Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Okay. I think I understand: the idea on p. 515, lines 13-25 --that making a motion "to 'adopt the committee's recommendation(s)'...can lead to confusion as to the precise effect of the motion"-- only pertains to do with a situation in which a report contains recommendations that are not in the form of motions or resolutions. Thus, if the recommendations are in said form, it is in order for the reporting member to say, "On behalf of the committee I move to adopt all recommendations just read;" for the the chair to then state the question as "It has been moved and seconded [this is coming from a committee report, so no second is needed, must it be stated here?] to adopt all recommendations just read;" and for the series of recommendations to be considered and voted upon en masse, unless it is divided as appropriate. Thanks.
  2. Our assembly has a habit of reporting members of committees moving "to adopt all the recommendations in the report." The report is submitted in writing prior to the meeting. I have found, true to RONR's discussion on the matter, that this has led to some confusion at times. This is particularly true considering the recommendations themselves are not always explicitly stated in the report (although they are intended). I would like to know how to advise the chair, in accordance with the rules, on how to improve/modify this practice for greater clarity of the motion being considered. After reading the sections I referenced in my original post, I was confused as to how best advise.
  3. In a report of a committee's own initiative with multiple recommendations, does the chair, in stating the question, follow the same methods mentioned on pp.522-523? How does c) on p. 523 (allowing a motion to adopt all recommendations in the report) square with the advice on p. 515, lines 13-25, that making a motion "to 'adopt the committee's recommendation(s)'...can lead to confusion as to the precise effect of the motion"?
  4. Renewals

    Thank you!
  5. Renewals

    Am I correct to assume that in a permanent society that goes through an established order of business, a motion killed at one meeting can be renewed with the same exact working at the meeting immediately following (c.f. p. 83, lines 25-30; p.336, lines 6-9).
  6. Let me try to clarify my thinking, fist by citing the passage spurring my question: "A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote" (p. 467, emphasis added). If the reason the member-parliamentarian has a duty not to make motions is for the sake of maintaining a position of impartiality, then why would this include the duty to refrain from making a Point of Order (other than it is technically a motion--which seem to lead to a tautology), considering a Point of Order is merely regarding a matter of a breach of rules, which moreover is a subject matter falling squarely within the primary purview of the the parliamentarian, instead of being about any partiality to a pending question before the assembly? One answer is that because raising a Point of Order can be advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question, and therefore the member-parliamentarian raising a Point of Order can be seen to be partial in raising a Point of Order on a pending question. However, if this is the case--that the reasoning behind refraining from making a Point of Order is to maintain impartiality, as is the reason provided by RONR--it seems unreasonable to expect the member-parliamentarian to be given the benefit of the doubt by the chair or the assembly when the parliamentarian points to "any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or otherwise do harm" (RONR, 466), given that doing so could indicate some partiality to the pending question. If the member-parliamentarian does have the benefit of the doubt to remain impartial on questions of order, then why not allow him/her to be able to raise a point of order except, again, for the seemingly tautological reasoning that a Point of Order is a motion.
  7. Huh. I see that it is listed under "Incidental Motions" in the RONR, but it just seemed to me to be categorically different than all other motions given it is strictly about a breach of rules, and considering it didn't seem to fall under any motion listed on, p. T4. That said, I can see how raising a point of order might be strategically advantageous for a particular side of debate on the pending question.
  8. Am I correct to assume, then, this also means that if the parliamentarian /is/ a member of the assembly s/he can raise a point of order or appeal? It seems that way given the member begins with all rights granted to any member of the assembly and then is restricted, once taking the position of parliamentarian, to only from making motions and debating, and to only voting during ballot vote. That would seem to leave all other member rights of the member-parliamentarian in place.
  9. The page cited (p. 250, ll. 17-25) refers to an example on the timelines of points of order in which a chair is stating a question without a second, and this being the reason for a point of order being raised. I believe a better passage is p. 35, lines 4-8, including the double-asterisks footnote, the footnote also stating that motions in small boards or committees need not be seconded. It might also be noted by the OP that on p. 487 lines 26-28, a small board meeting is described as one where "not more than about a dozen members present."
  10. Having multiple appointed positions on one committee

    As I understand it and generally speaking--and I would guess someone will jump in if I am incorrect--any question regarding whether or not a practice allowed by the bylaws violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as conceived in RONR , is not practically meaningful, considering, according to RONR itself, the bylaws supersede RONR as parliamentary authority in any case where the two conflict (RONR 11th, p. 16). The presiding officer enforces the procedural rules during the meeting, interpreting them as s/he must, always with the option available to put the question to the committee/assembly over which s/he is presiding at the time the interpretation is needed, if it is needed; and understanding always there exists the possibility that a member might raise a point of order or appeal a decision of the chair (this all assumes there is no by-law stating otherwise). See RONR 11th pp. 449-450. Whether or not the by-law needs to be amended is a matter for the assembly itself, and it should also be noted that "each society decides for itself the meaning of its by-laws" (p. 588); so, I would guess there is not a whole lot any of us here can help you with on this matter. Regardless, you might see if pp. 588-589 of RONR 11th is of any help. As for the scenario, I am still a bit unclear. Does Ms. Smith serve as both primary and alternate for the same committee?
  11. Having multiple appointed positions on one committee

    I don't know if this helps with your particular situation, Caryn, but it might be worth noting that "one person, one vote" is considered a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, as is limiting the right to vote to only members of the assembly and only those members present at the meeting (RONR 11th, p. 263). Any practice conflicting with these principles, and on which the parliamentary authorities of the assembly are otherwise silent, thus would be prohibited. That said, and as Josh said, your question can be better answered if we had a specific practice to consider.
  12. Fundamental principles

    So am I correct to understand that any FPPL can be superseded by a provision in the bylaws? This is my question, though: can one eliminate the 2/3-vote rule (and any other one relevant for the purpose) such that the minority has no rights whatsoever. Can we eliminate all rules that allow a single member to make a demand or raise a point of order? RNOR states its purpose it to protect and balance the rights of the majority, the minority, the individual, and absentees. As such, all rules in RONR, in principle and in concert, aim for this (p. li), and there is "an underlying assumption of a right that exists" (ibid., emphasis original). As such, would not suspending a rule or series of rules such that any of these rights are eliminated be, by necessity, a violation of the most fundamental principles of all?
  13. Fundamental principles

    So, it sounds like there is a bit of professional judgement and interpretation required by a parliamentarian in a given case. While the list on p. 263 provides some fundamental principles (thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Mervosh), it does not include what I would guess is another fundamental principle--the right of a minority to block, for example, taking up an item of business out of order--and that right is expressed in the 2/3-vote threshold for certain rules.
  14. Fundamental principles

    I have had a similar question brewing in the back of my mind. For example, how might I know when a special rule moved for adoption by an assembly violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?
  15. Perhaps this it too late and I hope the answer is not superfluous, but it seems to me that the it is the chair's propagative to judge, as JJ indicated, what is or is not of great little importance in determining whether to use unanimous consent. The chair might or not have the same judgement of the assembly in any given case, and there is no way for the chair to always know for sure whether those two judgements are in agreement. The evidence of whether they are in agreement is only given when the assembly either raises an objection or does not (unless, of course, there are written rules to the contrary).