Reaffirm

[Tomm]

At the last two board meetings of last year there was a fiasco on approving the proposed 2023 budget. First it failed, then they wanted to reconsider at the next meeting but when they determined that it was to late to reconsider they tried to rescind the 'No" vote so that they could vote on the budget again. The budget was finally passed in a special session before years end.

The new year starts a new board with 1/3rd new members and officers. Some members believed that the budget as incorrectly passed and they want to, dare I say, reaffirm the passage of the budget.

10:10 makes it quite apparent that the motion to reaffirm is out of order.

Is it correct to assume that since the motion to pass the budget did happen and was approved, regardless whether it was done correctly or not, it's a done deal and no further action is really required?

Would there be any advantage to simply making the motion to accept the budget again?  

[Atul Kapur]

If there is a real concern that the budget was not adopted properly, the appropriate motion would be to Ratify the adoption of the budget. 

 

However, it doesn't sound like anything needs to be done because it doesn't appear that there was anything inappropriate that happened, other than people making things complicated unnecessarily. If the motion to adopt the budget was defeated at the first meeting, then the motion could just be made anew at another meeting, and it sounds like that is what eventually happened. See 8:15 and 10:26(3) "A main motion that was thus disposed of [by being rejected] can, however, be renewed (38)—that is, the same question can be introduced again as if new—at any later session"

 

If there is a question, they should obtain a parliamentary opinion.

Edited January 5, 2023 at 08:51 AM by Atul Kapur

[Josh Martin]

On 1/4/2023 at 10:18 PM, Tomm said:

The new year starts a new board with 1/3rd new members and officers. Some members believed that the budget as incorrectly passed and they want to, dare I say, reaffirm the passage of the budget.

For what reason is it believed that the budget was incorrectly passed?

On 1/4/2023 at 10:18 PM, Tomm said:

Is it correct to assume that since the motion to pass the budget did happen and was approved, regardless whether it was done correctly or not, it's a done deal and no further action is really required?

Probably, but I suppose it depends on exactly what was (allegedly) done incorrectly. A Point of Order must generally be raised at the time of the breach, but there are some exceptions. As of this time, I do not see anything which would cause a continuing breach. Under such circumstances, there is no need to take any further action, and certainly no need to reaffirm the budget.

In the unusual event that a continuing breach occurred and the budget is invalid, I concur with Dr. Kapur that the proper motion is the motion to Ratify. In such circumstances, the budget can't really be "reaffirmed" because it was never properly "affirmed" in the first place.

[Tomm]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

For what reason is it believed that the budget was incorrectly passed?

Because of all the confusion regarding first a "no" vote and the incorrect usage of Reconsider and Rescind.

Is there a specific citation in RONR that states that a vote on a motion, regardless of whether it was done properly or not, is still a valid vote as long as nobody raises a point of order or challenges the vote? 

[George Mervosh]

On 1/5/2023 at 9:14 AM, Tomm said:

Because of all the confusion regarding first a "no" vote and the incorrect usage of Reconsider and Rescind.

Is there a specific citation in RONR that states that a vote on a motion, regardless of whether it was done properly or not, is still a valid vote as long as nobody raises a point of order or challenges the vote? 

Try RONR (12th ed.), 23:5.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/5/2023 at 8:14 AM, Tomm said:

Because of all the confusion regarding first a "no" vote and the incorrect usage of Reconsider and Rescind.

But none of this means the budget itself was improperly adopted, it just means they did a lot of unnecessary nonsense prior to adopting the budget.

On 1/5/2023 at 8:14 AM, Tomm said:

Is there a specific citation in RONR that states that a vote on a motion, regardless of whether it was done properly or not, is still a valid vote as long as nobody raises a point of order or challenges the vote? 

I'm not persuaded that the budget was adopted improperly at all. But to the extent that it was:

"The general rule is that if a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion. After debate on such a motion has begun—no matter how clear it is that the chair should not have stated the question on the motion—a point of order is too late. If a member is unsure of his point or wishes to hear what the maker has to say on behalf of the motion before pressing a point of order, he may, with the chair's sufferance, “reserve a point of order” against the motion; but after the maker has spoken, he must insist upon his point of order or withdraw it. Points of order regarding the conduct of a vote must be raised immediately following the announcement of the voting result (see 45:9)." RONR (12th ed.) 23:5

The exceptions to this rule are discussed in 23:6.

[Tomm]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

I concur with Dr. Kapur that the proper motion is the motion to Ratify.

10:57 says that since Ratify is a main motion, therefore it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate. Does that mean that the motion to accept the budget is opened again for debate and vote or only the motion to Ratify?

 

[Atul Kapur]

First, no one who has responded believes, from what you have tod us, that anything needs to be done; the organization appears to have validly adopted the budget. So the advice you are getting us to do nothing as that would only be another useless step, wastes time, and may cause more confusion and problems.

But, to answer your question, yes, ratify opens the entire question to debate. So only do it if needed, which is not the case here.

[George Mervosh]

On 1/5/2023 at 3:08 PM, Tomm said:

10:57 says that since Ratify is a main motion, therefore it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate. Does that mean that the motion to accept the budget is opened again for debate and vote or only the motion to Ratify?

They would only be voting on the motion to ratify.  But I totally agree that no facts seem to indicate a need to even entertain a motion to ratify.

[Josh Martin]

On 1/5/2023 at 2:08 PM, Tomm said:

10:57 says that since Ratify is a main motion, therefore it is debatable and opens the entire question to debate. Does that mean that the motion to accept the budget is opened again for debate and vote or only the motion to Ratify?

I would note the full context of my quote was as follows: "In the unusual event that a continuing breach occurred and the budget is invalid, I concur with Dr. Kapur that the proper motion is the motion to Ratify. In such circumstances, the budget can't really be "reaffirmed" because it was never properly "affirmed" in the first place."

As of this time, no facts have been presented which would lead me to believe that a continuing breach occurred and the budget is invalid. Indeed, no facts have been presented which would lead me to believe that any breach whatsoever occurred in the adoption of the budget itself, although it certainly seems that various errors occurred prior to the ultimate motion to adopt the budget, none of which matter at this point.

But yes, in the event this occurs, the budget is subject to debate. The vote would be on the motion to Ratify. If that motion is adopted, it ratifies the underlying motion (which is the budget).

As it stands now, if the board is happy with the budget it adopted, there is no need to do anything. If the board wishes to change the budget, then a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is the proper tool. (I suppose the budget could also be rescinded, although this generally does not seem to be desirable.)

Edited January 5, 2023 at 10:07 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/5/2023 at 7:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

For what reason is it believed that the budget was incorrectly passed?

 

On 1/5/2023 at 9:14 AM, Tomm said:

Because of all the confusion regarding first a "no" vote and the incorrect usage of Reconsider and Rescind.

The last thing this group needs is to compound the confusion by making another error, such as making an unnecessary — and almost certainly dilatory, because it's frivolous — motion to Ratify 

Edited January 6, 2023 at 06:51 AM by Atul Kapur
Finishing my thought - phone froze

[Dan Honemann]

I agree that a motion to "reaffirm", is not in order, and I think that a motion to Ratify is not in order unless it is preceded by a sustained point of order challenging the validity of the adoption of the budget.

[Richard Brown]

On 1/5/2023 at 5:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

 . . . I think that a motion to Ratify is not in order unless it is preceded by a sustained point of order challenging the validity of the adoption of the budget.

I wondered if you were going to weigh in and say that.