Presentation Out of Order?

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

Chairman of “said committee” presented a Motion for proposal, with bid for new lighting system from Company A.  Information was provided by the chairman.  After 2^nd to the motion was made, the floor was open to questions/discussion.

 The first person to speak, (not on “said committee”) presented a different company, with information which we might consider and even came with a bid from Company B, which was a lower cost.  Discussion proceeded about the cost difference.  After MUCH discussion, the original motion with bid from Company A was voted on.  It did not pass.

Was the person who spoke with the presentation of Company B, “out of order” or not?  If so, how should this have been handled?

[Rob Elsman]

"...the floor was open to question/discussion." leaves a gap about a mile wide. Somewhere in that gap is the answer to the question.

[Richard Brown]

The discussion about company B during debate on the motion to accept the committee recommendation to accept a proposal from company A sounds like it was likely legitimate debate and could actually have been presented as an amendment or a substitute motion. I have not seen anything yet that indicates that discussion was improper. It sounds rather like someone was saying “I think the proposal from company A is too high, I have talked to company B and they have said they can do the job For X amount of money“. That would be proper during debate. 

[Rob Elsman]

I think the problem, if there is one, is that "[t]he first person to speak" was "not on 'said committee '". Without information on the aforementioned gap, I don't think it is going to be possible to know whether the person was invited to speak or not.

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

On 7/31/2024 at 1:26 PM, Rob Elsman said:

"...the floor was open to question/discussion." leaves a gap about a mile wide. Somewhere in that gap is the answer to the question.

Typically for our situation, after this type of proposal, the floor is opened to allow for any questions regarding the proposal before the vote. 

[Rob Elsman]

The question really centers around questions from whom.

[Richard Brown]

On 7/31/2024 at 1:58 PM, Bridge over Troubled Water said:

Typically for our situation, after this type of proposal, the floor is opened to allow for any questions regarding the proposal before the vote. 

Is the meeting where this proposal is being presented a meeting of the committee making the recommendation, or a meeting of the board or membership which will ultimately decide whether to adopt the committee recommendation?

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

On 7/31/2024 at 3:02 PM, Richard Brown said:

Is the meeting where this proposal is being presented a meeting of the committee making the recommendation, or a meeting of the board or membership which will ultimately decide whether to adopt the committee recommendation?

It is a meeting of membership, which will vote to adopt the recommendation, presented by a committee.

 

On 7/31/2024 at 3:02 PM, Richard Brown said:

Is the meeting where this proposal is being presented a meeting of the committee making the recommendation, or a meeting of the board or membership which will ultimately decide whether to adopt the committee recommendation?

It is a meeting of membership, which will vote to adopt or decline the motion by the committee.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm assuming (based on sparse evidence) that this motion arose out of a report of "said" committee to a meeting of its parent body.  

If that's correct, and the motion to accept the bid of Co. A was proposed by the committee, it is perfectly in order for someone in the parent body to propose an amendment to the motion to strike A and insert B.  This apparently wasn't handled as an amendment but, to answer your question, that's how it should have been.  After discussion (which apparently did take place) a vote would be taken on whether to change the motion from A to B.  If it passed, it would be a motion to contract with Co. B.  If it failed, it would remain a motion to contract with Co. A.

Next, whichever form the motion then had (with the company name decided on), it would be voted on to determine to accept a bid or not.

 

 

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

On 7/31/2024 at 3:17 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm assuming (based on sparse evidence) that this motion arose out of a report of "said" committee to a meeting of its parent body.  

If that's correct, and the motion to accept the bid of Co. A was proposed by the committee, it is perfectly in order for someone in the parent body to propose an amendment to the motion to strike A and insert B.  This apparently wasn't handled as an amendment but, to answer your question, that's how it should have been.  After discussion (which apparently did take place) a vote would be taken on whether to change the motion from A to B.  If it passed, it would be a motion to contract with Co. B.  If it failed, it would remain a motion to contract with Co. A.

Next, whichever form the motion then had (with the company name decided on), it would be voted on to determine to accept a bid or not.

 

 

Thank you.

[Rob Elsman]

The reporting member of the committee had preference in recognition to open the debate. The usual thing is for this reporting member to open the debate by explaining why the committee came to the recommendations that it did. I don't think I understand why this didn't happen in this case.

I think the "first person to speak" would have been better off to have made a motion to amend the pending main motion instead of speaking about some other bid that was not before the assembly. Had he made such a motion, he would have been expected to explain why he was proposing a better solution. Without having been there, it is hard for me to say whether his remarks were not germane, but his remarks would have been more to the point had an amendment been offered first.

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

On 7/31/2024 at 3:23 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The reporting member of the committee had preference in recognition to open the debate. The usual thing is for this reporting member to open the debate by explaining why the committee came to the recommendations that it did. I don't think I understand why this didn't happen in this case.

I think the "first person to speak" would have been better off to have made a motion to amend the pending main motion instead of speaking about some other bid that was not before the assembly. Had he made such a motion, he would have been expected to explain why he was proposing a better solution. Without having been there, it is hard for me to say whether his remarks were not germane, but his remarks would have been more to the point had an amendment been offered first.

Thank you for your reply.  There was not a motion to amend. 

[Rob Elsman]

I gathered there was not. Maybe a little something can be learned from this situation.

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

On 7/31/2024 at 3:23 PM, Rob Elsman said:

The reporting member of the committee had preference in recognition to open the debate. The usual thing is for this reporting member to open the debate by explaining why the committee came to the recommendations that it did. I don't think I understand why this didn't happen in this case.

I think the "first person to speak" would have been better off to have made a motion to amend the pending main motion instead of speaking about some other bid that was not before the assembly. Had he made such a motion, he would have been expected to explain why he was proposing a better solution. Without having been there, it is hard for me to say whether his remarks were not germane, but his remarks would have been more to the point had an amendment been offered first.

To clarify, the Chairman did explain details of the bid.   This project was his direct responsibility as chairman of "said Committee."  The "first person to speak" is not on the committee, nor has knowledge of what is needed for the project. 

[Rob Elsman]

You know, since no one raised a Point of Order about the remarks at the time, I am going to understand that the remarks were deemed by the assembly to be germane and proper.

[Joshua Katz]

I agree with Mr. Elsman's final comment, but I'm a little confused by some earlier comments. It seems to me that discussion on the merits of company B was out of order when there was an immediately pending motion to use A. If the gentleman wanted to praise B, he should have moved to amend by substituing B for A, then spoken on his amendment.

[Rob Elsman]

Great comment, Mr. Katz. I earlier said much the same thing, and I still think your point is well taken.

Here's the rub: Mr. B has the right to speak against A with the stated intention of making B if A is rejected. Therefore, a discussion about B would be germane to A to the extent that B, waiting in the wings, is crucial to convincing members to vote against A. So, without knowing more than I know now, it's impossible for me to make a definite statement about the germaneness of B while A is immediately pending.

[Richard Brown]

On 7/31/2024 at 7:45 PM, Joshua Katz said:

. . .  It seems to me that discussion on the merits of company B was out of order when there was an immediately pending motion to use A. If the gentleman wanted to praise B, he should have moved to amend by substituing B for A, then spoken on his amendment.

Joshua, I disagree. I do agree that the member could have moved to substitute hiring company B rather than company A, but I think it was also perfectly in order, while debating the motion to hire company A, to say in debate as a reason for not hiring company A that “their prices are too expensive and company B is a well respected company that has been in business for over 10 years and will do the work for about half of what company A wants to charge.“  I think comments like that are perfectly appropriate when debating whether to hire company A for a job.

Are you saying that it would be out of order during debate on a motion to hire company A to mention the fact that there are other companies that will probably do the work for less?

[Joshua Katz]

On 7/31/2024 at 8:13 PM, Richard Brown said:

Are you saying that it would be out of order during debate on a motion to hire company A to mention the fact that there are other companies that will probably do the work for less?

I think there's a spectrum here. "Other companies will do the work for less than A" is a reasonable argument against A. A 10 minute presentation on the virtues of B is more appropriate when B is pending.

[Bridge over Troubled Water]

Thank you all for your input. Your knowledge is greatly appreciated.