MOTIONS FROM THE FLOOR

[PSteinbroner]

We are a not for profit California Corporation—recently had a general membership meeting with approximately 200 members attending and proxies, giving us a quorum.   On the agenda, two capital improvement projects with members voting as a straw poll to indicate what direction the Club should pursue-  The members present were told this was nothing but a “straw poll” in order for the Board to determine the feasibility of the project.   After the vote (with approximately 20 votes separating the two issues) , the member proposing the project then stated she wanted to amend the motion and have the members vote for the actual money-  this member stated that any member can bring a motion to the floor for voting and since the item had been on the agenda, that it was perfectly within Roberts Rules to move forward and ask for the funds.   This produced considerable debate among the members whether this was legal or not under Roberts Rules and after some debate,  was approved by a thin margin  (10 votes separated the yeas and nays) even though many members had left after the straw vote.  Can a member bring an item to the floor under the guise that the proposal is on the agenda even though it was supposed to be a "straw poll"   It seems like a bait and switch tactic.  

Is this legal under Roberts Rules?

[Gary Novosielski]

Straw polls are not permitted under RONR.  Actual votes on actual motions are what's allowed.

[PSteinbroner]

okay.....mistake number one.....as this was told to the members....and then after the straw vote....the person making the motion said it was her right (since the proposal was on the agenda) that it can now be changed to an actual vote on the proposal for the actual money----mind you.....the Board was bypassed and it was never brought to them for a vote of recommendation to the general membership -- in short --- it was not handled very well....as the President of the Club holds all of the blank proxies submitted by those members not attending and in the end, decided to abstain from voting which would have affected the vote.....very messy and a lot of unhappy members

Question:  Can a member bring up an action item if it is not on the agenda (we meet twice a year?)    If the item is on the agenda as a straw vote (which you say is not allowed) can it then be switched to an actual motion which changes the intent of the vote---as many members left after the straw vote?

Any comments are appreciated....Gary

[Hieu H. Huynh]

Perhaps FAQ #14 may be of use.

[Dan Honemann]

9 hours ago, PSteinbroner said:

We are a not for profit California Corporation—recently had a general membership meeting with approximately 200 members attending and proxies, giving us a quorum.   On the agenda, two capital improvement projects with members voting as a straw poll to indicate what direction the Club should pursue-  The members present were told this was nothing but a “straw poll” in order for the Board to determine the feasibility of the project.   After the vote (with approximately 20 votes separating the two issues) , the member proposing the project then stated she wanted to amend the motion and have the members vote for the actual money-  this member stated that any member can bring a motion to the floor for voting and since the item had been on the agenda, that it was perfectly within Roberts Rules to move forward and ask for the funds.   This produced considerable debate among the members whether this was legal or not under Roberts Rules and after some debate,  was approved by a thin margin  (10 votes separated the yeas and nays) even though many members had left after the straw vote.  Can a member bring an item to the floor under the guise that the proposal is on the agenda even though it was supposed to be a "straw poll"   It seems like a bait and switch tactic.  

Is this legal under Roberts Rules?

Yes, it's "legal" under Robert's Rules to change an agenda after it has been adopted:

"After an agenda has been adopted by the assembly, no change can be made in it except by a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 373)

Technically, what is required in order to do so is the adoption of a motion to amend the agenda, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. It appears that this was skipped over, and, instead, the new motion was simply allowed to be introduced, debated, voted on, and then declared adopted by majority vote. I gather that, during debate on this motion, there was considerable debate among the members whether the motion itself was legal or not under Roberts Rules, but apparently this was all simply a part of the debate on the motion itself. None of this was proper, but it's too late to complain about it now (assuming, of course, that the motion was one which was within the power of the membership to adopt).

 

[PSteinbroner]

Mr. Honeman---thank you for your comments.

The question that lies before the Board----since the action item was placed on the agenda without the required 2/3 majority vote by the members, is the subsequent vote have any  legality?  In other words, since nobody identified the problem of the 2/3 vote to put the item on the agenda during the meeting,  now that it's clear that we violated Roberts Rules, is the adoption null and void?    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....and should the same apply here?

[Dan Honemann]

19 minutes ago, PSteinbroner said:

Mr. Honeman---thank you for your comments.

The question that lies before the Board----since the action item was placed on the agenda without the required 2/3 majority vote by the members, is the subsequent vote have any  legality?  In other words, since nobody identified the problem of the 2/3 vote to put the item on the agenda during the meeting,  now that it's clear that we violated Roberts Rules, is the adoption null and void?    Ignorance of the law is no excuse.....and should the same apply here?

Assuming that the motion was one which was within the power of the membership to adopt, it has now been adopted just as effectively as if it had been properly placed on the agenda.

I've edited this simple response about five times now.    All I really needed to say was that the motion has been adopted just as effectively as if it had been properly placed on the agenda.

Edited November 13, 2017 at 05:14 PM by Daniel H. Honemann

[PSteinbroner]

Agreed --- but the vote in favor of the proposal was not overwhelming and not by a  2/3 majority----only 10 votes separated the two sides----

What I'm trying to understand----if the vote was less than 2/3---then it would appear that the vote to place the item on the agenda did not reach that threshold and therefore would not have passed --- can that argument hold up in making the vote null and void?

[Gary Novosielski]

Such an argument could have been well-taken if made at the time, but if no point of order was raised in a timely manner it is too late now to raise it.  Only certain narrow types of violations that create what is known as a "continuing breach" of the rules can be raised well after the fact.

[Dan Honemann]

8 minutes ago, PSteinbroner said:

Agreed --- but the vote in favor of the proposal was not overwhelming and not by a  2/3 majority----only 10 votes separated the two sides----

What I'm trying to understand----if the vote was less than 2/3---then it would appear that the vote to place the item on the agenda did not reach that threshold and therefore would not have passed --- can that argument hold up in making the vote null and void?

No.

[PSteinbroner]

thank you......from what you're saying --- if there is no point of order---then it's done

[Josh Martin]

23 minutes ago, PSteinbroner said:

thank you......from what you're saying --- if there is no point of order---then it's done

Generally speaking, yes, a Point of Order must be raised promptly at the time of the violation in order to be timely. There are some situations where a violation constitutes a “continuing breach,” but that does not appear to be the case here.

Edited November 13, 2017 at 06:26 PM by Josh Martin

[SaintCad]

One question:  On the agenda was the item listed specifically as a straw poll?  Or was it more like "discuss X".  Please quote the agenda exactly because if it was the second the member may be perfectly correct and it was on the agenda and a motion could be raised.

[ShellyS]

I have the e-book so I can’t quote page, but chapter 6 Motions, section of “Motions that bring a question before the assembly”... If members are unhappy with action take at a previous meeting they can Rescind the Action or Amend Something Previously Adopted...If no previous notice has been given, Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted requires a two-thirds vote or majority vote of the entire membership.  

 

It doesnt state a time limit, but I wouldn’t wait longer than absolutely necessary.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

10 minutes ago, ShellyS said:

I have the e-book...

What is the e-book? Make sure you have the right book.

[ShellyS]

2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

What is the e-book? Make sure you have the right book.

Kindle version of Webster’s Newly Revised Roberts Rules of Order 3rd edition.

and the Apple iBook of the originally published Robert’s Rules of Order by Henry M. Robert.

and Robert’s Rules for Dummies in case I need a simplified explanation not in the other two books.  

Is there a better version I should have?  

Edited November 20, 2017 at 07:07 AM by ShellyS

[Dan Honemann]

4 hours ago, ShellyS said:

Kindle version of Webster’s Newly Revised Roberts Rules of Order 3rd edition.

and the Apple iBook of the originally published Robert’s Rules of Order by Henry M. Robert.

and Robert’s Rules for Dummies in case I need a simplified explanation not in the other two books.  

Is there a better version I should have?  

Throw the first one away, keep in mind that the second is a copy of an edition which is 100 years old (there have been quite a few changes in the rules since then), and use the third one when you need to, but understand that there is no substitute for the real thing.

[Hieu H. Huynh]

5 hours ago, ShellyS said:

Kindle version of Webster’s Newly Revised Roberts Rules of Order 3rd edition.

and the Apple iBook of the originally published Robert’s Rules of Order by Henry M. Robert.

and Robert’s Rules for Dummies in case I need a simplified explanation not in the other two books.  

Is there a better version I should have?  

Yes, the one linked to earlier, provided again here. The In Brief book may be helpful to have in addition.

Note that the Webster's book contains numerous errors. I think throwing it away is good advice.

[Richard Brown]

11 hours ago, ShellyS said:

Is there a better version I should have?  

 

Yes, if you want an electronic version of something, the CD-ROM version of the 11th edition of RONR is about $69 plus shipping, depending on whether you order it from the publisher or from NAP (The National Association of Parliamentarians).  It is an exact duplicate (minus the line numbers) of the printed version of RONR.  You can read about it here, and click on one of the imbedded links to order it:  http://www.robertsrules.com/default.html

 

[ShellyS]

Thanks everyone!