Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

"Putting the Question" and p. 423, lines 21-22


jstackpo

Recommended Posts

To save you the trouble of looking it up, the lines referenced in the topic title say:

 

"...although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put".

 

This is in the context of the requirement to be "actually present" in order to vote on an issue.

 

But...  p. 44 ff. clearly defines "putting the question" as the act by the chair of calling for the vote:  "All those in favor...say 'aye' ".   So if the member is out of the room when the question is put, it sure doesn't seem to me that he is going to be able to vote  --  so what does the "...although it should be noted..." sentence/rule do for him?

 

About the only thing I can think of is if the vote is by ballot, counted rising vote, or roll call, (or some other system that takes an appreciable time to complete) the absent member will have time to rush back into the meeting room while the voting process is going on, and vote.   He can't be denied that right just because he was out of the room when the voting process was initiated.

 

And, of course, the issue is a bit clouded by the "should" rule on p. 411, lines 13-14 which asserts that "no one should enter or leave the hall while a count is being taken".

 

Do others read things differently?  If so, how?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To save you the trouble of looking it up, the lines referenced in the topic title say:

 

"...although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put".

 

This is in the context of the requirement to be "actually present" in order to vote on an issue.

 

But...  p. 44 ff. clearly defines "putting the question" as the act by the chair of calling for the vote:  "All those in favor...say 'aye' ".   So if the member is out of the room when the question is put, it sure doesn't seem to me that he is going to be able to vote  --  so what does the "...although it should be noted..." sentence/rule do for him?

 

About the only thing I can think of is if the vote is by ballot, counted rising vote, or roll call, (or some other system that takes an appreciable time to complete) the absent member will have time to rush back into the meeting room while the voting process is going on, and vote.   He can't be denied that right just because he was out of the room when the voting process was initiated.

 

And, of course, the issue is a bit clouded by the "should" rule on p. 411, lines 13-14 which asserts that "no one should enter or leave the hall while a count is being taken".

 

Do others read things differently?  If so, how?

 

I think you're correct that the rule on pg. 243 has very limited application. It involves a situation in which a member arrives after the question is put, but before the vote is completed. As a practical matter, this is only likely to happen if the vote is taken by ballot or roll call. As you note, the doors are generally closed for a counted vote (to ensure an accurate count), and other types of votes take such a short period of time that the situation is unlikely to arise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to make it to Portland, this September, but I'll be ready for the earthquake.

 

 

I think you're correct that the rule on pg. 243 has very limited application. It involves a situation in which a member arrives after the question is put, but before the vote is completed. As a practical matter, this is only likely to happen if the vote is taken by ballot or roll call. As you note, the doors are generally closed for a counted vote (to ensure an accurate count), and other types of votes take such a short period of time that the situation is unlikely to arise.

 

Another possibility, since we are writing fiction here (unless George M. puts it in practice in Portland), is that the absent member rushes in just as the "No" vote is being taken by voice, and immediately calls for a Division of the Assembly.  Then he gets to vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

That's another reasonable possibility, which raises a different question (which I'll pose in a new topic: Has Technology made "Division of the Assembly" obsolete?  Don't respond here!).

 

[Corrected "Division of Question" to "Division of Assembly"]

 

Did anything get posted with respect to this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...