Making a Motion

[Guest Lee]

In my executive meeting a motion was made for me to deposit a cheque I received in my name from a third party, and to deposit it into our affiliation account. I raised my concerns about what I wanted the money to go towards (because I was donating it), which struck a lot of controversy. Very quickly a motion was made and carried for me to deposit it. Later some information came to light that my affiliation wanted the cheque out of my hands, and into our account, where I would have less control over the money. I'm questioning whether the motion needed to be made, after I had verbally agreed that I would be donating the money to our affiliation?

As well, another motion was made for me to confer with our colleagues whether anyone was interested in a particular project. My question, again, is whether topics such as these "need" a motion (and a vote) to be made. Can groups just not discuss and verbally agree as to how things are done. It makes me wonder (with past reasons of course) if these motions are made because the people making them feel the need to control, or (heaven forbid) opress others.

I have been involved in other affiliations, and I don't remember us making motions for little things like these. We made motions when we needed to conduct business and follow through with specific procedures... not to make sure someone does what others want them to do.

At our next meeting, I questioned the minutes of these two motions and suggested that voting may not have been necessary and maybe the minutes need to be amended. I was told that these are procedures of Robert's Rules.... and so I am confirming we followed proper procedure.

I'd be happy to hear what other people think. I have read through much of this site, and cannot seem to find an answer.

Thanks, in advance!

[Tim Wynn]

In my executive meeting a motion was made for me to deposit a cheque I received in my name from a third party, and to deposit it into our affiliation account. I raised my concerns about what I wanted the money to go towards (because I was donating it), which struck a lot of controversy. Very quickly a motion was made and carried for me to deposit it. Later some information came to light that my affiliation wanted the cheque out of my hands, and into our account, where I would have less control over the money. I'm questioning whether the motion needed to be made, after I had verbally agreed that I would be donating the money to our affiliation?

If you control the money (in a way that the organization cannot compel you to dispose of it), I don't see the point in the motion. Are you somehow obligated to do what the organization decides?

It's different if the money belongs to the organization and you are just handling it.

As well, another motion was made for me to confer with our colleagues whether anyone was interested in a particular project. My question, again, is whether topics such as these "need" a motion (and a vote) to be made. Can groups just not discuss and verbally agree as to how things are done.

[Gary Novosielski]

In my executive meeting a motion was made for me to deposit a cheque I received in my name from a third party, and to deposit it into our affiliation account. I raised my concerns about what I wanted the money to go towards (because I was donating it), which struck a lot of controversy. Very quickly a motion was made and carried for me to deposit it. Later some information came to light that my affiliation wanted the cheque out of my hands, and into our account, where I would have less control over the money. I'm questioning whether the motion needed to be made, after I had verbally agreed that I would be donating the money to our affiliation?

<snip>

Motions or Resolutions don't usually propose what individual people will do, they propose what the society will do. Orders, which are handled almost the same way, instruct individuals what to do, but they would apply to employees of the society. In other words, if they're not paying you, they don't get to tell you what to do.

I can't think of an instance in RONR where a society can impose a duty on an individual member (beyond those imposed on all members in the bylaws) that can't be declined. They certainly can't make you contribute money, and if their actions make you suspicious, you can withdraw the offer.

It would probably be appropriate for the society to move to accept the donation (lawyers seem to like that, though I'm not sure why) and that resolution would be an appropriate place to include the provisions under which it is accepted, or use to which it will be put, such as that it will be used only to defer the cost of painting the clubhouse.

If it's a lot of money, and you want protection, draw up an agreement (contract) with all the terms protecting both sides, and then the motion would simply consist of approving the agreement. The contents of contracts go well beyond parliamentary procedure. A lawyer would be able to help you.

Some societies, as a rule, will not accept earmarked donations, and of course that is their right. To varying degrees people will tell you that's a good idea. Some will say a very good idea. It can be more work to keep track of than it is worth, for small donations. That's up to the society.

But you also have the right not to donate in cases where you are not permitted to dedicate the funds to a particular use. That's up to you.

What they do not have the right to do is to hoodwink you into donating funds that you want to dedicate in a manner that will make them undedicated. You'd have to think twice about dealing with an outfit like that.

[Guest Lee]

Thank you Tim Winn and Gary Novosielski. Both of your comments were very helpful. I appreciate your quick responses. ) Lee

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you Tim Winn and Gary Novosielski. Both of your comments were very helpful. I appreciate your quick responses. ) Lee

Who would have thought "Novosielski" would be the easier name to spell?

[Guest Lee]

Ooops! My apologies Tim 'Wynn'. I still appreciate your help, even though I tried to make you into another person.

I'm realizing that I likely need to educate myself better on Robert's Rules.

[Tim Wynn]

Ooops! My apologies Tim 'Wynn'. I still appreciate your help, even though I tried to make you into another person.

No problem.

I'm realizing that I likely need to educate myself better on Robert's Rules.

Good luck with that. We're here to (try to) help.

[Josh Martin]

Orders, which are handled almost the same way, instruct individuals what to do, but they would apply to employees of the society. In other words, if they're not paying you, they don't get to tell you what to do.

This statement certainly goes too far. An assembly can give orders to officers or delegates, for instance, and many "employees" in voluntary societies are unpaid positions. While it is true that the actual form of resolution which begins, "Ordered..." is typically applied to employees, this does not mean that a society cannot instruct others.

I certainly agree that the motion ordering the donation is out of order, as a society cannot impose financial assessments beyond dues upon its members unless this is authorized by the Bylaws. The motion ordering the individual to have some "discussions" seems in order, especially since the poster may be an officer (he mentioned an executive meeting). Whether such a motion is appropriate or necessary is up to the assembly.

Whether it is in order, as a general rule, to instruct a member (with no other position in the Society) to take some action is a more interesting question which I will have to ponder more thoroughly. My gut says "no" - or perhaps more accurately, the Society can't do much about it if the member declines.

[Gary Novosielski]

Who would have thought "Novosielski" would be the easier name to spell?

I would. But that's just me.

[hmtcastle]

Who would have thought "Novosielski" would be the easier name to spell?

I would. But that's just me.

I think it's the whole consonant-to-vowel ratio thing. The closer you get to 1:1, the tougher it is to spell. Mr. N. has a C/V ratio of 6:5. Mine is 7:4. Mr. Wynn's is a whopping 3:1 (and his vowel is even that "sometimes" vowel).