Main Motion passed but extremely vague

[GregNIL]

Are their requirements for a main motion to be considered valid, even if seconded, debated, and passed?

i.e. if a main motion is passed, but hindsight realizes that it's wording would technically allow action for perpetuity (no date or action), or doesn't assign a specific requirement for signature but rather a vague sub-category of action is that grounds for invalidation or re-consideration at the next meeting?

 

If yes, how would that be approached, as clearly to reconsider the majority passing side would not want to reconsider at all.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:31 PM, GregNIL said:

Are their requirements for a main motion to be considered valid, even if seconded, debated, and passed?

i.e. if a main motion is passed, but hindsight realizes that it's wording would technically allow action for perpetuity (no date or action), or doesn't assign a specific requirement for signature but rather a vague sub-category of action is that grounds for invalidation or re-consideration at the next meeting?

If yes, how would that be approached, as clearly to reconsider the majority passing side would not want to reconsider at all.

You could move to amend the adopted motion by specifying language to clarify it, or you could move to rescind the motion altogether. Such motions are governed by the rules for the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Any member can move such a motion, regardless of how he voted on the original motion. 

If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, you could try to raise a point of order to that effect. But, as you say, a majority thought the motion was good enough, so that does not seem like a successful route. 

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:27 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, you could try to raise a point of order to that effect. But, as you say, a majority thought the motion was good enough, so that does not seem like a successful route. 

The way these this paragraph is written implies (or, at least, I infer) that you are suggesting that a point of order could be raised at the next meeting. Are you suggesting that adoption of a motion without a rational proposition is a continuing breach? I would have thought that a point of order would have had to be timely.

 

 

Edited December 18, 2023 at 02:34 AM by Atul Kapur

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:32 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The way these this paragraph is written implies (or, at least, I infer) that you are suggesting that a point of order could be raised at the next meeting. If the motion was adopted without a rational proposition, are you suggesting that this is a continuing breach? I would have thought that a point of order would have had to be timely.

Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:38 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

Watching. I would have said it’s too late. My understanding is that RONR does not prevent the body from doing stupid things if they so choose. 

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/17/2023 at 10:00 PM, Wright Stuff said:

My understanding is that RONR does not prevent the body from doing stupid things if they so choose. 

In the common parliamentary law as handed down from the ancient wise men, I believe there is a well-honed distinction between stupid and absurd. 🙂

[Atul Kapur]

On 12/17/2023 at 9:38 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

Theoretically, perhaps -- although that could create the need to re-write a huge number of motions and legislation.

However, that would also open the door to a lot of mischief.

For example, I see nothing in the OP's description that indicates lack of a rational proposition, at worst poor wording, inattention to detail, and lack of in-depth analysis of the implications and ramifications of the motion.

On 12/16/2023 at 5:31 PM, GregNIL said:

wording would technically allow action for perpetuity (no date or action), or doesn't assign a specific requirement for signature but rather a vague sub-category of action

But, by suggesting it has no rational proposition is a large leap. And gives the opponents of the motion unlimited opportunities to rescind it on a majority vote without notice (by voting on the appeal). Actually, it allows the opponents of almost any motion these opportunities. And doesn't that violate a principle in RONR about the requirement to change/rescind a decision being more than the vote required to adopt it?

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/17/2023 at 10:28 PM, Atul Kapur said:

But, by suggesting it has no rational proposition is a large leap.

I said, "If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, …"

 

[Atul Kapur]

Yes, but I was showing the implications of taking the position that it is a FPPL and creates a continuing breach if violated.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 12/17/2023 at 10:43 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Yes, but I was showing the implications of taking the position that it is a FPPL and creates a continuing breach if violated.

I don't see the problem with allowing a motion containing no rational proposition to be declared void at any time, since the motion contains no rational proposition. By definition, it makes no difference whether or not it remains in force.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 12/16/2023 at 5:31 PM, GregNIL said:

Are their requirements for a main motion to be considered valid, even if seconded, debated, and passed?

i.e. if a main motion is passed, but hindsight realizes that it's wording would technically allow action for perpetuity (no date or action), or doesn't assign a specific requirement for signature but rather a vague sub-category of action is that grounds for invalidation or re-consideration at the next meeting?

 

If yes, how would that be approached, as clearly to reconsider the majority passing side would not want to reconsider at all.

It is too late to use the motion to Reconsider at this point anyway.  There are other options, though.  

Assuming that the motion is just poorly worded, or ill advised, but otherwise in order, a motion to Rescind, or to Amend Something Previously Adopted [RONR (12th ed.) §35] can be used. With previous notice, these motions require a majority vote; without it, they require a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

If it is determined that the motion is not merely a bad idea, but creates a continuing breach of the bylaws or procedural rules legally applicable to societies such as yours, then a Point of Order (§23) can be raised, and if ruled well taken by the chair would render the motion null and void.  If the chair's ruling is unfavorable, an Appeal (§24) can be raised, which would require a majority vote in the negative to fail to sustain the chair's decision.

Failing any of that, if a majority wishes to keep the motion in effect, there's not much you can do but try to change their minds.

[Wright Stuff]

Great discussion. I’m doing my best to absorb it all.