Larry R.

What is the benefit or purpose of making a matter a special order for the next meeting if no specific time is set to take it up other than it will be scheduled to come up before unfinished business and general orders? Thank you.

Example: The Bylaws state each member may speak twice on a debatable motion for no more than five minutes per speech. This rule does not provide for its own suspension in the bylaws. During a regular meeting, can this rule be suspended and replaced with a rule adopted by a two-thirds vote on a subsidiary motion to extend limits of debate so that each member is permitted to speak up to three times on a debatable motion? I believe the answer is "yes" but would like to have this confirmed please.

Throughout RONR it is noted that certain matters may be adopted by: 1) a majority with notice, 2) 2/3 without notice, or 3) a majority of the assembly's membership. Who decides and how is it decided which voting standard will be used when any of these three methods are possible?

SCENARIO: An assembly always uses an agenda with an established order of business and always approves/adopts the agenda at the start of the session. A member may move to amend the agenda before it is adopted by adding a matter they wish to have considered. If the proposed amendment to the agenda is not adopted, other members take note and think: "instead of trying to add my issue to the agenda through the agenda amendment process, I'll just wait until we reach the New Business part of the agenda and then make a motion regarding the matter I want to have considered." I recognize that the amendment and the motion that will be made during the New Business part of the meeting both require a second in order to be considered. If there is a general sense and pattern that the assembly does not usually like to add items to an already busy agenda, isnt' it more advantgeous then for members to simply wait until New Business is arrived at and then bring their matters forth, rather than try to add them to the agenda at the start?

My thought on this is that if an incidental main motion is different from a main motion insofar as the incidental main motion does not introduce substantive new business that an assembly needs to decide upon, as a main motion does, and in other areas in RONR 12 the two motions are differentiated from each other, then the references should be consistently stated as being either an incidental main motion or a main motion. Perhaps I'm overthinking this however. Thanks.

It is my understanding that the five ranking privileged questions are not privileged if they are made while no business is pending. When this occurs, RONR 12th in 20:3 using "Recess" as the example, states that the motion is then handled as a main motion. Isn't it, in fact however, an incidental main motion in this example and if so, why doesn't Robert's make that clear to the reader?

Robert's allows modified, less strict rules for small boards of fewer than about 12 members. This includes not requiring a seconder for motions, voting by raising a hand, allowing the Chair to make motions, etc. If a legislative assembly such as an elected municipal council has fewer than 12 members, do these "small board" rules apply to them as long as they don't conflict with the bylaws, or, because they are a legislative assembly and technically not a board, do the standard rules in Robert's apply?

At the beginning of the meeting the Chair asks if there are any proposed additions or deletions to the agenda - none are proposed and the agenda is adopted as presented. During the meeting when the heading "new business" is reached and the Chair asks "is there any new business?" (above and beyond what may already be on the adopted agenda) - it can become a free for all and members start raising a multitude of issues they would like to have discussion about. Should new business items raised from the floor at that time be subject to requiring a majority vote to determine whether the assembly even wants to take time to consider the issue, just as they would if the issues had been proposed as amendments to the agenda at the start of the meeting? If not, how do we protect against one member forcing the entire assembly to consider his/her matter under the new business heading when maybe a majority of the assembly does not want to?

Scenario: An elected deliberative assembly has no rules in its bylaws about the election of its Mayor and Deputy Mayor other than mirroring state law which requires the assembly to elect, by a majority vote, a Mayor and Deputy Mayor each year, for a one year term. The assembly consists of only seven members. The vote for the office of Mayor is distributed 3-2-2 for the three candidates running - nobody has a majority vote at this point. To suggest that the assembly continue to hold an election for the same three candidates over and over until one of them achieves a majority would be career suicide for the staff member who suggests this. Adopting a Special Rule of Order or suspending the rules is not in order because it would override higher state law which is not permitted. What is a reasonable solution to this situation? What if there were four candidates and the votes were distributed 2-2-2-1? How can we reasonably work toward ensuring that the Mayor and Deputy Mayor are elected to their respective offices by majority vote when three or more run for each office? Thank you.

My question is pretty much summed up in the title - should defeated main motions always be included in the meeting minutes or does it depend on what your bylaws might say on the matter, if they say anything? Or, might an assembly adopt a special rule of order about this? What if you have no rule - I can't seem to pinpoint what RONR 11 says on this matter.

Great discussion string here and yes, that last comment about this being a legislative body that has publicly elected officials is right on the mark, that is exactly the context in which my original question was asked. They seem to always be thinking about getting re-elected when election time comes so I think that raises the importance and relevancy of the conundrum I posed.

If a member of the assembly makes a motion to approve something that they do not support just so the matter makes it onto the floor and can be disposed of, if they do not request a recorded vote (as per our legislation), the minutes paint a picture in which the member actually supported their motion. The minutes then give the incorrect impression that the member in fact, wanted to the motion to be adopted. Is there a practical way to avoid this perception? Is it absolutely necessary to provide a positive motion or should a member simply put forward a negative motion if they believe that it serves a useful purpose? (RONR pp.104-105) I believe that a recorded vote might be sufficient, but members often forget to request one and the minutes look awkward when the member votes against the motion he or she put forward. I feel as if I'm missing just a bit of information here that might help me better understand.

If the Bylaws don't specify how the voting process for election of officers of a Board must take place, then an adopted motion specifying how to proceed dictates the process. So, if that motion states that nominations shall be made by secret ballot, followed by a secret ballot election of officers, my question is may a member nominate themselves for an office? There is really no way to prevent them from doing so anyway, since the nomination is by secret ballot. Alternatively, if nominations are taken from the floor for example, may a member nominate themselves for an office or must it be done by another member? Thanks in advance for the great feedback and guidance I know I will receive.

What worked very well for me was to take the on-line Parliamentary Procedures course through the University of Wisconsin. Once you pass the test you can apply for membership in the NAP. Doing that course really helped and it got me excited about learning more about Robert's Rules and parliamentary procedure generally. I followed through with training through the NAP and recently earned my RP credential - it just takes lots of reading and a determination to complete the training, if you even want or need to go that far. Best of luck.

Scenario: A municipal Council of 7 members elected at large by the public for a four year term are required by state law to hold an "organizational" meeting every October to elect the Chair and Vice-Chair for the year. The state law and the Bylaws are both silent on the procedures to be followed for nominations and the election itself. If three of the seven members are nominated for Chair and vote taken results in a 3-2-2 split, several more elections are taken and the result remains 3-2-2 - no candidate has a majority. Even if a Special Rule of Order (RONR 11th p. 441) is adopted to drop the candidate with the lowest number of votes, this still obviously leaves an awkward situation. By adopting such a Special Rule of Order, the next vote would effectively and presumably elect the member who had the three votes due to the fact that the member(s) with the lowest number of votes (two in this case) would be dropped from the ballot. What is a recommended way to manage this slightly awkward circumstance? Thanks in advance.