Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulmcclintock

  • Birthday August 12

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Near Seattle Washington
  1. Dan, Thanks super much for your reply! I like the logic and clarity! Paul
  2. A: I move that we paint the meeting room red and buy a new gavel. B: I call for a separate vote on buying a new gavel. Chair: We will have a separate vote on buying a new gavel. The question is on the motion that we paint the meeting room red. C: I move to strike out "red" and insert "green." D: I move the previous question on all pending questions. [Adopted] Question, has the previous question been ordered for buying a new gavel? I.e., is it pending? The explanation of "immediately pending" on page 60 pertains to main motions in connection with subsidiary motions, but the example gavel motion isn't subsidiary. It automatically comes up as a main motion after the painting question is disposed of, though, so in some sense it seems to be pending while the painting motion is pending. Scenario 2: Similarly, if main motion MM1 is pending, and is "postponed till after consideration of [main] motion to __" [MM2], and MM2 is made and has an amendment pending, and teh previous question on all pending questions is ordered, does it include MM1? Scenario 3: MM1 is interrupted by a special order, which then has an amendment offered. Does ordering the previous question on all pending questions include MM1? These examples have an amendment in them, but if the answer if Yes to the above, then it seems the even without an amendment the assembly could order the previous question on all pending questions to include the other motions previously made but not yet disposed of and which automatically become immediately pending when the priority pending motions are disposed of. Correct? Perhaps this is all clear in RONR, but I couldn't find it. Thanks in advance for your feedback.
  3. I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so... RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with a majority vote without a timely point of order; the OI says a point of order must be timely. The final paragraph says: "In the case of a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, the rule protects a minority of any number greater than one-third of the members present. However, such rules may be suspended, and if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely." Based on this OI quote seems to me to be in conflict with the RONR text. The page 343 situation allows a two-thirds vote (for example) to adopt a conflicting motion, and the OI says that a point of order in such a case would have to be timely, but RONR says it is null and void (presumably without time constraints).
  4. RONR p. 468, ll. 31-32 say that minutes should contain "the date and time of the meeting, and the place, if it is not always the same." An organized society can meet by teleconference per bylaws, and adopts RONR, but has no rule addressing this particular issue. Should (must?) the minutes contain the phone number and access code for the teleconference meeting as it's "location" (assuming it is not always the same)?
  5. Where does a delegate report to his unit occur in agenda?

    Ah, I had missed these in RONR, which answer nicely the question. So even a delegation of one is in effect a committee of one. So reporting under Special Committees seems generally indicated. But if the President is ex officio a delegate, he/she could also give the report under the officers report, I'd think, as it relates to his/her duty as president. Thanks all for your feedback!
  6. An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote. Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario? Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote? - Just curious
  7. RONR p. 356, l. 5 ff says: "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." 1. Does it need a second, since there obviously is a second member (the officer) in favor of the motion made by another member? 2. If it does need a second, can the reporting officer second it? 3. Why is this "should not" rule in RONR? Thanks for any feedback! -- Paul McClintock
  8. Need second for officer recommendation?

    Thanks! That's helpful.
  9. 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.
  10. "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?
  11. Motion to consider motion outside object - debatable?

    Sorry I didn't sign in before posting just now. I don't see how to change the post from Guest to me.
  12. 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?
  13. Do qualifications for officers apply to pro tem officers?

    Very helpful. Thanks!
  14. 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?