Parts of a Resolution in conflict with constitution

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:06 PM, J. J. said:

So, how would you phrase the incidental main motion? 

 

Well, J.J., such motions can range from something as simple as "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void" to a complex resolution with preamble and multiple resolving paragraphs, but I don't think that an experience parliamentarian such as yourself should be inquiring as to how to draft a main motion. 

[J. J.]

On 3/26/2024 at 7:25 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, J.J., such motions can range from something as simple as "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void" to a complex resolution with preamble and multiple resolving paragraphs, but I don't think that an experience parliamentarian such as yourself should be inquiring as to how to draft a main motion. 

No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). 

Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required.

(I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/26/2024 at 8:53 AM, J. J. said:

No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). 

Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required.

(I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)

Words mean something, and there is a substantial difference between moving that a rule be declared null and void and moving that it be rescinded.  Furthermore, the basis for moving that something be declared null and void will almost certainly have to be disclosed in debate on the motion, and if cast in the form of a resolution, will most likely be set forth in a preamble.

I was just trying to give you the simplest form of motion to declare a rule null and void that came to mind.  It will not be at all difficult to incorporate in such a motion a declaration that the rule in question conflicts with such and such a provision in the bylaws or constitution.

The fact remains that a point of order must always relate in some way to (be incidental to) the business at hand. If not, a main motion is needed to bring the matter before the assembly.

[J. J.]

On 3/26/2024 at 10:54 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Words mean something, and there is a substantial difference between moving that a rule be declared null and void and moving that it be rescinded.  Furthermore, the basis for moving that something be declared null and void will almost certainly have to be disclosed in debate on the motion, and if cast in the form of a resolution, will most likely be set forth in a preamble.

I was just trying to give you the simplest form of motion to declare a rule null and void that came to mind.  It will not be at all difficult to incorporate in such a motion a declaration that the rule in question conflicts with such and such a provision in the bylaws or constitution.

The fact remains that a point of order must always relate in some way to (be incidental to) the business at hand. If not, a main motion is needed to bring the matter before the assembly.

I am seeing enough of a distinction, in the phrasing of the motion.  Much may be said in debate that may not be accurate and would not, properly, be recorded. 

If you were attempting to have the assembly adopt the motion, "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void," and the intent was to declare some action void because it violated the bylaws, I would rule the motion out of order because of vagueness.

I would suggest something like, "I move that the assembly rules that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00, be null and void, as it violates (citation) of the bylaws."  Very clearly, the assembly can rule on this. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:11 AM, J. J. said:

I would suggest something like, "I move that the assembly rules that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00, be null and void, as it violates (citation) of the bylaws."  Very clearly, the assembly can rule on this. 

Okay, I certainly won't quibble about the exact language of the motion to be made to declare a rule null and void because I see no real point in doing so. 

 

[J. J.]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Okay, I certainly won't quibble about the exact language of the motion to be made to declare a rule null and void because I see no real point in doing so. 

 

Words do mean something, and if you are asking for the assembly to rule something out of order and void, you have to use the word "rule" or something close to it. 

That said, I think you have demonstrated how a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 3/26/2024 at 11:33 AM, J. J. said:

Words do mean something, and if you are asking for the assembly to rule something out of order and void, you have to use the word "rule" or something close to it. 

That said, I think you have demonstrated how a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion. 

Now I must note that the motion to declare a rule null and void does not have to use the word "rule", and that a motion that a rule "be declared" null and void will certainly suffice.

I think you may be under the mistaken belief that such a motion is raising a point of order as an incidental main motion. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an incidental main motion corresponding to a point of order, but we'll save this lesson for another day. 

[J. J.]

On 3/26/2024 at 12:19 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Now I must note that the motion to declare a rule null and void does not have to use the word "rule", and that a motion that a rule "be declared" null and void will certainly suffice.

I think you may be under the mistaken belief that such a motion is raising a point of order as an incidental main motion. Technically speaking, there is no such thing as an incidental main motion corresponding to a point of order, but we'll save this lesson for another day. 

I think you just, effectively, developed such an IMM.    That is a compliment, BTW.

As I said, I would rule your initial motion out of order if the intent was not to rescind.  I would treat the first one as possibly a 23:6 b violation.