Pre Submitted Motion

[Guest Gregory Junemann]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present. Would such business need to be defined within the minutes, and should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

[Shmuel Gerber]

Would such business need to be defined within the minutes, and should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

What are you referring to by "such business" and "such motions"? And what do you mean by "defined within the minutes"?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present.

Okay. I will take you at your word that this new rule was adopted properly.

Would such business need to be defined within the minutes?

Minutes is not the place to "define" anything.

I don't know what you intend by that word - e.g., that a secretary is to do some extra writing of some kind?

Should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

No, not as "the first order of business."

The first item of business, typically, is approval of minutes.

(It is bad form to say "first order of business." - There is only one "order of business" for any given meeting.)

[Greg68]

What are you referring to by "such business" and "such motions"? And what do you mean by "defined within the minutes"?

I'm referring to the business brought about by the pre-submitted motions. Secondly, would the minutes need to specify that a motion had been previously submitted for consideration?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Would the minutes need to specify that a motion had been previously submitted for consideration?

No.

The SOURCE of a motion is not relevant - by mail, by photocopying, by hand-distribution, by oral communication, etc., is not something which needs to appear in one's minutes.

To do otherwise would imply that your minutes will have two kinds of motions to be recorded in your minutes: (a.) "submitted" vs. (b.) not "submitted". - And that's just trivia with no parliamentary justification, unless you are somehow USING that extra information in way you have not yet told us.

You are to record the name of the maker of the motion only if the motion is "important". Else, you don't even have to record the name of the mover, in one's minutes.

But the "source" (submitted vs. non-submitted), as far as I can tell, communicates nothing, when written down in one's minutes, to future readers/researchers.

[hmtcastle]

would the minutes need to specify that a motion had been previously submitted for consideration?

Since the minutes record what was done at a meeting (not before; not after), the only way your "pre-submit" rule might impact the minutes is if a motion was made that was not pre-submitted, a member made a point of order to this effect, and the chair issued a ruling. That sequence of events would get recorded in the minutes.

[Tim Wynn]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present. Would such business need to be defined within the minutes, and should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

Do the bylaws of your organization authorize the executive board to adopt its own rules, or is all this improper?

[Shmuel Gerber]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present. Would such business need to be defined within the minutes, and should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

I'm referring to the business brought about by the pre-submitted motions. Secondly, would the minutes need to specify that a motion had been previously submitted for consideration?

RONR states that "all notices of motions" are entered in the minutes (10th ed., p. 453, l. 17), although it is not clear whether this refers only to notices that are given at a meeting. In your case, since notice will be given for practically all motions, it would be quite tedious to mention it in every case, and I think it can safely be omitted. This is especially true since your rule requiring notice does not protect absentees, as it can be waived by consent of the members present (and therefore the existence or lack of notice becomes immaterial after the business has been taken up).

As to your question "should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?", the notice itself does not bring about any business; the order of business is still gone through in the regular way, but in order to introduce a motion for which notice has not been given, a board member would first have to obtain consent.

[hmtcastle]

RONR states that "all notices of motions" are entered in the minutes (10th ed., p. 453, l. 17), although it is not clear whether this refers only to notices that are given at a meeting.

I suspect The Wrathful One would say it's perfectly clear.

[Rob Elsman]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present. Would such business need to be defined within the minutes, and should such Motions be considered as a first order of business?

I very much doubt the executive board ever had the power to adopt such a rule.

[Robert B Fish]

I'm working with a group that passed a rule among their Executive Board to confine all action to only consider Main Motions that were previously submitted in writing to all Board members, with the proviso that the restriction could be waived by consent of the members present.

The rule, as you've quoted accomplishes nothing.

Let's say you give notice of a action that the rest of the board opposes. The action can be considered and defeated. The effect is the same as the case in which you have no rule.

Let's say you don't give notice of an action that the rest of the board opposes. The board can decline to waive the notice and the motion is not passed. The effect is the same as the case in which you have no rule.

Let's say you don't give notice of an action that the rest of the board supports. The board can waive the notice and pass the motion. The effect is the same as the case in which you have no rule.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

The rule, as you've quoted, accomplishes nothing.

It wouldn't be the first time.

[Shmuel Gerber]

The rule, as you've quoted accomplishes nothing.

If "the consent of the members present" means the unanimous consent of the members present (which is what I assumed the rule is, or was intended to be), then the rule accomplishes much more than nothing.

[Rob Elsman]

If "the consent of the members present" means the unanimous consent of the members present (which is what I assumed the rule is, or was intended to be), then the rule accomplishes much more than nothing.

That's what I thought was meant. What if something really urgent comes up and unanimous consent is not possible?