Rob Elsman

As St. Lawrence is reputed to have said on the gridiron, "You can turn me over--I'm done on this side."

Nothing in RONR (12 ed.) prohibits motions from being voted on, provided 1) the call of the meeting has been properly sent to each member a reasonable time in advance; and 2) there is a quorum at the time the vote is taken; and 3) any required previous notice of the motion has been properly given.

In the back of RONR (12th ed.), there is an appendix, "Sample Rules for Electronic Meetings". These are not intended to be binding on societies that have adopted the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised as their parliamentary authority, but they may be useful as guides for crafting special rules of order for those societies that authorize electronic meetings in their bylaws.

There is no such book put out by the Roberts Rules Association or the authorship team of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th ed.

I am with Mr. Martin in wondering whether I understand the facts. If nothing has changed since the first motion, then I would guess no additional motion is needed at all. On the other hand, if something has changed since the first motion, then the motion I previously mentioned is the one you want. I am instinctively guessing the latter is the case, but this is going to require some study of the book to see what is actually the proper route.

Assuming that such a project is not so far along that it is irretrievably "set in stone" (pardon the pun), the motion, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted can be adopted to change the text of the previously adopted motion. The motion will require a majority vote for adoption if previous notice of the motion has been properly given; otherwise, it will require either a two-thirds vote or a vote of the majority of the entire membership. See RONR (12th ed.) §35 for all the details about this motion.

Churches are often governed by muscular sets of their own laws, so I can well image that the proper rules for voting might be found there. As far as RONR (12th ed.) is controlling, it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that voting is limited to members who are actually present in the one room or area where the meeting is being held. This principle would preclude people from voting before the meeting is even held. As an aside, it is hard for me to imagine how this is done. How does one vote on a question until the question has been fully subject to modification? It seems to me possible--even likely--that the "pre-voters" will vote on different questions than the questions that actually get put to a vote during the meeting.

Were Mr. Mervosh with us, he would remind us that there is not a Robert's Rules Police Force (known as an RRPF in law enforcement 😉). Assuming that the members of this board are elected, I would assume that the board is working just the way that the electors want it to; otherwise, they would have elected different members who are more competent. This being so, the path to improvement is straightforward--the organization can be more discerning about who is elected to the board in future elections.

No, the chair, alone, does not have the authority to decide this question. Usually, there isn't much problem. The "unrelaxed" rules for larger assemblies make the proceedings in small boards awkward and embarrassing, so a small board will soon enough realize that it needs to use the rules for small boards. I do not see much cause for contention, but the chair, alone, is not the one to make the decision.

I am of the opinion that the bylaw is incomprehensible and uninterpretable.

If there are elections to fill vacancies, are they the "...next set of elections..."? You can see that this phrase is completely beyond interpretation, as I said earlier.

The exceptions I am referring to are found in RONR (12th ed.) 25:7ff, which do not include rules that are "...clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed in the bylaws...", RONR (12th ed.) 2:21. Such unexcepted rules of order that are enshrined in the bylaws are clearly suspendable by a two-thirds vote. If a society is going to create a different species of unsuspendable rules that would otherwise be suspendable (2:21), then using the term of art, rules of order, to describe them is not proper, because rules of order are, with certain exceptions (25:7ff), inherently suspendable. Outside the set of the certain exceptions (25:7ff), no unsuspendabe rule can be properly called a rule of order. The present case raises other very serious difficulties: for example, does even the smallest violation of one of these "unsuspendable rules of order" that results in the adoption of a main motion constitute a continuing breach per the exception found at RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (a)? It sure sounds like it. But, this is just silly.

Take a look at RONR (12th ed.) 47:46-56.

The recommendations of committees that are immediately inferior to the general membership assembly are presented to the general membership assembly, not the executive board.

I think I had in mind the suspension of the rules in the House of Representatives to permit what are sometimes called "Christmas tree resolutions", which deal with a variety of subjects in the same way that a Christmas tree is hung with a variety of ornaments. In the House, the handling of these kinds of resolutions is governed by the adoption of a special rule presented by the rules committee. The motion to adopt the recommendation of the rules committee is equivalent to the adoption of a preliminary main motion in an ordinary society. Such a motion always has the effect of suspending the rules (but, in the House, requires only a majority vote for adoption).

Maybe the story, The Little Red Hen, would be of some help.

Dr. Stackpole used to say that societies need not be forever. It may just be that this society has reached its natural end.

One man's spending frivolity is another man's dire need. The deliberative process is used by the assembly to reach a collective judgement on the advisability of the proposed spending.

Rules of order are, with certain exceptions, suspendable by their very nature. A different vocabulary will have to be invented and defined to describe what the original poster is describing as rules of order enshrined in the bylaws that are not suspendable, if such a thing can even exist outside the certain exceptions I have noted. The poster is suggesting a new universe of rules, and I would recommend that the term, rules of order, not be vandalized to describe it.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. At the point in the order of business when committee reports are presented, the reporting member of the nominating community should present the report without a motion to receive the report. The refusal to open nominations from the floor is a grave abuse of the chair's authority that is not tolerable. Besides, such a refusal is weighty proof that the presiding officer is completely unprepared or unwilling to preside over the nomination and election procedures.

Another alternative is to adopt a preliminary main motion that sets the length and number of speeches that are allowed of each member. Such a main motion requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, since its adoption would have the effect of suspending the rules, as Mr. Honemann has already indicated.

I, too, am so very sorry to hear this. He was just a really great parliamentarian. His contribution to the forum over the years was outstanding. I will miss him.

If secret ballots are used as the method of voting during the election, blank ballots can be used, and voters may vote for their choices by writing in the names. This may result in multiple rounds of voting.

Ordinarily, the secretary of the assembly that is approving the minutes of its meeting is the proper person to sign, submit and read the minutes before the assembly approves them.

Of course. Please read RONR (12th ed.) §41 about the order of business.