Interpreting the intent of a motion previously approved at a Convention meeting

[Guest T. Kuzma]

After a motion has been approved by the body at a Convention meeting and the Convention was subsequently adjourned, is it permissible for a delegate to the Convention to question the interpretation of the original motion? How would this dispute be resolved? Thank you.

[Dan Honemann]

On 9/19/2024 at 3:24 PM, Guest T. Kuzma said:

After a motion has been approved by the body at a Convention meeting and the Convention was subsequently adjourned, is it permissible for a delegate to the Convention to question the interpretation of the original motion? How would this dispute be resolved? Thank you.

Why, how, and by whom has there been an interpretation of whatever it is that was adopted?

[Joshua Katz]

Depending on the motion, it may be permissible, or necessary, for any member to do so, I'd think. If the motion says to do X, but X isn't clear, and the organization does X1, a member may raise a point of order at a meeting that, actually, X2 is required, which will be decided by the chair, then, if necessary, the body on appeal. But it's not an open-ended inquiry; the question is whether the thing that's being done is correct, and the point of order is raised in the appropriate body for that. 

I could be misinterpreting, and the above isn't a model of clarity anyway. More details may help refine the answer.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/19/2024 at 3:24 PM, Guest T. Kuzma said:

After a motion has been approved by the body at a Convention meeting and the Convention was subsequently adjourned, is it permissible for a delegate to the Convention to question the interpretation of the original motion? How would this dispute be resolved? Thank you.

What is the nature of this "interpretation"?   It's not clear a dispute actually exists at this point.  Presumably the language of the motion was properly recorded.  There seems to have been no opportunity for "interpreting" it yet.  Was there?