Anonymous Motions

[Guest Liz]

We have a member with a “lead” job title for our unit.  Sometimes our unit has issues with or because of the lead, who works closely with admin.  We would like to make a motion to exclude a person with the title lead from being a member of our unit’s association.  It’s a sensitive topic, and nobody wants the lead to know who brought the motion.  Can someone just anonymously add the topic to the agenda, the chair calls for a motion, and only the person who seconds it will be known?  Thank you for any response.

[Richard Brown]

No, the motion would need to be made by a member. There is no provision in RONR for anonymous motions. However, there is another problem: such a disqualification for membership would have to be in the bylaws. Therefore, you would almost certainly have to amend your bylaws to prohibit such a person from being eligible for membership.

[Gary Novosielski]

Assuming this is a union or union-like organization, you can also look at the bylaws membership article to see the exact language specifying which job titles are included in the membership.  If there is a reason that, for example. "lead" jobs are akin to management positions, it could be that the bylaws would need revision.  Check with your lawyers for any legal requirements in this regard.

If it is just this one individual who is too chummy with management, and you can't establish actual wrongdoing, i.e., acting to the detriment of the union, you may not be allowed to exclude one individual member. 

Cases like this can sometimes be resolved through individual counseling. 

[J. J.]

The chair could assume a particular motion, if no one objected.  

[puzzling]

Maybe a suggestion (not sure if RONR allows it) make a motion in writing and sign it by a lot of members (you need a majority to pass it anyway, so better get a majority to vote for it)

 

[J. J.]

On 12/9/2022 at 6:13 AM, puzzling said:

Maybe a suggestion (not sure if RONR allows it) make a motion in writing and sign it by a lot of members (you need a majority to pass it anyway, so better get a majority to vote for it)

 

If it is just a question of bringing a motion to the floor, special rule could be adopted permitting a mover and a seconder to submit the motion, who would then state it without stating their names (or their names being minuted).   This could be required for any main motion; motions could be "filed" before the meeting if the member wishes. 

I would not see such a rule as being more cumbersome that the chair requiring that members submit main motions in writing.

[Richard Brown]

On 12/9/2022 at 8:33 AM, J. J. said:

If it is just a question of bringing a motion to the floor, special rule could be adopted permitting a mover and a seconder to submit the motion, who would then state it without stating their names (or their names being minuted).   This could be required for any main motion; motions could be "filed" before the meeting if the member wishes. 

I would not see such a rule as being more cumbersome that the chair requiring that members submit main motions in writing.

I agree that what you suggest could be done through the adoption of a special rule of order or perhaps by suspending the rules, but I don’t think a member can just do it that way without suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order.  Member puzzling seems to be suggesting that a member can just do it that way without authorization. Am I missing something?

[puzzling]

my idea was more to get a (known, vocal)  majority (or large group)  in favour of the motion before the motion is submitted , so that hopefully the vote would be a foregone conclusion. 

For this kind of motions it is a good idea to test the water (and conclude it is not to hot) before they are stated. 

while officially I guess the motion can only be stated as one person it could be stated like:

I move as mover of the group consisting of (all the names who agree) that  we  remove.  lead member X from our unit  because  .... 

and then signed by the mover and all other named persons.

 

[Richard Brown]

On 12/9/2022 at 9:29 AM, puzzling said:

my idea was more to get a (known, vocal)  majority (or large group)  in favour of the motion before the motion is submitted , so that hopefully the vote would be a foregone conclusion. 

For this kind of motions it is a good idea to test the water (and conclude it is not to hot) before they are stated. 

while officially I guess the motion can only be stated as one person it could be stated like:

I move as mover of the group consisting of (all the names who agree) that  we  remove.  lead member X from our unit  because  .... 

and then signed by the mover and all other named persons.

 

Puzzling, none of what you suggested above is permissible without either suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order.

[J. J.]

On 12/9/2022 at 10:10 AM, Richard Brown said:

I agree that what you suggest could be done through the adoption of a special rule of order or perhaps by suspending the rules, but I don’t think a member can just do it that way without suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order.  Member puzzling seems to be suggesting that a member can just do it that way without authorization. Am I missing something?

Well, it no on did object the chair could just state the motion.  At some point, someone probably would object

[Josh Martin]

On 12/9/2022 at 9:10 AM, Richard Brown said:

I agree that what you suggest could be done through the adoption of a special rule of order or perhaps by suspending the rules, but I don’t think a member can just do it that way without suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order.  Member puzzling seems to be suggesting that a member can just do it that way without authorization. Am I missing something?

I would agree.

On 12/9/2022 at 9:29 AM, puzzling said:

my idea was more to get a (known, vocal)  majority (or large group)  in favour of the motion before the motion is submitted , so that hopefully the vote would be a foregone conclusion. 

For this kind of motions it is a good idea to test the water (and conclude it is not to hot) before they are stated. 

while officially I guess the motion can only be stated as one person it could be stated like:

I move as mover of the group consisting of (all the names who agree) that  we  remove.  lead member X from our unit  because  .... 

and then signed by the mover and all other named persons.

I suppose this is all fine, but it doesn't seem to be what the OP was asking for - and indeed, seems to be exactly the opposite of what he was asking for. With this plan, the names of many supporters of the motion would be known, rather than just the motion maker.

On 12/9/2022 at 9:44 AM, Richard Brown said:

Puzzling, none of what you suggested above is permissible without either suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order.

Actually, it seems to me that what Puzzling is now suggesting is that one person does, in fact, make the motion, and the signatures and document are simply a means to show additional support.

I do not think this violates any rule in RONR, but it seems counterproductive to the OP's original request.