Making a motion to do work that has already been done

[SBFFA]

We have a situation where the President appointed a committee 2 years ago to come up with a recommendation on what to do with a derelict property we owned. The recommendation was to sell the property. Some absentee members sued the association to stop the sale of the house after they noticed it was listed. No they are coming back to the meetings and want to make a motion to allow them 30 days to present to the board information we have already researched and looked into. Do we have to do that, or do we allow the motion to go to discussion and vote?

[Gary Novosielski]

Since this matter is currently being litigated, it goes beyond the scope of this forum.

From a parliamentary point of view, if they are members and want to make motions, they can make any that are in order under the rules in RONR.  Whether their motions are adopted depends on the subsequent vote(s). And whether any of this is "legal" is something you need to ask your attorney.

[SBFFA]

I should have clarified the lawsuit is over. 

A committee was appointed, a report was given to the board based on their research. The board made a resolution adopting the report, and took it to the members to ratify. The previously absentee members made a motion to do the research over.

For clarity: This organization was created by employees of a company that wanted to fight discrimination for minorities within the company. Over the last 20 years people have retired from the company, stopped paying dues, stopped coming to meetings and have not been involved in our membership organization at all. Over the last 20 years these retired people have not been considered members regarded as members or even communicated to or referred to as members. No meeting notices were sent to them they were just known as retired. When a motion was recently made and adopted to sell a derelict property that we own, a lawsuit was filed by those retired people. In the lawsuit they stated that they were in fact members and that they should have been allowed to vote and be part of the process. Keep in mind that no dues had been paid by them they hadn’t come to any meeting in over 20 years in some cases. At the conclusion of the lawsuit the judge decided that not paying dues and not coming to meetings did not divest them of their membership rights and that they in fact were members and had every right to be included on the vote of the sale of the derelict property, and that the vote we took was not correct because it did not include ‘all of the members’. A special meeting was called, and they came to the meeting along with dues paying members. A motion was made and seconded to sell the derelict property, and one of the retired people made a motion to allow 30 days for ’them’ to be able to come up with an alternative to selling. Now I'm going to describe who ‘them’  is. These retired people created their own organization that is specifically for retired people from this company. The lawsuit included 25 retired people that the judge says are now members and have always been members of our organization. So when they want ‘them’ to be allowed to research any alternative to selling the property they are referring to this other organization.  I don't believe this is an accurate motion as that other organization is not a current member of our organization and has nothing to do with our organization, so the motion was questionable to begin with. The real issue I have here is if there has already been a committee there has already been research done, there's already been a report given to the board from the committee about what to do, and we go to call for vote - can any member motion for us to do all that work again? I know that any member can make a motion, but that just puts everybody on a hamster wheel if we do the work and we come up with an answer they don't like so they motion for us to do it again.

[Josh Martin]

On 3/27/2024 at 10:06 AM, SBFFA said:

Now they are coming back to the meetings and want to make a motion to allow them 30 days to present to the board information we have already researched and looked into. Do we have to do that, or do we allow the motion to go to discussion and vote?

...

The previously absentee members made a motion to do the research over.

...

can any member motion for us to do all that work again?

Yes.

On 3/27/2024 at 10:06 AM, SBFFA said:

I know that any member can make a motion, but that just puts everybody on a hamster wheel if we do the work and we come up with an answer they don't like so they motion for us to do it again.

It seems to me no one is put on any "hamster wheel" unless the motion is adopted.

If members believe that doing the research over would be a waste of time, the assembly is free to reject the motion.

Edited March 27, 2024 at 03:14 PM by Josh Martin

[SBFFA]

On 3/27/2024 at 8:13 AM, Josh Martin said:

Yes.

It seems to me no one is put on any "hamster wheel" unless the motion is adopted.

If members believe that doing the research over would be a waste of time, the assembly is free to reject the motion.

 

Did you miss the part that the person making the motion is acting as lead in a group of members that all belong to a separate organization? Or does that not matter?

[Josh Martin]

On 3/27/2024 at 11:02 AM, SBFFA said:

Did you miss the part that the person making the motion is acting as lead in a group of members that all belong to a separate organization? Or does that not matter?

It doesn't matter. If they're members of this organization, they have the right to make motions, and what other organizations they may belong to is immaterial.

All of the background is very interesting and may well be reasons why the motion should (or should not) be adopted, but none of it has any parliamentary relevance. The motion is in order.