One motion taking precedence over another

[Guest Coastwynn]

Our National Club only has meetings every two years. In 2008, a motion was made and passed that the trophies could be whatever the host chose.At the next meeting in 2000, another motion was made and passed that stated the trophies could only be silver.

Which one of these motions is in effect?

Thanks so much.

E

[jstackpo]

Presuming that the "Silver" motion was adopted by a sufficiently large vote margin (the same as is required to amend something previously adopted) then the "Silver" requirement is in force. See p. 244, paragraph (.

Otherwise not.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our National Club only has meetings every two years.

In 2008, a motion was made and passed that the trophies could be whatever the host chose.

At the next meeting in 2000, another motion was made and passed that stated the trophies could only be silver.

Which one of these motions is in effect?

First, "2008"?

Second, "2000" in the past?

Did you mean, "2010"?

First off, I don't necessarily see why BOTH rules cannot be simultaneously obeyed.

Since both rules CAN be obeyed, I think you worded your question to draw a distinction where none (presently, at least) exists.

And, yes, I can imagine a scenario where there WOULD be a conflict between the two rules.

But, like I said, right now, you could theoretically obey/enforce both rules, the 2008 one and the 2010 one.

[Chris Harrison]

Our National Club only has meetings every two years. In 2008, a motion was made and passed that the trophies could be whatever the host chose.At the next meeting in 2000, another motion was made and passed that stated the trophies could only be silver.

Which one of these motions is in effect?

Thanks so much.

E

Unless you followed the process for Amending Something Previously Adopted (RONR pp. 293-299) or the vote on the motion in 2010 was 2/3 of the members who voted or a majority of the ENTIRE membership voted in favor of the motion the original motion still stands (RONR p. 244b).

[Guest Coastwynn]

First, "2008"?

Second, "2000" in the past?

Did you mean, "2010"?

First off, I don't necessarily see why BOTH rules cannot be simultaneously obeyed.

Since both rules CAN be obeyed, I think you worded your question to draw a distinction where none (presently, at least) exists.

And, yes, I can imagine a scenario where there WOULD be a conflict between the two rules.

But, like I said, right now, you could theoretically obey/enforce both rules, the 2008 one and the 2010 one.

[hmtcastle]

But, like I said, right now, you could theoretically obey/enforce both rules, the 2008 one and the 2010 one.

"Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants so long as it is black." - Henry Ford

[Guest Coastwynn]

Sorry, too many things going on. That should have read 1998 for first motion, and 2000 for a revisit and subsequent affirmative vote.

The 1998 motion stated they did not have to use silver, and the 2000 said they did have to use silver.

A member is saying that as the first motion in 1998 was not recinded, the second motion is not in effect.

Looking for direction onthis.

Thank you

E

[Chris Harrison]

Sorry, too many things going on. That should have read 1998 for first motion, and 2000 for a revisit and subsequent affirmative vote.

The 1998 motion stated they did not have to use silver, and the 2000 said they did have to use silver.

A member is saying that as the first motion in 1998 was not recinded, the second motion is not in effect.

Looking for direction onthis.

As I said above unless the 1998 motion was properly Amended or the 2000 motion was adopted by a 2/3 vote or a majority of the ENTIRE membership the 1998 motion is still in effect.

[hmtcastle]

A member is saying that as the first motion in 1998 was not recinded, the second motion is not in effect.

As Mr. Stackpole indicated, if the 2000 motion was adopted by the vote needed to amend something previously adopted (ASPA), then the 1998 motion was amended (not rescinded). Assuming there was no previous notice, that would be either a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Sorry, too many things going on. That should have read 1998 for first motion, and 2000 for a revisit and subsequent affirmative vote.

The 1998 motion stated they did not have to use silver, and the 2000 said they did have to use silver.

A member is saying that as the first motion in 1998 was not recinded, the second motion is not in effect.

Looking for direction on this.

One "spin" your organization may choose to go with is this:

"Our rules specify that the host may specify whatever trophy it wishes, as long as it is silver."

Nothing wrong with that.

Example:

• Every Olympics, the medals are different. - Yet there is just a bare bones commonality from year to year.

• Every Superbowl ring is different every year. - Yet they all seem to contain diamonds and engravings, as a fantastic "coincidence".

Thus, the "trophy" in the Olympics and in the NFL championship game is unique to the "host country" or "host ball club", yet all have commonalities.

Your rule allows for unique-ness for every host. Right?

Yet you can insist that all the "customizations" all share a common theme.

(e.g., the color silver? the metal silver? the horse Silver?)

You don't want customization to go crazy.

You don't want a bowling trophy to have a tennis player or a Heisman Trophy running back atop a bowling trophy.

You will want a bowling trophy to be unique yet share something common with bowling trophies in general.

So, you can set minimums, and simultaneously, can demand uniqueness.

That is why I see no conflict.

[Chris Harrison]

I think there is some confusion whether the 1998 motion said the trophy can be whatever color the host wishes. Though the original post mentions nothing about color in the '98 motion it and the later post made it sound like color was a factor (otherwise this issue probably wouldn't have been raised). Coastwynn, can you please clarify if color was mentioned in the '98 motion?

[Guest Coastwynn]

As Mr. Stackpole indicated, if the 2000 motion was adopted by the vote needed to amend something previously adopted (ASPA), then the 1998 motion was amended (not rescinded). Assuming there was no previous notice, that would be either a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

[Guest Coastwynn]

Would not the second motion in 2000 have to physically say it is amending the previous vote?

Thank you all so much for your expertise.

E

[Guest Coastwynn]

I think there is some confusion whether the 1998 motion said the trophy can be whatever color the host wishes. Though the original post mentions nothing about color in the '98 motion it and the later post made it sound like color was a factor (otherwise this issue probably wouldn't have been raised). Coastwynn, can you please clarify if color was mentioned in the '98 motion?

The first motion stated that the Host could choose whatever they wished, and mentioned it did not have to be silver. The second motion said the trophy's had to be silver.

So the motion in 1998 could be anything, including silver, but the second motion could only be silver.

Hope that makes sense.

E

[Chris Harrison]

Would not the second motion in 2000 have to physically say it is amending the previous vote?

It should have but it would still be validly adopted if it was adopted by a 2/3 vote or a majority of the ENTIRE membership.

[Chris Harrison]

The first motion stated that the Host could choose whatever they wished, and mentioned it did not have to be silver. The second motion said the trophy's had to be silver.

So the motion in 1998 could be anything, including silver, but the second motion could only be silver.

Hope that makes sense.

E

Not really. It is not clear by the wording of the motion (which you are paraphrasing) if the "whatever they wished" is referring to the color of the trophy, the chemical makeup of the trophy, the physical shape of the trophy, some other factor, or a combination of the above.

[Guest Coastwynn]

I have found the actual wording of the motions in question.

In 1998 - moved that the selection of trophies for the Nat'l Specialty be left to the host committee - a seconder and carried.

In 2000, the Executive addressed this issue again and took the recommendation to the membership " that Silver be the standard for Nat'l Specialties-seconded and carried.

Unfortunately I do not know how many voted, so do not know if it was 2/3 of those members in attendance.

E

[Guest Coastwynn]

So sorry, this is physical silver, not silver color.

E

[Rob Elsman]

So sorry, this is physical silver, not silver color.

E

Whichever--the rule is that the adoption of a main motion that conflicts with one previously adopted and still in force is null and void unless adopted by the vote necessary to adopt a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted; that is, if previous notice of the motion has been validly given, a majority vote is required; otherwise, either a two-thirds vote or an affirmative vote of the majority of the entire membership is required. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 244, ll. 12-16; p. 295, ll. 24-31.

[Ann Rempel]

I have found the actual wording of the motions in question.

In 1998 - moved that the selection of trophies for the Nat'l Specialty be left to the host committee - a seconder and carried.

In 2000, the Executive addressed this issue again and took the recommendation to the membership " that Silver be the standard for Nat'l Specialties-seconded and carried.

Unfortunately I do not know how many voted, so do not know if it was 2/3 of those members in attendance.

E

Ten years have passed and the vote count is unknown. It seems reasonable to assume that the motion was properly adopted and move on. If changes are warranted now, the proper motion should be made and adopted in accordance with the requirements in RONR.

[Guest Coastwynn]

Thanks to all for your time and patience.

E