Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Motion to Reconsider, Secret Ballot Motion to pay a bill


Guest Guest_11

Recommended Posts

At a previous board meeting, a motion was made to pay a bill that was incurred by an individual board member. The paying of the bill was not a part of the budget but is in line with the operating procedure of the organization. A few of the members of the board asked for a secret ballot and the motion was passed by majority, via paper vote, to pay the bill.

That bill was then paid per the motion.

The following meeting, several individuals of the board had "a change of heart" and called for the question to reconsider the previously passed motion to pay the bill. No new information was presented other than the fact that they had a "change of heart". A roll call vote was then taken and the motion to reconsider paying the bill (not pay the previous bill that was already paid), passed by majority.

RR states pg 58, "The Motion to Reconsider" that "this motion can only be made by a member who voted on the winning side." RR does not have any information stated if the Motion to Reconsider was by secret ballot. One of the board members contended that anyone can bring up a Motion to Reconsider since the previous motion passed by secret ballot.

Questions:

1. Since RR states that the motion can only be made by a member of the winning side of the vote, and there is no provable winning side of the previous vote as the motion passed in a secret ballot, can ANY board member bring the motion to reconsider?

2. Is there a different procedure to reconsider a motion that was passed by secret ballot vote?

3. Is the motion to pay a bill that was already paid "out of order" in general?

4. Because that motion was to pay a bill on behalf of an individual, and after the previous meeting the bill was paid, is the individual who the bill was paid for under any obligation to repay the board for money received to pay the bill; since the bill was paid in good faith by direction of the board and then later, after the bill was paid, the board had voted and passed to reconsider the motion to pay the bill?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Questions:

1. Since RR states that the motion can only be made by a member of the winning side of the vote, and there is no provable winning side of the previous vote as the motion passed in a secret ballot, can ANY board member bring the motion to reconsider?

2. Is there a different procedure to reconsider a motion that was passed by secret ballot vote?

3. Is the motion to pay a bill that was already paid "out of order" in general?

4. Because that motion was to pay a bill on behalf of an individual, and after the previous meeting the bill was paid, is the individual who the bill was paid for under any obligation to repay the board for money received to pay the bill; since the bill was paid in good faith by direction of the board and then later, after the bill was paid, the board had voted and passed to reconsider the motion to pay the bill?

1. In the case of a ballot vote, a member is given the benefit of the doubt when he says he voted with the prevailing side. But once the meeting is over, it's too late for a motion to reconsider.

2. No.

3. Yes (and I assume you mean a motion to rescind the motion to pay the bill), since there's no way to "un-pay" a paid bill.

4. No.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a previous board meeting, a motion was made to pay a bill that was incurred by an individual board member.

The paying of the bill was not a part of the budget but is in line with the operating procedure of the organization. A few of the members of the board asked for a secret ballot and the motion was passed by majority, via paper vote, to pay the bill.

That bill was then paid per the motion.

So far, so good.

The following meeting, several individuals of the board had "a change of heart" and called for the question to reconsider the previously passed motion to pay the bill.

No new information was presented other than the fact that they had a "change of heart".

A roll call vote was then taken and the motion to reconsider paying the bill (not pay the previous bill that was already paid), passed by majority.

This is wrong.

You can only move to Reconsider an act which was not fully executed.

Was the act fully executed? - Yes. - You said: That bill was then paid per the motion.

Once the check is "in the mail", then (unless you ask your vendor to return the check, an option I am considering as IMPOSSIBLE), then you cannot Reconsider the vote on that act.

RR states pg 58, "The Motion to Reconsider" that "this motion can only be made by a member who voted on the winning side."

RR does not have any information stated if the Motion to Reconsider was by secret ballot.

One of the board members contended that anyone can bring up a Motion to Reconsider since the previous motion passed by secret ballot.

One thing (secret ballot) is not related to the other thing (the motion Reconsider).

1. Since RR states that the motion can only be made by a member of the winning side of the vote, and there is no provable winning side of the previous vote as the motion passed in a secret ballot, can ANY board member bring the motion to reconsider?

Moot. You cannot move to Reconsider.

2. Is there a different procedure to reconsider a motion that was passed by secret ballot vote?

No. Like I said above, there no tie between one and the other.

3. Is the motion to pay a bill that was already paid "out of order" in general?

Yes.

If you have a magical way of (1.) ordering the U.S. Postal Service to return your envelope (an illegal task); or (2.) ordering the vendor to return your check (an option I consider psychologically impossible); then I am wrong.

Since both ways of un-doing the action is virtually impossible, then Reconsider is not an option, and impossible motions are improper motions.

4. Because that motion was to pay a bill on behalf of an individual, and after the previous meeting the bill was paid, is the individual who the bill was paid for under any obligation to repay the board for money received to pay the bill; since the bill was paid in good faith by direction of the board and then later, after the bill was paid, the board had voted and passed to reconsider the motion to pay the bill?

Is this a question of ETHICS?

Is this a question of LAW?

RONR is not a book of ETHICS.

RONR is not a book of LAW.

As far as parliamentary procedure goes, it would appear that you would issuing a FINE or a PENALTY. That is, the member himself DID NO WRONG. Yet you are coercing money from an innocent member, who has violated no rules of the organization.

Thus I must conclude, you have no authority to compel this person to pay the organization OUT OF OWN POCKET for no good reason.

It isn't a sale. It isn't an exchange.

If it isn't "selling" and isn't "exchanging" then it gives the appearance of "greed", "cheapness", or as they used to say in the movies, being an "Indian giver."

Granted, someone else, with a different viewpoint, can argue the opposite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick responses.

So am I correct to conclude:

a. The motion to reconsider is out of order because it WAS NOT brought up immediately at the same meeting, AND was not a result of new information presented during the same meeting.

b. It would have been proper to motion to reconsider a vote by secret ballot if it was brought forth by anyone at the initial meeting and new information was presented at that meeting that caused reconsideration of the initial motion.

c. The motion to reconsider is out of order because it WAS brought forth at a future meeting.

d. The motion to reconsider is out of order because the initial motion was already fully executed (the bill was previously athorized by the board and the bill was already paid).

e. Since money was spent for the intended purpose of the initial motion, that person who received the benefit of the bill being paid is under no obligation to pay that money back to the board or organization the board represents. That said, all future motions that are made by the board establishing rules for repayment are ALL out of order.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the quick responses.

So am I correct to conclude:

a. The motion to reconsider is out of order because it WAS NOT brought up immediately at the same meeting, AND was not a result of new information presented during the same meeting.

Only the first reason is sufficient.

b. It would have been proper to motion to reconsider a vote by secret ballot if it was brought forth by anyone at the initial meeting and new information was presented at that meeting that caused reconsideration of the initial motion.

No, it would have to be brought forward by someone who voted with the prevailing side. That rule is not waived merely because it was a ballot vote. Granted, it cannot be proven, but the member must still be willing to state (truthfully) how he voted.

c. The motion to reconsider is out of order because it WAS brought forth at a future meeting.

Right.

d. The motion to reconsider is out of order because the initial motion was already fully executed (the bill was previously athorized by the board and the bill was already paid).

In fact any motion, not merely Reconsider, but even a motion to Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted would be out of order because the action was already completed. You can't unring a bell by a parliamentary trick.

e. Since money was spent for the intended purpose of the initial motion, that person who received the benefit of the bill being paid is under no obligation to pay that money back to the board or organization the board represents.

Correct.

That said, all future motions that are made by the board establishing rules for repayment are ALL out of order.

Huh? How did you make that leap? We're talking about one motion here, with specific characteristics and a specific history. Generalizing to all future rules is a bit over-dramatic, don't you think?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Quote

That said, all future motions that are made by the board establishing rules for repayment are ALL out of order.

Huh? How did you make that leap? We're talking about one motion here, with specific characteristics and a specific history. Generalizing to all future rules is a bit over-dramatic, don't you think?

"

-correct.

If a board in a future meeting presents new motions that are based on a foundation of an out of order motion, all those future motions are then also out of order?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

a. The motion to reconsider is out of order ...

a.1. because it WAS NOT brought up immediately at the same meeting,

a.2. because it was not a result of new information presented during the same meeting.

a.1. = yes

a.2. = no - "new information" has nothing to do with it.

b. It would have been proper to motion to reconsider a vote by secret ballot ...

b.1. if it was brought forth by anyone at the initial meeting

b.2. if new information was presented at that meeting that caused reconsideration of the initial motion.

b.1. Two answers.

• Yes in general.

• No, not necessarily.

b.2. No. Again, "new information" is not a relevant factor.

c. The motion to reconsider is out of order ...

because it WAS brought forth at a future meeting.

c. Yes, out of order - but not because of the "future meeting" aspect.

It is due to the "separate session" aspect.

d. The motion to reconsider is out of order ...

because the initial motion was already fully executed (the bill was previously authorized by the board and the bill was already paid).

Yes. You cannot reconsider old actions which cannot be frozen, or halted prior to completion.

If it is a done deal, then Reconsider is not an option.

If the horse escapes from the barn, then a motion, "To close the barn door," (obviously, unwisely defeated) cannot be meaningfully Reconsidered.

e. Since money was spent for the intended purpose of the initial motion ...

e.1. then that person who received the benefit of the bill being paid is under no obligation to pay that money back to the board or organization the board represents.

e.2. All future motions that are made by the board establishing rules for re-payment are ALL out of order.

e.1. At least, not under any PARLIAMENTARY RULE within RONR. If you have ethical rules, legal rules, or a bylaws-level rule, then that is a horse of a different color (which has not escaped the barn door!).

e.2. "Re-payment"? - as opposed to "payment"?

What do you mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If a board in a future meeting presents new motions that are based on a foundation of an out of order motion, all those future motions are then also out of order?

The concept of a one motion being "based on a foundation" of another motion doesn't make much sense. When a new motion is made, it is evaluated on its own terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"

Quote

That said, all future motions that are made by the board establishing rules for repayment are ALL out of order.

Huh? How did you make that leap? We're talking about one motion here, with specific characteristics and a specific history. Generalizing to all future rules is a bit over-dramatic, don't you think?

"

-correct.

If a board in a future meeting presents new motions that are based on a foundation of an out of order motion, all those future motions are then also out of order?

I'm not sure I understand your meaning enough to agree or disagree.

You can't revisit this motion for the simple reason that it's over and done with.

The Latin term for this, according to one "parliamentary authority" in his own right, is anas mortua. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 11,

You're not going to find any immunity against all future motions.

The board can adopt a motion that the board member be instructed to pay back the money with interest. The board can adopt a motion that the board member be instructed to take a long walk off a short pier.

Whether the board has the power to compel compliance with the instruction is a different issue (probably with a different answer).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At a previous board meeting, a motion was made to pay a bill that was incurred by an individual board member. The paying of the bill was not a part of the budget but is in line with the operating procedure of the organization. A few of the members of the board asked for a secret ballot and the motion was passed by majority, via paper vote, to pay the bill.

That bill was then paid per the motion.

The following meeting, several individuals of the board had "a change of heart" and called for the question to reconsider the previously passed motion to pay the bill. No new information was presented other than the fact that they had a "change of heart". A roll call vote was then taken and the motion to reconsider paying the bill (not pay the previous bill that was already paid), passed by majority.

....

OK, I'm puzzled about a couple of things. I agree with everyone else that the second motion (which the members called 'reconsider', but which should have been called 'rescind' since it was brought up at a different session) was improper. Actions that have been fully carried out cannot be rescinded. Also, it's possible that the ill-named motion to rescind didn't receive the proper vote margin (unless it passed by a two-thirds vote, or received 'yes' votes from a majority of the entire membership of the board). However, if the result was announced and no one complained about vote margin at the time, that's water under the bridge (as per OI-2006-18 -- http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18).

The fact is, the assembly went ahead and passed the improper motion. I don't think I see a p. 244 violation (a continuing breach, regarding which a point of order can be raised at any time). The assembly has made a decision to do something impossible (unpay a bill which has been paid), but the absurdity of the motion does not itself create a breach, as far as I can see.

Suppose an organization votes to cut down the old oak tree that has been standing in front of the clubhouse for the past 70 years. The authorized action is carried out, the chainsaws and chippers have come and gone, the bills have been paid, and all that is left is a stump. At the next meeting, the organization votes to rescind the motion to cut down the tree. No one objects. Yes, it's absurd, and impossible, but is there a continuing breach? Perhaps there's a violation of RONR p. 373 ll. 10-12:

'Debate, rightly understood, is an essential element in the making of rational decisions of consequence by intelligent people.'

But, is that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? ;)

I know there are rules about absurd or meaningless or dilatory motions, but those rules have to be enforced in a timely way, don't they?

....

If a board in a future meeting presents new motions that are based on a foundation of an out of order motion, all those future motions are then also out of order?

I think Guest_11's question isn't as confusing as some have treated it. It's a reasonable guess at to how things might work.

In the case of a run-of-the-mill violation, when no timely point of order is raised, it seems clear that the validity of future motions would be unaffected by the violation.

However, in the case of a motion which clearly causes a continuing breach, in violation of one of the rules on p. 244, are later motions based on that 'bad' motion all to be evaluated independently, once a point of order is raised about the breach? I certainly don't remember reading about any sort of 'cascade effect' in RONR... but perhaps I should ask that question in a separate thread, as it seems to wander away from the questions raised by the original poster.

As for Guest_11's question about a possible future motion to require the board member to reimburse the organization (persuant to their goofy decision to 'unspend' money that has already been paid), I agree with Mr. Wynn, and others, that such a motion would have to stand on its own feet -- independent of the history of the board's request for money. Guest_11, does your board have the authority to tell a member to simply hand over a sum of money?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the response to my inquiry.

"

Guest_11, does your board have the authority to tell a member to simply hand over a sum of money?

"

-No they do not.

I will create timeline, hopefully for clarity and understanding, based on my last question about "future motions":

_________________________________________________________

@ Meeting #1:

The original Motion (1.a)

A motion (1.a) was made to pay a bill on behalf of a member of the organization and passed by majority.

A motion (1.B) to adjourn passed.

@ Between Meeting #1 and #2:

Motion (1.a) was executed, the bill was paid.

@ Meeting #2

The motion to reconsider (2.a):

A motion (2.a) was made to reconsider the (1.a) motion to pay the bill and passed by 2/3.

From what is stated in this thread already, the motion (2.a) to reconsider is out of order because:

1. The motion to reconsider (2.a) was not brought forth during the same session as motion (1.a) - Meeting #1.

2. The motion to reconsider (2.a) was to "unexecute what has already been executed" (between Meeting #1 & Meeting #2)

The "Future Motion" (2.B):

ONLY BECAUSE (in bold to clearly imply direct cause [motion (2.a)] and effect [motion (2.B)]) the motion to reconsider (2.a) passed to effectively "unpay" an already paid bill (which was out of order), a new motion (2.B) was made by the board stating "the terms" of how the member of the organization was to "pay back" the money for the bill that was paid from execution of motion (1.a). That motion then passed by majority.

IF the motion to reconsider (2.a) had not passed by 2/3 majority, THEN motion (2.B) would not have been made in the first place.

A motion (2.c) to adjourn passed.

_________________________________________________________

The logic of members of the board who made and passed motion (2.B) was the "assumption" that the "bill could effectivly be unpaid by the member of the organization who the bill was paid for in motion (1.a), because that person is a member of the organization". BECAUSE of the motion to reconsider (2.a) passed, that the member of the organization now owed the organization money (IMO a legal assumption without merrit) and is now legally "obligated to oblige" the board in repaying the organization back.

I believe Trina has captured the meaning behind my last question with the description "cascade effect". However, let me restate the previous question of:

"That said, all future motions that are made........"

with the following question:

If a motion is made and passed that was unknowningly at the time, but now known to be, out of order; does that in turn make any future motions made also out of order as well, IF all future motions are CONTINGENT ENTIRELY upon the premise that the previous motion both passed and was "of order"?

That brings up another question, is it timely enough to make known to the board at the next board meeting the fact that, upon research from this website, a previous motion or group of motions that passed are out of order?

Obviously, if so, this should be done @ Meeting #3, from the timeline above, during the reading of the minutes I presume.

Last question, I hope on this, regarding timelyness:

Using the time line above, if Motion (2.B) was tabled, and Motion (2.c) to adjourn was passed, then @ Meeting #3 the minutes were read and adopted by the board and @ meeting #3, the tabled Motion (2.B) was passed; can @ meeting #4, the fact be made to the board that motion (2.a) was out of order and should be removed from the @ meeting #2 minutes AND motion (2.B) was in turn out of order and should be removed from the @ meeting #2 AND @ meeting #3 minutes? If this is possible, how should that be presented properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This duplicate repost is because the smile faces were not a part of my post. I should have done a preview post.

This post might make things clearer.

Thanks for all the response to my inquiry.

"

Guest_11, does your board have the authority to tell a member to simply hand over a sum of money?

"

-No they do not.

I will create timeline, hopefully for clarity and understanding, based on my last question about "future motions":

_________________________________________________________

At Meeting #1:

The original Motion 1.a

A motion 1.a was made to pay a bill on behalf of a member of the organization and passed by majority.

A motion 1.b to adjourn passed.

Between Meeting #1 and #2:

Motion 1.a was executed, the bill was paid.

At Meeting #2

The motion to reconsider 2.a:

A motion 2.a was made to reconsider the (1.a) motion to pay the bill and passed by 2/3.

From what is stated in this thread already, the motion (2.a) to reconsider is out of order because:

1. The motion to reconsider 2.a was not brought forth during the same session as motion 1.a - Meeting #1.

2. The motion to reconsider 2.a was to "unexecute what has already been executed" (between Meeting #1 & Meeting #2)

The "Future Motion" 2.b:

ONLY BECAUSE (in caps to clearly imply direct cause [motion 2.a] and effect [motion 2.b] ) the motion to reconsider 2.a passed to effectively "unpay" an already paid bill (which was out of order), a new motion (2. was made by the board stating "the terms" of how the member of the organization was to "pay back" the money for the bill that was paid from execution of motion 1.a. That motion then passed by majority.

IF the motion to reconsider 2.a had not passed by 2/3 majority, THEN motion 2.b would not have been made in the first place.

A motion 2.c to adjourn passed.

_________________________________________________________

The logic of members of the board who made and passed motion 2.b was the "assumption" that the "bill could effectivly be unpaid by the member of the organization who the bill was paid for in motion 1.a, because that person is a member of the organization". BECAUSE of the motion to reconsider 2.a passed, that the member of the organization now owed the organization money (IMO a legal assumption without merrit) and is now legally "obligated to oblige" the board in repaying the organization back.

I believe Trina has captured the meaning behind my last question with the description "cascade effect". However, let me restate the previous question of:

"That said, all future motions that are made........"

with the following question:

If a motion is made and passed that was unknowningly at the time, but now known to be, out of order; does that in turn make any future motions made also out of order as well, IF all future motions are CONTINGENT ENTIRELY upon the premise that the previous motion both passed and was "of order"?

That brings up another question, is it timely enough to make known to the board at the next board meeting the fact that, upon research from this website, a previous motion or group of motions that passed are out of order?

Obviously, if so, this should be done at Meeting #3, from the timeline above, during the reading of the minutes I presume.

Last question, I hope on this, regarding timelyness:

Using the time line above,

if at Meeting #2 the Motion 2.b was tabled, and Motion 2.c to adjourn was passed,

then at Meeting #3 the minutes from Meeting #2 were read and adopted (passed) and the tabled Motion 2.b was passed,

can at meeting #4,

the fact be presented to the board that motion 2.a was out of order and should be removed from the meeting #2 minutes AND

the fact that motion 2.b which was predicated on the passing of motion 2.a was in turn out of order and should be removed from the meeting #2 AND meeting #3 minutes?

If this is possible, how should that be presented properly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The assembly has made a decision to do something impossible (unpay a bill which has been paid), but the absurdity of the motion does not itself create a breach, as far as I can see.

I don't see a continuing breach either. I think, however, that as problems go, "impossible" trumps "continuing breach."

Suppose an organization votes to cut down the old oak tree that has been standing in front of the clubhouse for the past 70 years. The authorized action is carried out, the chainsaws and chippers have come and gone, the bills have been paid, and all that is left is a stump. At the next meeting, the organization votes to rescind the motion to cut down the tree. No one objects. Yes, it's absurd, and impossible, but is there a continuing breach?

No. See above.

Perhaps there's a violation of RONR p. 373 ll. 10-12:

'Debate, rightly understood, is an essential element in the making of rational decisions of consequence by intelligent people.'

But, is that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? ;)

The quotation provided is simply a statement of fact. It's not even a rule, let alone a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

I know there are rules about absurd or meaningless or dilatory motions, but those rules have to be enforced in a timely way, don't they?

Yes, they do. Regardless, if the motion which is adopted is impossible to carry out, whether the motion is "validly adopted" seems irrelevant.

However, in the case of a motion which clearly causes a continuing breach, in violation of one of the rules on p. 244, are later motions based on that 'bad' motion all to be evaluated independently, once a point of order is raised about the breach? I certainly don't remember reading about any sort of 'cascade effect' in RONR... but perhaps I should ask that question in a separate thread, as it seems to wander away from the questions raised by the original poster.

All motions should be evaluated independently, taking into account the particular circumstances of each situation. The particulars of any previously adopted motion may or not have bearing on a given case. In this particular case, it seems to me the poster is suggesting that next meeting, there will be a discussion of how the bill must be repaid, since the motion to pay the bill was "rescinded." Such motions are out of order because the motion to pay the bill was never rescinded (as this is impossible) and because assessments beyond the payment of dues may not be imposed upon members without authorization from the Bylaws.

If a motion is made and passed that was unknowningly at the time, but now known to be, out of order; does that in turn make any future motions made also out of order as well, IF all future motions are CONTINGENT ENTIRELY upon the premise that the previous motion both passed and was "of order"?

I don't know why you insist on seeking some sweeping generalization on this topic. Just look at what I said to Trina about this.

All you really need to know for the problem your organization is facing is that any motions forcing the member to pay the board back are out of order. Period. This is true regardless of any connection (or lack thereof) to the improper motion to rescind.

That brings up another question, is it timely enough to make known to the board at the next board meeting the fact that, upon research from this website, a previous motion or group of motions that passed are out of order?

In most cases, a Point of Order must be made at the time of the violation. The next board meeting would be too late. Some rule violations, however, are so egregious as to create a continuing breach. In such a case, a Point of Order may be raised at any meeting so long as the breach continues. Motions forcing the member to pay money to the organization would cause a continuing breach as it violates the rights of an individual member. If you have other motions in mind you'll need to provide more specifics.

Obviously, if so, this should be done at Meeting #3, from the timeline above, during the reading of the minutes I presume.

I would generally wait until New Business to raise a Point of Order regarding a continuing breach. There is no need to do it during the reading of the minutes. The minutes simply record what happened, even if what happened was improper.

Using the time line above,

if at Meeting #2 the Motion 2.b was tabled, and Motion 2.c to adjourn was passed,

then at Meeting #3 the minutes from Meeting #2 were read and adopted (passed) and the tabled Motion 2.b was passed,

can at meeting #4,

the fact be presented to the board that motion 2.a was out of order and should be removed from the meeting #2 minutes AND

the fact that motion 2.b which was predicated on the passing of motion 2.a was in turn out of order and should be removed from the meeting #2 AND meeting #3 minutes?

If this is possible, how should that be presented properly?

Nothing should be removed from any minutes. The minutes are a record of what happened, and it appears that they accurately record that. The fact that what happened was improper is irrelevant. Any Points of Order and subsequent appeals would be recorded in the minutes of the meeting where they are raised.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there's a violation of RONR p. 373 ll. 10-12:

'Debate, rightly understood, is an essential element in the making of rational decisions of consequence by intelligent people.'

But, is that a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? ;)

The quotation provided is simply a statement of fact. It's not even a rule, let alone a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

The emoticon ;) was the closest I could find to 'tongue-in-cheek' -- I certainly agree that the citation sounds like a (perhaps unduly optimisitic) statement of fact, not a rule.

Thank you for your responses to my other questions also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Continued (i guess tab adds the reply)

5. If a motion is made that is out of order, and the ongoing execution of that out of order motion is continuing, then a

Point of Order should raised when it is made clear that that motion is out of order (hopefully at the time that the

out of order motion was made.

6. No minutes need to be changed to remove the out of order motion, just a reflection of them being out of order in

the newest minutes.

I thank this sums it up. Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't know why you insist on seeking some sweeping generalization on this topic."

I wasn't sure about the logic with RR, but it is apparent the motions are all out of order on their own merrit and cannot be "grouped" together.

Thanks all for making the following points of clarification. For some reason the thread cut off my last post. To sum up this thread, the following are true statements with RR:

1. The assumption must be made that with a motion to Reconsider a ballot vote, that the person who is bringing forth the motion to reconsider is telling the truth about voting on the winning side.

2. Motions to Reconsider can only be made during the same session. Once the session is adjourned, then any Reconsider motions made after the session are Out of Order.

3. Motions to do the impossible, such as un-doing a payment or changing the past, are all on principle out of order.

4. Motions to Reconsider or Rescind, for an already executed motion are all out of order, as those are impossible motions.

5. If a motion is made that is out of order, and the ongoing execution/discussion of that out of order motion is continuing, then a Point of Order should raised when it is made clear that the motion was out of order. This should be done hopefully at the time that the out of order motion was made, but in the case of a continuing out of order motion A Point of Order can be done at a later session when the out of order motion is being addressed.

6. No minutes need to be changed to remove the out of order motion, just a reflection of them being out of order in the newest minutes.

I thank this sums it up. Thanks all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...