Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Approval of New Members in Order of Business


BryanSullo

Recommended Posts

The interpretation I am applying is this: that the specific establishment of two classes of orders of the day--special orders and general orders--implies that there are no other classes of orders of the day. Whether or not to list known items of new business in an information-only agenda is not important. Do it or not, as you wish. What is important is that the general rule applies: items of new business are taken up in the order that members are able to obtain the floor and introduce new topics by making the appropriate main motion.

What is an "information-only agenda"? As far as I know, items on an agenda are either special orders or general orders.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 54
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Now for a fun wrench: could a potential membership be considered a question of privilege affecting the entire assembly? Surely it is desirable, if someone is to be inducted to membership, for it to happen right away so that they may exercise their rights during the remainder of the meeting would be ideal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for a fun wrench: could a potential membership be considered a question of privilege affecting the entire assembly? Surely it is desirable, if someone is to be inducted to membership, for it to happen right away so that they may exercise their rights during the remainder of the meeting would be ideal.

I'm inclined to say "no", but it would be in order, when no other question is pending, to make a unanimous consent request that the application for membership be considered immediately. If an objection is heard, the chair can handle it as if a formal motion to suspend the rules had been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely it is desirable, if someone is to be inducted to membership, for it to happen right away so that they may exercise their rights during the remainder of the meeting would be ideal.

Perhaps not so "surely"? If this was an annual meeting with elections, the association might wish to delay accepting new members until the election is over in order to prevent "stacking the deck" with new members recruited to support a particular candidate. Which is one reason some organizations require a waiting period, or prohibit new member from joining just before the regular elections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Balch, they did not, unfortunately, have a copy of In Brief. I'll have to get that one online.

Mr. Elsman, thank you for the kind words. I hope I can live up to the responsibility.

As to the question of requesting unanimous consent to consider applications of membership before other business, I actually did do this at our meeting, yesterday--after which we proceeded to receive reports (without any motions issuing from them) and then to adjourn. At least the new members got to participate in the vote to adjourn. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Balch, they did not, unfortunately, have a copy of In Brief. I'll have to get that one online.

Mr. Elsman, thank you for the kind words. I hope I can live up to the responsibility.

As to the question of requesting unanimous consent to consider applications of membership before other business, I actually did do this at our meeting, yesterday--after which we proceeded to receive reports (without any motions issuing from them) and then to adjourn. At least the new members got to participate in the vote to adjourn. ;)

As the presiding officer of a larger assembly, you will want to refrain from exercising your right as an individual member to make motions in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality while in the chair. See FAQ #1 at the official Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the presiding officer of a larger assembly, you will want to refrain from exercising your right as an individual member to make motions in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality while in the chair. See FAQ #1 at the official Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.

If the custom is that the chair make such a request, I see no problems with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As the presiding officer of a larger assembly, you will want to refrain from exercising your right as an individual member to make motions in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality while in the chair. See FAQ #1 at the official Robert's Rules of Order website, www.robertsrules.com.

At first, I thought that was intended as general advice, but I see it is in reference to the last paragraph of my previous post. In using Unanimous Consent to Suspend the Rules, I was following the guidelines in RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, l. 13-29. As there was no other business scheduled for that meeting, and as the application of new members would have been taken up before any New Business anyway, and as two members had asked me, prior to the meeting, if the vote of the new members could be taken up as the first order of business (after approval of the minutes), I felt justified that requesting Unanimous Consent to do so would not impinge on my impartiality.

Of course, I'm new to this, and I could be wrong. I'd rather be corrected now than to go on believing something that isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mr. Balch, they did not, unfortunately, have a copy of In Brief. I'll have to get that one online.

Mr. Elsman, thank you for the kind words. I hope I can live up to the responsibility.

As to the question of requesting unanimous consent to consider applications of membership before other business, I actually did do this at our meeting, yesterday--after which we proceeded to receive reports (without any motions issuing from them) and then to adjourn. At least the new members got to participate in the vote to adjourn. ;)

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 241, l. 9-15, for adjourning without a motion.

I concur that you have demonstrated the potential to be a great presiding officer. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See RONR (11th ed.), p. 241, l. 9-15, for adjourning without a motion.

A few of our members get great pleasure from being the one who makes a motion to adjourn. I'd hate to take that from them. ;)

I concur that you have demonstrated the potential to be a great presiding officer. ;)

Thanks. *blushes*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At first, I thought that was intended as general advice, but I see it is in reference to the last paragraph of my previous post. In using Unanimous Consent to Suspend the Rules, I was following the guidelines in RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, l. 13-29. As there was no other business scheduled for that meeting, and as the application of new members would have been taken up before any New Business anyway, and as two members had asked me, prior to the meeting, if the vote of the new members could be taken up as the first order of business (after approval of the minutes), I felt justified that requesting Unanimous Consent to do so would not impinge on my impartiality.

Of course, I'm new to this, and I could be wrong. I'd rather be corrected now than to go on believing something that isn't true.

If the question was the next one up, anyway, it should have just been announced as pending, and a motion or unanimous consent request was neither necessary nor proper. At any rate, we'll learn'ya on this forum that the presiding officer refrains from the kind of active participation in the transaction of business that is proper and expected of other members of the assembly. He refrains in order to maintain the appearance the impartiality while in the chair. There are exceptions for points of order, objections to the consideration of a question, and appeals from the decision of the chair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to Mr. Elsman, I disagree with the criticism of your use of unanimous consent. It is certainly true that the chair should maintain the appearance of impartiality, but the chair's use of unanimous consent "n cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business . . . is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect." RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 13-19. Now that you have a copy of the 11th edition, I commend to your attention pages 54-56, entitled "Adoption of a Motion or Action Without a Motion, by Unanimous Consent." I think that you will find that, in accordance with RONR, the chair should not hesitate to ask for unanimous consent in appropriate circumstances. Indeed, such use is one of the marks of a capable and an effective presiding officer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With all due respect to Mr. Elsman, I disagree with the criticism of your use of unanimous consent. It is certainly true that the chair should maintain the appearance of impartiality, but the chair's use of unanimous consent "n cases where there seems to be no opposition in routine business . . . is in accord with the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect." RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 13-19. Now that you have a copy of the 11th edition, I commend to your attention pages 54-56, entitled "Adoption of a Motion or Action Without a Motion, by Unanimous Consent." I think that you will find that, in accordance with RONR, the chair should not hesitate to ask for unanimous consent in appropriate circumstances. Indeed, such use is one of the marks of a capable and an effective presiding officer.

I disagree with the application of the cited text in this particular circumstance (though not what is said, in general).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gather that in this particular circumstance there was no objection either to taking up the question of admitting new members out of normal order nor to their admission. That's a pretty good indication that Mr. Sullo, as presiding officer, used good judgment in considering it a matter "where there seems to be no opposition in routine business," RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 13-14, and therefore in concluding that seeking to proceed by unanimous consent was appropriate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I gather that in this particular circumstance there was no objection either to taking up the question of admitting new members out of normal order nor to their admission. That's a pretty good indication that Mr. Sullo, as presiding officer, used good judgment in considering it a matter "where there seems to be no opposition in routine business," RONR (11th ed.), p. 54, ll. 13-14, and therefore in concluding that seeking to proceed by unanimous consent was appropriate.

The instances where the chair's use of unanimous consent are proper are always distinguished by the fact that the use does not give the appearance that the chair is acting in a partial or partisan way. Just for a few examples:

  • The chair may admit a motion that a member has called out without being recognized if no other member had risen to claim the floor
  • The chair may permit a speaker in debate to continue his remarks after the expiration of his time if it is evident that the assembly is absorbed and no one objects
  • The chair may introduce, without objection, a guest speaker in advance of the scheduled time for his presentation or program if the guest speaker needs to be excused from the meeting early

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...