Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

if parts of motion are null and void...


Trina

Recommended Posts

from another thread:

here is a reply posted by Mr. Elsman:

I understand very little of this post, but the words, "...a main motion..." and "...any action..." in RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, mean to me that the motion or action involved is not severable as to its parts. In other words, if any part of the motion or action is null and void, the whole motion or action is null and void.

I take this to mean that if a main motion combines a perfectly proper action with another action that is found to be a continuing breach, then the proper action is found null and void also?

For example, a motion is passed by the board of a society 'that we proceed to hire the Acme Painting Company to paint the garage, at a quoted cost of $1500, and that we call a special meeting of the general membership to determine if the club house should be painted this year also.'

Phone calls are made to Acme, the painting of the garage is scheduled, and then a week later it is discovered that the bylaws contain no provisions for calling special meetings of the general membership. A main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws. Is the (properly taken) decision to get the garage painted also null and void? And, if so, what is the reasoning?

(edited to correct a word)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I take this to mean that if a main motion combines a perfectly proper action with another action that is found to be a continuing breach, then the proper action is found null and void also?

It means the motion is null and void. It is motions, not actions or parts of motions, that are ruled null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 4-11) The action which was proper could, of course, be adopted again as a separate motion. Alternately, this may be a case where it would be more advisable to amend the motion rather than declare it null and void, to remove the improper bits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It means the motion is null and void. It is motions, not actions or parts of motions, that are ruled null and void. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244, lines 4-11) The action which was proper could, of course, be adopted again as a separate motion. Alternately, this may be a case where it would be more advisable to amend the motion rather than declare it null and void, to remove the improper bits.

So, at the next board meeting (perhaps even a special meeting, as the painters are already putting up their ladders and tarps outside), the board members would all refrain from raising the point of order about the continuing breach, and someone would move to amend something previously adopted instead...

This brings up a point I have wondered about occasionally. When p. 244 says 'any action so taken is null and void' -- is the violating action actually null and void from the very instant it is taken, or does it only become null and void at the (later) moment that a point of order is raised and found well taken?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When p. 244 says 'any action so taken is null and void' -- is the violating action actually null and void from the very instant it is taken, or does it only become null and void at the (later) moment that a point of order is raised and found well taken?

I would say that the action taken is null and void upon it being taken (otherwise it couldn't be called a "continuing breach"). However, the assembly actually recognizes the nullity and voidity (:)) of it upon the Chair ruling the Point Well Taken or the assembly through a vote (upon Appeal or the Chair submitting the question to them) decides there is a continuing breach.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that the action taken is null and void upon it being taken (otherwise it couldn't be called a "continuing breach"). However, the assembly actually recognizes the nullity and voidity (:)) of it upon the Chair ruling the Point Well Taken or the assembly through a vote (upon Appeal or the Chair submitting the question to them) decides there is a continuing breach.

This is what I have assumed also; however, the assembly apparently can heal the breach (by, for example, amending the offending motion, as suggested by Mr. Martin) without ever formally recognizing that the action WAS null and void in the interim. I'm wondering if this sometimes has consequences, in a case when something else grew from the violating action before the breach was healed. Oh well, I suppose that is too hypothetical to worry about... <_<

I suppose some of these suspicions about consequences come from a professional background in computer programming and computer hardware design. Fixing a wiring 'violation' after the power has been turned on does not 'heal' the burned-out parts on the circuit board :) .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

• a motion is passed by the board of a society 'that we proceed to hire the Acme Painting Company to paint the garage, at a quoted cost of $1500, and

• that we call a special meeting of the general membership to determine if the club house should be painted this year also.'

Phone calls are made to Acme, the painting of the garage is scheduled ...

... then a week later it is discovered that the bylaws contain no provisions for calling special meetings of the general membership.

A main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws.

Q. Is the (properly taken) decision to get the garage painted also null and void?

And, if so, what is the reasoning?

No. Of course not.

The two things are not even related.

EXAMPLE

If you have a compound resolution, like:

"Resolved, that we

1. hire a jazz band

2. rent a dance hall

3. mail invitations

4. take dance lessons

5. all at a budget of $1K to $2k"

... and if you were to discover a bylaw which disallowed #1 (viz., "hiring a jazz band"), you are still free to:

(5.) stay within budget;

(4.) take dance lessons;

(3.) mail invitations

(2.) rent a dance hall.

You'll just have to compromise on #1 and hire a DJ instead, or hire a string quartet instead; that will prevent you from violating whatever rule you had restricting "hiring a jazz band."

In YOUR example, you want to (a.) paint the garage; (b.) call a special meeting.

If you find that you cannot [b.] "call a special meeting", then nothing parliamentary is stopping you from painting the garage.

No rule will be violated in Robert's Rules, where an organization (a.) decides to paint the garage; (b.) goes ahead and does the painting of their garage.

You just cannot call a special meeting to accomplish this end.

EXAMPLE #2

If you were to adopt a series of orders for your officers:

1. That the president write a letter of commendation to the Governor.

2. That the secretary photocopy a set of bylaws for all incoming officers.

3. That the treasurer hire a C.P.A. firm for the annual audit.

4. That the sergeant-at-arms put up red, white, and blue bunting on the walls of the meeting hall for July 4th.

5. That the immediate past president give a speech at the July 4th meeting.

... then, if you discover a bylaw which prevents #1 and/or prevents #3 and/or prevents #5, then you are still obligated to obey #2 and #4.

• The officers in #2 and #4 (the Sec. and the Sgt-At-Arms) must obey the resolution which targets THEM;

• Even if the officers in #1 and #3 and #5 (the P, the Tr., the IPP) cannot obey the resolution which targets THEM.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Of course not.

The two things are not even related.

...

In YOUR example, you want to (a.) paint the garage; (b.) call a special meeting.

If you find that you cannot [b.] "call a special meeting", then nothing parliamentary is stopping you from painting the garage.

No rule will be violated in Robert's Rules, where an organization (a.) decides to paint the garage; (b.) goes ahead and does the painting of their garage.

You just cannot call a special meeting to accomplish this end.

EXAMPLE #2

If you were to adopt a series of orders for your officers:

1. That the president write a letter of commendation to the Governor.

2. That the secretary photocopy a set of bylaws for all incoming officers.

3. That the treasurer hire a C.P.A. firm for the annual audit.

4. That the sergeant-at-arms put up red, white, and blue bunting on the walls of the meeting hall for July 4th.

5. That the immediate past president give a speech at the July 4th meeting.

... then, if you discover a bylaw which prevents #1 and/or prevents #3 and/or prevents #5, then you are still obligated to obey #2 and #4.

• The officers in #2 and #4 (the Sec. and the Sgt-At-Arms) must obey the resolution which targets THEM;

• Even if the officers in #1 and #3 and #5 (the P, the Tr., the IPP) cannot obey the resolution which targets THEM.

Oh well, and here I thought the responses to my original question might be in unison ;)

Mr. Goldsworthy, your opinion sounds like common sense. However, in your view, do the series of orders segregate themselves automatically, so to speak, so that the proper ones remain in force, and the improper ones fall by the wayside? And, if so, where does RONR support that view?

Or do you believe human intervention is needed, as described by Mr. Martin (and, I believe, implied by Mr. Elsman) -- either by finding the entire original compound motion null and void, and then re-adopting its valid parts; or by amending the original motion to remove the flawed parts?

:lol: ... :unsure: ... :lol:

(the little guy in the middle is supposed to be looking, in confusion, from one speaker to the other)

{{emoticons are a mixed blessing}}

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... do the series of orders segregate themselves automatically, so to speak, so that the proper ones remain in force, and the improper ones fall by the wayside?

And, if so, where does RONR support that view?

Or do you believe human intervention is needed, as described by Mr. Martin (and, I believe, implied by Mr. Elsman) -- either by finding the entire original compound motion null and void, and then re-adopting its valid parts; or by amending the original motion to remove the flawed parts?

I think the answer lies in RONR's "DIVISION OF A QUESTION."

In that section, you'll see that RONR draws a distinction between:

(a.) a compound resolution where the elements hang together as a unit, and CANNOT BE MEANINGFULLY SPLIT into stand-alone executable parts.

(b.) a compound resolution where the elements are splittable without a detrimental effect to the other elements.

The rules of DIVISION OF A QUESTION fork where the resolution is determined to be either type #a or type #b.

Example:

You hold an election.

The offices which appear on your ballot are: P, VP, Sec. Tr., and Chief-Cook-and-Bottle-Washer.

Q. If you were to find out, and generate a point of order for, the fact that THERE IS NO SUCH POSITION as "Chief Cook ...", then does that fact, by itself, make the election of P, VP, Sec., Tr., all null and void?

I don't think so.

Why not?

Because each element of the election is severable from the other elements.

Thus, a resolution is like an election, in that a resolution may hold many parts. And not all parts will be of equal weight, equal importance, equal timeliness, equal ease of execution, etc.

You won't find a rule in RONR which implies that when you Amend Something Previously Adopted, that you are ridding 100% of the old resolution. The organization is free to amend PARTS of whatever it adopted. EVEN IF THE PARTS ARE NOT SEVERABLE.

E.g., a resolution, "No pets in the meeting room" is still enforceable, despite a law which compels seeing-eye dogs full access with their blind owners. - The resolution is to be obeyed up to the state or federal law's allowance of the single exception.

So no pet gerbils, pet falcons, pet gila monsters, etc., in your meeting room - unless your pet gila monster is a seeing-eye lizard for its owner.

The state law's or federal law's CONFLICT does not turn the customized resolution into a 100% nullity.

(To argue otherwise is to say, "Since the club's resolution cannot be ENFORCED in the case of our blind secretary and his German Shepard, THEN the rule does not apply to my case, namely, me and my pet python." And that is not valid logic.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong with it?

While I accept that we have shown, over the past couple of days, that a traditionally laconic "no" from Dan Honemann is way more comprehensively explanatory than gales of windage from the likes of, say, Mr Goldsworthy, Henry Percy (and his pal, John Chase?) and me, I am reminded of the "Peanuts" cartoon which goes something like, Linus asks, "Why is the sky blue?" To which his crabby sister Lucy snarls, "because it isn't green!" Upon which Linus toodles off, pensively musing, "I thought it might be a little more complicated than that."

In this instance, considering that Mr Honemann seems to be disagreeing with Josh Martin and Rob Elsman, and further, mirabile dictu, agreeing with Kim Goldsworthy, I was hoping for a few more words kindly amplifying on the "no."

Not that the "no" was not, of course, complete in itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I accept that we have shown, over the past couple of days, that a traditionally laconic "no" from Dan Honemann is way more comprehensively explanatory than gales of windage from the likes of, say, Mr Goldsworthy, Henry Percy (and his pal, John Chase?) and me, I am reminded of the "Peanuts" cartoon which goes something like, Linus asks, "Why is the sky blue?" To which his crabby sister Lucy snarls, "because it isn't green!" Upon which Linus toodles off, pensively musing, "I thought it might be a little more complicated than that."

In this instance, considering that Mr Honemann seems to be disagreeing with Josh Martin and Rob Elsman, and further, mirabile dictu, agreeing with Kim Goldsworthy, I was hoping for a few more words kindly amplifying on the "no."

Not that the "no" was not, of course, complete in itself.

So far, I don't see anything to make me think Dan disagrees with me. In fact, there's nothing to disagree with, since I've expressed no opinion about Trina's vague, hypothetical post. Indeed, without nailing some facts down tight, I think there's nothing to say. That's what's wrong with these kinds of pie in the sky posts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I don't see anything to make me think Dan disagrees with me. In fact, there's nothing to disagree with, since I've expressed no opinion about Trina's vague, hypothetical post. Indeed, without nailing some facts down tight, I think there's nothing to say. That's what's wrong with these kinds of pie in the sky posts.

Rob, I took your statement, with which Trina opened this discussion thread, as disagreeing with Mr Honemann's post of 29 June 2010 - 02:40 PM. While the issue here might be vague and hypothetical, I (and apparently some other posters) think the issue is about a very clear principle.

Myself, I would prefer to agree with Mr Honemann and Mr Goldsworthy, but, unhappily, it looks to me as if the text (cited by Mr Elsman) supports what Trina quoted and Mr Martin. Which is why I look for a few words of clarification from Mr Honemann, since he's often so good at it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rob, I took your statement, with which Trina opened this discussion thread, as disagreeing with Mr Honemann's post of 29 June 2010 - 02:40 PM. While the issue here might be vague and hypothetical, I (and apparently some other posters) think the issue is about a very clear principle.

Myself, I would prefer to agree with Mr Honemann and Mr Goldsworthy, but, unhappily, it looks to me as if the text (cited by Mr Elsman) supports what Trina quoted and Mr Martin. Which is why I look for a few words of clarification from Mr Honemann, since he's often so good at it.

You don't even know what is the motion, exactly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A logical example for the original poster.

Assume an organization has

(a.) a constitution;

(b.) a set of bylaws.

Assume that there is exactly one rule in the bylaws which directly contradicts the constitution.

Q. Because there is one rule (e.g., one sentence or one paragraph, whatever) which is impossible to obey or to execute, then it is true that 100% of the bylaws are therefore null and void?

I hope we agree that the answer is "No."

A single conflict or an isolated conflict never turns the non-conflicting rules or non-conflicting orders into nullities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So far, I don't see anything to make me think Dan disagrees with me. In fact, there's nothing to disagree with, since I've expressed no opinion about Trina's vague, hypothetical post. Indeed, without nailing some facts down tight, I think there's nothing to say. That's what's wrong with these kinds of pie in the sky posts.

Well, that sure clears it all up <_<

I'll admit to 'hypothetical', obviously, but 'vague' and 'pie in the sky' are a puzzle. I suggest the poster look up the rather interesting origin and definition of the phrase 'pie in the sky'...

I had assumed that Mr. Elsman's comment (quoted in its entirety in the original post of this thread) about the non-severability of a motion was based strictly on the language of p. 244. I apologize (with tongue firmly in cheek) for not realizing that the comment was situational in its application.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

Myself, I would prefer to agree with Mr Honemann and Mr Goldsworthy, but, unhappily, it looks to me as if the text (cited by Mr Elsman) supports what Trina quoted and Mr Martin. Which is why I look for a few words of clarification from Mr Honemann, since he's often so good at it.

Same here (as far as which position I would prefer to agree with)... and a few words of clarification would be nice.

I do want to thank Mr. Goldsworthy for his extensive explanations of his position, and Mr. Honemann for his politely stated (albeit very brief :D ) reply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Q. Because there is one rule (e.g., one sentence or one paragraph, whatever) which is impossible to obey or to execute, then it is true that 100% of the bylaws are therefore null and void?

I hope we agree that the answer is "No."

A single conflict or an isolated conflict never turns the non-conflicting rules or non-conflicting orders into nullities.

Mr. Goldsworthy, your explanation and example make a great deal of sense, and I certainly agree that "A single conflict or an isolated conflict never turns the non-conflicting rules or non-conflicting orders into nullities." The point I'm having trouble with is how an assembly would go about fixing a motion or document which is "partially"null and void. Could the chair rule that only the relevant portion of the motion or rule is null and void, or would the assembly need to use ASPA to fix the conflict? The relevant rule that is clouding the issue is RONR, 10th ed., pg. 244 (a) which speaks of "a main motion... adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization)." This seems to suggest that a Point of Order/Appeal strategy would not be in order to rule only part of a main motion null and void, however, I admit this may be a case where I'm missing the forest for the trees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Two or more independent main motions can, of course, be offered and adopted in a single motion (RONR, 10th ed., p. 265), and the question posed by Trina is an example of this. In such a case, if one of these parts presents a 244(a) violation, the chair can, and should, rule on it alone.

It would not be in order to attempt to use a motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted for this purpose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...