JamesMcLean

Thanks for the comments. Further input from others would be great; as noted by Richard, this seems to be a point for persuasion, so the greater range of input, the better.

What are opinions on the wisdom of including motivating factors in Bylaws. As specific example, someone has proposed an amendment: "…3 members elected in even years and 4 members elected in odd years. This ensures continuity on the Committee from one year to the next." Is it a good idea to include the second sentence in the Bylaws? My bias is to minimize the words in the Bylaws, because otherwise Bylaws can expand to to the point that it harder to find pertinent rules. I think I understand the motivation to add this sentence, but I don't think it adds to the utility of the document.

@George, Thanks much for that reminder. I was aware of the possibility to skip both amendment and debate, but had forgotten that such a proposal can be wrapped into the original motion.

Thanks so much for the rapid wisdom. I feel well and truly prepared to offer advice on what can be done. (Even though I myself am not convinced that this is a wise course of action. An interesting follow-on might be to consider what conditions would make such a plan desirable.)

One of the members in my College Senate wonders whether a motion can be considered in such a way that no amendments are allowed, but debate still occurs prior to the vote. (He wants an "up/down vote".) It doesn't seem to me that any person (including the chair) could prevent consideration of amendments. An assembly could prevent consideration of amendments by immediately calling the question, but that would also prevent debate. Is there a mechanism in RONR that would allow the group to forbid amendments during debate, possibly as a specific type of limiting debate?

Thank you for opening my eyes to the distinction between modifying the notice, and making a motion that differs from the notice.

Extracting those opinions relating to the situation when the full text is in the notice, which is essentially what I had in mind for the original question (as explained), we have: FOR Gary Novosielski: "it could be argued that the motion was in order" FOR Daniel H. Honemann: "I see no reason why a motion cannot be offered that differs from..." MAYBE Richard Brown: "if the exact language of the intended motion is given, there is less wiggle room... and maybe none at all" AGAINST jstackpo: 'notice gave the exact words ... then "No" is my answer.' AGAINST Joshua Katz: "even changes within the scope of notice would not be permitted" Of course, I understand that this tally does not account for gradations of authority. Joshua, thanks for guiding me in that, since I am just starting to be familiar with individuals on this forum. Correct, that was not in my original question. I brought up withdrawal only because of the strong parallel drawn on pp. 295-298 between withdrawal and modification by the mover. Since there appears to be no clear-cut answer to be found in RONR, I was switching to analysis by analogy. That is also why I phrased my final sentence as a selection of a course of action, rather than a statement about an absolute rule. The analogy between withdrawal and modification by the mover does seem to be a strong one, considering that they both hinge on the question of "ownership" of the motion. Is anyone aware of a situation where one is permitted and the other is not?

I thank everyone for the reminder that previous notices need not give explicit wording, which I had forgotten to consider. However, what I had in mind was changes in elements of the motion that were clear in the notice. (Otherwise, no one would know that changes had been made, and the question would never arise!) It seems that could occur either in the case when the notice contains the exact wording of the motion (as required for Bylaws amendments, p.593 ll. 7-11), or when the notice contains not the exact wording but specific elements (example: notice to raise dues to $30, followed by a motion to raise dues to $29). At this point I count the opinions as 2 for, 1 maybe, and 2 against. How palindromic! I was interested to find (p. 297 ll. 20-23) that a previous notice cannot be withdrawn without unanimous consent. (I have no idea how to apply "after is it too late for renewal" in l. 22.). Although pp. 295-298 do not specifically mention modification of a notice, they seem to be treating withdrawal and modification in the same way. So I think I will veer to the safe side, and assume that modifications should be introduced as amendments when the motion takes place; little seems to be lost with that approach.

I'm aware that once a motion is moved, it belongs to the assembly, and cannot be unilaterally changed by a smaller group, such as the original mover. (Insert obligatory comment about the non-existence of friendly amendments, as an example.) In cases when previous notice is required, such as for Bylaws amendments, can changes be unilaterally made after notice is given, but before the motion to amend is introduced? I suspect that considerations of scope may apply here. Let us assume, for the current question, that the changes under contemplation are within the scope of the original notice.

As the poser of the question in the previous thread, I've followed this sage conversation with interest. I don't think a resolution was reached. On further consideration, "outside of the box" as it were, I've reached the following conclusion, about which I would value your opinions. As a practical matter, it seems that if a member is dissatisfied with the consequences of a quorum ruling at meeting #1, the best course of action is to accept the ruling, and to reintroduce the question through a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted at meeting #2. It may or may not be in order to raise a point of order concerning previous meeting. But is there any practical outcome that can be achieved with such a point of order, but cannot be achieved with a "Something Previously Adopted" motion? If not, then the question is effectively moot.

This question is about noticing at a meeting that quorum has been lost, and whether that affects the validity of business that was conducted immediately previously. But read on, my question is not that basic. Robert's (11th ed, p. 349) says that normally this does not impact prior business, but if there is clear evidence that the business occurred without a quorum, the presiding officer may rule that the business is void. This ruling is subject to appeal. My question is, how would such an appeal be handled? On one hand, appeals must be made immediately after the ruling. But on the other hand, this would occur after quorum is lost, so it is impossible to hold a vote to resolve the appeal. Can the appeal be made after quorum is re-established (which might not be until the next meeting)? Or perhaps the appeal must be declared immediately, but the vote to resolve it occurs at the next meeting?

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=weird. Usage synonymous with "strange" attested to 1820, but older meaning of "supernatural" informs best current usage. But we digress.

I'm afraid not. FAQ #2 is helpful for interpreting existing bylaws, or finding the correct language for desired powers. My question is about the powers themselves, not the language describing them. Actually, I suppose my question in not really about Robert's Rules at all, since (as Gary points out) the Bylaws supersede RONR. But I hoped the forum could provide information about common (or uncommon) practice. Apologies if that was inappropriate.

Thanks Kim, your examples are quite helpful to consider. In our case, the justification to give one of the "observers" a position on the Exec Cmte is indeed because they bring a specialized perspective (for reasons that I won't go into, to keep this brief). In your experience, would the non-member parliamentarian, accountant, lawyer, and realtor in your examples typically be voting members of those committees? Or would they more commonly be non-voting "support staff," or some such title?

Thanks Gary, The observers are explicitly not members (of the Senate), in order not to trigger any related Roberts Rules consequences (quorum, etc). If one of them is on the Exec Cmte, then it would probably be ex-officio (Convener of the Observers is the likely office). But as you know, the ex-officio status has no bearing whether that person would have a vote on the Exec Cmte. That is the objection that I'm hearing: that someone without a vote on the Senate should not have a vote on the Exec Cmte. (I take your point about "weird"; I had forgotten the etymology. Although, there is a certain charm in the suggestion that the non-voting observers might have a ghostly quality .)