Motions

[Guest Stephanie]

Does a motion always have to be entertained by presiding officer/chair?  How is it determined if a motion has merit?

[Atul Kapur]

RONR (12th ed.) 4:16

Quote

In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear.

There are many reasons why it may not be in order, but the merits of the motion are not among them.

On the other hand, 39:3 states that, "Any main or other motion that is frivolous or absurd or that contains no rational proposition is dilatory and cannot be introduced."

On 3/5/2023 at 11:49 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

How is it determined if a motion has merit?

By the assembly debating and deciding on the motion by voting on whether to adopt it.

To be clear, the presiding officer, alone, cannot decide that a motion is a bad idea. Unless it is not in order, the presiding officer is required to state it, that is to place it before the assembly.

[Guest Stephanie]

Is it required for the motion to be relevant to what is on the agenda?  Also when the assembly debates and decides, is that 2/3 majority vote as to whether to adopt it?  Can it be tabled for another time?  There is a membership meeting on Tuesday and we have been made aware that some members might put a motion on the floor to remove the Presiding Officer on the grounds of misconduct.  

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2023 at 7:02 AM, Guest Stephanie said:

Is it required for the motion to be relevant to what is on the agenda?

No, unless the organization's rules so provide. RONR does not limit an assembly to considering matters listed on the agenda. So far as RONR is concerned, the purpose of an agenda (to the extent an agenda is used at all, and the assembly does not simply use the standard order of business) is to ensure the most important items of business are considered first, not to ensure that only the items on the agenda are considered.

On 3/6/2023 at 7:02 AM, Guest Stephanie said:

Also when the assembly debates and decides, is that 2/3 majority vote as to whether to adopt it?

Generally speaking, a majority vote is sufficient to adopt a motion.

In the particular situation described here, however, the requirements are likely higher than that.

On 3/6/2023 at 7:02 AM, Guest Stephanie said:

Can it be tabled for another time?

I believe you mean "postponed," but yes. (See FAQ #12.) The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption.

On 3/6/2023 at 7:02 AM, Guest Stephanie said:

There is a membership meeting on Tuesday and we have been made aware that some members might put a motion on the floor to remove the Presiding Officer on the grounds of misconduct.  

We will need additional facts to determine whether the motion is in order and, if so, what the requirements are for adoption. For general information, see FAQ #20. If you need additional details, please answer the following questions:

• What, if anything, do the bylaws say regarding removal of officers?
• If the bylaws are silent regarding removal of officers, what is the exact wording the bylaws use to define the term of office?
• Is the intent of the members to remove this person from presiding for this meeting or to remove them from office entirely?

Edited March 6, 2023 at 03:20 PM by Josh Martin

[Guest Stephanie]

Regarding FAQ #20...our bylaws state the term of office as Executive board members (elected or appointed) shall serve a term of one service year.  A service year is from June 1 through May 31.  (she was elected)

Regarding removal of an officer...our bylaws state that "any elected officer or member of an appointed position may be removed from office by a tw0/thirds majority vote of the organization or Board.  This group of members wants to remove the presiding officer from her office entirely.  

To expand on the removal some...this group has a lot of animosity and hatred of the presiding officer.  They already tried to remove her once by calling a special meeting.  But failed to give proper notice to the entire membership.  It is an organized group of members who are constantly trying to cause trouble for the presiding officer.  It has reached the point now that our school administration at the local and district levels are aware and are involved.  

Since we have a membership meeting Tuesday, I want to be clear what procedure should be if that motion is put on the floor.  Local and district level administration will be present at the meeting and the principal will be addressing the membership.  

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2023 at 12:35 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

Regarding FAQ #20...our bylaws state the term of office as Executive board members (elected or appointed) shall serve a term of one service year.  A service year is from June 1 through May 31.  (she was elected)

Regarding removal of an officer...our bylaws state that "any elected officer or member of an appointed position may be removed from office by a tw0/thirds majority vote of the organization or Board.  This group of members wants to remove the presiding officer from her office entirely.  

To expand on the removal some...this group has a lot of animosity and hatred of the presiding officer.  They already tried to remove her once by calling a special meeting.  But failed to give proper notice to the entire membership.  It is an organized group of members who are constantly trying to cause trouble for the presiding officer.  It has reached the point now that our school administration at the local and district levels are aware and are involved.  

Since we have a membership meeting Tuesday, I want to be clear what procedure should be if that motion is put on the floor.  Local and district level administration will be present at the meeting and the principal will be addressing the membership.  

Thank you. Based upon these additional facts, it seems to me that the motion to remove the presiding officer is in order, since the bylaws provide that “any elected officer or member of an appointed position may be removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the organization or Board.”

If such a motion is made and seconded, the procedure would be as follows:

• Given the subject matter of the motion, the presiding officer should relinquish the chair to the vice chair during consideration of the motion.
• Debate and subsidiary motions (such as a motion to postpone) are in order.
• When the motion ultimately comes to a vote, a 2/3 vote is required for adoption.

[Guest Stephanie]

Thank you for the helpful responses.

 

When would and how would a motion to postpone be used?

[Guest Stephanie]

One other question...in my reading of motions, could someone "object to consideration" to kill a motion introduced by another person?  As long as no debate has occurred.  Would that be allowable in these circumstances given the content of the motion?  

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2023 at 6:15 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

One other question...in my reading of motions, could someone "object to consideration" to kill a motion introduced by another person?

Yes, Objection to Consideration is in order. This motion has a very narrow window of time in which it may be made and it requires a 2/3 vote for adoption.

In the event you have a 2/3 vote to "get this over with" and miss the opportunity for OTC, the Previous Question would be another option.

[Guest Stephanie]

If there is a 2/3 vote to adopt the objection to consideration, the result is the motion is dead and no further discussion or vote occurs for that meeting, correct?  It could be brought to the floor again at another meeting.  

Is there a window of time for previous question?  

Thank you again for your assistance, it's extremely helpful

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2023 at 6:54 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

If there is a 2/3 vote to adopt the objection to consideration, the result is the motion is dead and no further discussion or vote occurs for that meeting, correct?  It could be brought to the floor again at another meeting.  

Correct.

"If an objection to consideration is sustained, the main motion is dismissed for that session and cannot be renewed during the same session except by unanimous consent or by reconsideration of the vote on the objection. If the objection is not sustained, consideration of the main motion proceeds as if no objection had been made. Even if the objection is sustained, the same main motion can be introduced at any succeeding session." RONR (12th ed.) 26:5

On 3/6/2023 at 6:54 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

Is there a window of time for previous question?  

It can't interrupt a speaker, but there is no "window of time" in the same way as Objection to Consideration. It could be made at almost any time during consideration of the motion.

The purpose of Objection to Consideration is to prevent any consideration of a question. This can't be done after debate has begun, because some consideration has already occurred.

Conversely, the Previous Question (which also requires a 2/3 vote for adoption) has the effect of ending debate and bringing the pending question to an immediate vote. It prevents further debate on the question. So it is in order even after debate has begun.

[Guest Stephanie]

If the presiding officer is voted out, does she have recourse?   I know there is an appeals process.  What would a possible course of action be after the fact?  And in removing an officer, shouldn't some egregious offense have been committed?  Or can this occur simply because they don't like her?

[Guest Stephanie]

In the event that the presiding officer is voted out, can she appeal?  Or is there any recourse for her after the fact?   Seems like the other side would need some kind of proof that she has committed some egregious offense.  

[Gary Novosielski]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:29 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

If the presiding officer is voted out, does she have recourse?   I know there is an appeals process.  What would a possible course of action be after the fact?  And in removing an officer, shouldn't some egregious offense have been committed?  Or can this occur simply because they don't like her?

You know there is an appeals process in your bylaws?  There is none in RONR.  There is a motion called Appeal, but that applies to rulings of the chair.  It cannot be used to appeal the results of a vote.  If you have an appeals process, then use that.  But there are no other possible courses of action, except for the removed officer to run for office again some time in the future.  

According to your bylaws, at least the part you quoted, she can be removed for any reason or for no reason.  If there are some rules somewhere else in your bylaws, that might change things.

On 3/6/2023 at 11:38 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

In the event that the presiding officer is voted out, can she appeal?  Or is there any recourse for her after the fact?   Seems like the other side would need some kind of proof that she has committed some egregious offense.  

See above.

[Atul Kapur]

On 3/6/2023 at 11:29 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

Or can this occur simply because they don't like her?

 According to what you have quoted to us from your bylaws, it can occur for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the members don't have to agree on a reason why they want her out, all that is needed is that enough of them agree that they want her out.

According to what you have qd to us from your bylaws, it can occur for any reason whatsoever. In fact, the members don't have to agree on the reason, they just all need to agree that they want her out.

Edited March 7, 2023 at 02:39 PM by Atul Kapur
Edited to correct typos and make it more accurate. Original is preserved with strikethrough for transparency

[Josh Martin]

On 3/6/2023 at 8:29 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

In the event that the presiding officer is voted out, can she appeal?  Or is there any recourse for her after the fact? 

Not really, at least not in RONR. There is a Point of Order and a motion to Appeal, which relates to an appeal from the ruling of the chair. It must be noted that this process would relate to a question of whether the process violated some rule. I do not yet see any facts which would suggest this is the case, so I am not clear on what grounds this would be based on. There is not really an "appeal process" in terms of the merits of the motion to remove.

In any event, however, there is no appeal from the decision of the society's membership, because there is no higher authority to appeal to. The membership is the highest authority in the society, so far as RONR is concerned.

It may be that your organization's rules provide for some sort of "appeals process," particularly if the organization is part of a larger organization (such as a local chapter of a state or national organization). It may also be that there is some recourse under applicable law, but that is beyond the scope of RONR and this forum and is a question for an attorney.

I would also respectfully suggest that if 2/3 of the society's membership no longer wishes this person to be Chair, it may be in the best interests of the society for the person to no longer be Chair.

On 3/6/2023 at 8:29 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

And in removing an officer, shouldn't some egregious offense have been committed?  Or can this occur simply because they don't like her?

It depends upon the organization's rules on the subject. Some organizations will provide that officers can be removed only "for cause." RONR defines this as "neglect of duty in office or misconduct." Some organizations with those provisions will also require a detailed procedure for removal. Other organizations will permit officers to removed at the pleasure of the organization. In the event the organization's rules are silent, RONR has some rules on this subject depending on how the term of office is worded, but if the bylaws have their own rules on the subject, those rules are controlling.

You have stated that all the organization's bylaws say on this matter is "Any elected officer or member of an appointed position may be removed from office by a two-thirds majority vote of the organization or Board." While it will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret its own rules, my own view of it would be that this permits removal of an officer for any reason the organization (or board) views as sufficient.

To the extent a member disagrees with this, and believes that the bylaws only permit removal of an officer if some egregious offense has been committed, a member is free to raise a Point of Order concerning this matter. The chair would rule on the point, and the ruling is subject to appeal. A majority vote is sufficient to overturn the chair's ruling. The society's membership is the ultimate judge of interpreting the society's bylaws.

I would add that the possibility for questions of order like this is why it is important that the presiding officer relinquish the chair during consideration of this motion. Since the chair obviously has an interest in not being removed from office, the chair's appearance of impartiality would be compromised, and so it is best that some other person (generally, the vice chair) preside during consideration of the motion to remove. This will also allow the chair to fully participate in debate and speak in her defense. The person ruling on the questions of order would be the person chairing the meeting at the present time.

On 3/6/2023 at 8:38 PM, Guest Stephanie said:

Seems like the other side would need some kind of proof that she has committed some egregious offense.  

As I have previously noted, I do not think there is any requirement under your bylaws that the Chair "committed some egregious offense" in order to be removed.

Even to the extent this was required, however, RONR does not require any particular "burden of proof" even in formal disciplinary proceedings. Rather, RONR simply states that "A member who votes for a finding of guilt at a trial should be morally convinced, on the basis of the evidence he has heard, that the accused is guilty." RONR (12th ed.) 63:34

So even in those cases, the assembly would determine, by their vote, whether the evidence presented constitutes sufficient proof.

Edited March 7, 2023 at 02:55 PM by Josh Martin