chair accept the motion?  it "was ignored" by whom?

During the board's discussion of a motion, a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed. The chair stated that there was already a motion on the table. Then themaker of the original motion moved to rescind the original motion which was approved. A new motion was made, seconded and approved.

The intervening motion was ignored and never seconded. My question is: Should there be a record of the intervening motion in the minutes?

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

During the board's discussion of a motion, a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed. The chair stated that there was already a motion on the table. Then themaker of the original motion moved to rescind the original motion which was approved. A new motion was made, seconded and approved.

The intervening motion was ignored and never seconded. My question is: Should there be a record of the intervening motion in the minutes?

No.
It is an amendment to the main motion. 

[Richard Brown]

On 10/6/2022 at 10:54 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

No.
It is an amendment to the main motion. 

What makes you think it was an amendment to the main motion?  Nothing said by the OP indicates that.  In fact, she seems to be saying it was a different motion and the chair essentially ruled it out of order. 

[Bruce Lages]

If the new motion actually included a change in the language of the motion already under consideration, the chair should have recognized it as a motion to amend the original motion and stated it to the assembly as such. You should be aware that RONR allows a great deal of latitude in the ways that a motion to amend can alter a pending motion - including substituting an entirely different motion for the original motion, as long as it addresses the same subject as the original motion.

Also be aware that it was not proper to rescind the original motion if that motion was still under discussion and no vote had been taken on it. Only motions which already been adopted can be rescinded (RONR, 12th ed. section 35).

[Weldon Merritt]

I agree with Mr. Lages, and was about to say essentially the same thing until he beat me to it.

[Bruce Lages]

Richard, guest sally said that "a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed'. Although we don't know the actual wording of these motions, it seems possible that the 'new' motion could be considered as an amendment to the original.

[Richard Brown]

On 10/6/2022 at 11:11 AM, Bruce Lages said:

Richard, guest sally said that "a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed'. Although we don't know the actual wording of these motions, it seems possible that the 'new' motion could be considered as an amendment to the original.

More information as to exactly what happened and the exact nature of the motions would be most helpful.  I agree that the "intervening motion" perhaps could be considered an amendment to the pending motion, probably in the nature of a substitute motion, but I just don't think we have enough facts to say categorically what happened, what the motion was, or even whether it should go in the minutes.  Whether right or wrong, the chair apparently did not believe it was an amendment to the pending motion and does seen to have ruled it out of order and no one appealed from his ruling.   That's not the question before us, however.

The more I think about it, the more I'm inclined to think that perhaps the "intervening motion" should have been treated as an amendment in the nature of a substitute amendment motion, but that's not the way the chair handled it. The chair, in essence, ruled it out of order and it was ignored.  We don't have enough information to know whether that was the right call or not.

The question we are being asked by Guest Sally, though, is not whether the chair properly handled the "intervening motion" (whatever it was), but whether it should go in the minutes.   More information would definitely be very helpful!   I think it's hard for us to answer that question without more information.

BTW, I agree that "rescinding" the original motion before it was adopted was improper.  It could have been withdrawn with the consent of the assembly, but not rescinded.  I'm considering it as having been withdrawn, not rescinded.

Edited October 6, 2022 at 05:24 PM by Richard Brown
Made correction in 2nd paragraph as indicated by strikethrough and underline

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 12:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

What makes you think it was an amendment to the main motion?  Nothing said by the OP indicates that.  In fact, she seems to be saying it was a different motion and the chair essentially ruled it out of order. 

I agree. That it is not proper to say "it is an amendment to the main motion." 

I would like to break down step by step for the question by the author.

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

During the board's discussion of a motion

1. Label "a motion" as Motion1. We don't know which category it is, maybe main motion, primary motion, any motion. 

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed.

2. Label "a new motion" as Motion2. It might be either an amendment, or a different motion including a change to Motion1.  I believe it is the "intervening motion" called by the author. From the facts presented, the maker did not seek recognition from chair. I tend to believe it was made improperly. I don't think there is no need of record in the minutes. 

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/5/2022 at 9:57 PM, Guest Sally said:

A motion was improperly interjected

I am not very sure what is exactly "improperly interjected". Is it a scenario similar to the below?

When a member was debating, the maker interrupted the speaker and stated the intervening motion without recognition by Chair.    

Edited October 6, 2022 at 06:03 PM by Baofeng Ma

[Gary Novosielski]

On 10/6/2022 at 11:54 AM, Baofeng Ma said:

No.
It is an amendment to the main motion. 

That's a rather large assumption, and one not supported by facts presented.

We are told that this alternate motion was made while the first was being debated.  It might have been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but as the chair ruled it was not in order at the time, the chair, at least, did not consider it to be an amendment at all.  It's not for me to opine whether it was at all germane to the topic at hand, as I was not there.  The chair was.

Edited October 7, 2022 at 10:01 PM by Gary Novosielski
spelling

[Baofeng Ma]

On 10/6/2022 at 6:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That's a rather large assumption, and one not supported by facts presented.

We are told that this alternate motion was made while the first was being debated.  It might have been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but as the chair ruiled it was not in order at the time, the chair, at least, did not consider it to be an amendment at all.  It's not for me to opine whether it was at all germain to the topic at hand, as I was not there.  The chair was.

Yeah, I agree. I should be more careful of claiming something. Thanks.

[Josh Martin]

On 10/6/2022 at 10:42 AM, Guest sally said:

During the board's discussion of a motion, a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed. The chair stated that there was already a motion on the table. Then themaker of the original motion moved to rescind the original motion which was approved. A new motion was made, seconded and approved.

The intervening motion was ignored and never seconded. My question is: Should there be a record of the intervening motion in the minutes?

Based upon this description, I do not think it is accurate to say that the motion was "ignored." Rather, the chair appears to have ruled the motion out of order.

Ordinarily, only main motions are recorded, so an amendment would not be recorded. But Points of Order are recorded, so the chair's ruling and reasoning should be recorded.

It also appears that the chair's ruling may have been incorrect, because "a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed" sounds like it very well could have been an amendment, which is in order when there is a motion on the table.

The assembly also appears to have confused the terms "rescind" and "withdraw." The word that you are looking for here is "withdraw," which is used to withdraw a pending motion. "Rescind" is applicable for a motion which has already been adopted.

There is also technically the fact that, ordinarily, motions that are withdrawn should not be recorded in the minutes, but I think that this motion should be recorded, because otherwise the Point of Order won't make any sense.

In any event, however, the minutes record what actually happened, whether it was proper or not. So it appears the minutes should record something like the following:

Member X moved that [text of original motion]. During discussion on the motion, a member moved that [text of amendment]. The chair ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that there was already a motion on the table. The motion made by Member X was withdrawn.

Member Y moved that [text of new motion]. After debate, the motion was adopted.

Edited October 6, 2022 at 10:49 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

Very good summary and clarification, Josh.