• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulmcclintock

  • Birthday August 12

Profile Information

  • Location
    Near Seattle Washington
  1. Thanks! That's helpful.
  2. RONR, page 356, lines 5-8 states: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report." After another member makes the motion, does it need a second? I think not, since the recommendation from the officer already ensures that a second member wishes for the motion to be considered, assuming that the officer is a member. But I wonder if there are other opinions and the reasoning for them.
  3. "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21). Q1: Can this rule be suspended? Q2a: If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere? Q2b: If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote than two-thirds? I lean toward the notion that it cannot be suspended, because the group "protected" is the assembly, rather than some subset of the committee (whether present or absent). And even if there was no objection to "suspend the rules and close debate" (for instance), I'd think that it would not be in order, but that the chair could appropriately say something like, "Although the rules may not be suspended to close debate, the fact that there is no objection to doing so indicates that no one else is seeking to debate, thus we will proceed to putting the motion to a vote." Or am I missing something?
  4. Sorry I didn't sign in before posting just now. I don't see how to change the post from Guest to me.
  5. Bylaws allow resolutions to be submitted late with a two-thirds vote to permit consideration. I don't find in RONR a general rule that motions on consideration are not debatable. Objection to consideration is not debatable per RONR, but I did not see debatability addressed for the motion to allow consideration of a motion outside the object of the society. Are there any citations for either the general question above or the title question?
  6. Very helpful. Thanks!
  7. The default in RONR is that there are no qualifications for officers (RONR, 11th ed, p. 447, l. 16ff). But many organizations' bylaws do have some qualifications, such as you have to be a member, or you have to have been a member for X amount of time. (A) In such cases, can a person who does not meet those qualifications be elected to be a pro tem officer for the meeting? (B) If the answer is NO, then does that prevent an assembly from allowing a professional parliamentarian preside, if the person does not meet the qualification? (C) If the answer it NO to (A), if bylaws require officers to be board members, can a membership meeting elect a non-board member to be a pro tem officer?
  8. This came up at my NAP unit meeting yesterday. I couldn't think of an answer from RONR. I'll generalize the situation. A local unit of a national organization elects (let's say) 2 delegates to the national convention. Under RONR, "the delegate has the be prepared on returning from the convention to present to his unit an information report of what transpired" (p. 605, l. 23ff). The unit meets monthly and follows the RONR standard order of business ("MRS SUN"). Under what category of business do the delegates report? The question expands to: a. should the delegate be considered and officer, and report under Reports of Officers? b. should the delegation be considered a special committee, and report under Special Committee Reports? c. should the delegate report be considered a special order, reported under Special Orders? d. should the delegate report simply come under New Business? Furthermore, is it a duty of each delegate to report, or can they (should they?) file a joint report that they choose between them as to which will present it if oral, but both sign if written? Just curious. Not a matter of grave concern.
  9. Suppose a society adopts RONR as its PA in its bylaws, and has a quorum of 5. Over time the membership drops to 4 with no change to the quorum requirement. At a meeting with all 4 members attending, can they suspend the rules for quorum and transact business? It appears to me that the new language in RONR 11th edition, p. 263, l. 20 through p. 264, l. 5 along with its footnote would allow this, so long as the body meeting has authority to amend its quorum requirement when it has a quorum (and meets whatever other procedural rules are prescribed for amending the quorum). Also, is this a change in rule from the 10th edition, or was it arguably allowed under the 10th edition but simply not stated?
  10. See it online at listed as HistoryofAyeandNo.pdf.
  11. The referenced rule on p. 277 is in SDC 8 for Seriatim: "Cannot be reconsidered. If it has been decided to consider divisible material seriatim, even if the material was divisible on the demand of a single member, it is too late to move or demand a division of the question." I sure don't see the rationale for disallowing division of the question after each part is separately considered and you are in the final stage where the whole is open to debate and amendment. I'd think that the seriatim procedure is essentially completed once all the parts are separately considered and perfected, and that when after that the entire motion (document) is open for further perfection, that at that point a motion to divide the question should be in order. That's because once the separate parts are finished and the whole is then considered, it is in essence in the same condition as if you'd never ordered the seriatim procedure and had simply done all those amendments ad hoc. But as the rule is written, it sure looks like it prohibits a division of the question at this point, because "it has been decided to consider...seriatim."
  12. The Everything Robert's Rules Book: All you need to organize and conduct a meeting (Everything®) by Barbara Campbell (Aug 18, 2004) on p. 244, in the Appendix Glossary of Terms, says "aye: A 'yes' vote is sometimes referred to in discussion as an 'aye' vote." But on p. 235 it says: " by saying, 'All those in favor of [John Smith] for president, say "aye."'" Robert's Rules of Order 2nd edition p. 96, on voting by Yeas and Nays (roll call), says "each member, as his name is called, rises and answers *yes* or *no*, and the clerk notes his answer." RONR, 11th ed., p. 420, l. 22-25 speaks of a signed ballot where "the voter writes 'yes' or 'no' on the ballot and signs it." RONR, 11th ed., p. 420, l. 32ff gives and example for a roll call vote: "As many as are in favor...will, as their names are called, answer aye [or 'yes,' or 'yea']; those opposed will no [or 'nay']. See also my article in AIP's Parliamentary Journal, January 2010: History of "Aye" and "No". Or ask me for a copy.
  13. A motion to do A and B is made, and member X speaks twice in debate in accord with the rules. Then the motion is divided. Can X speak twice more during consideration of A, and then twice more when B is considered?
  14. > I recommend to all an article by Wm. J. Evans, "Provisos." The article was published in the National Parliamentarian, Vol. 57, 3rd Qtr, 1996. -- Ann Rempel > According to the Evans article, the vote and notice provisions will be the same as those required to amend the bylaws. The answer does not change if the proviso was adopted as an incidental motion or an amendment to the enacting words. -- Ann Rempel The NP's article's rational stems from the tinted page's footnote for Proviso. In the 11th edition, it is on tinted pages 22-23, with Class = M, S, or I7. Footnote 7 says: "See p. 597. This motion can be made as a main motion, as an amendment to enacting words, or as an incidental motion, and the same rules apply." Emphasis added. The NP article says: "In the case of a proviso originally made by way of a main motion, a motion to later amend the proviso is an amendment to a main motion. In the case of a proviso made by way of an amendment to the enacting motion, it became subsumed as a part of the main motion when it was agreed to and, subsequently, when that motion was adopted as amended, the proviso was part and parcel of the main motion. The same, then, is true of an incidental motion for a proviso since the "... same rules apply" - it merges into the main (enacting) motion as a condition of that enactment."
  15. George, thanks for the link to the other topic. That was the one I was thinking of. I'll review it's arguments. Edgar, of course it isn't a quorum, but the notion that there must be a minimum response seems to many to be akin to a quorum requirement. Quorum is defined of course only for in-person meetings, and sets the minimum for those present rather than those participating by voting, and if a minimum were set for number of non-blank mail ballots returned, then that would relate to the number participating. Thus it isn't a terribly similar concept, but it is a slightly similar concept. I simply wanted a short way in the topic title to suggest the content of the question, and hoped "quorum" would achieve that.