Convention - part deux

[David A Foulkes]

As I understand p. 600ff and p. 610ff, the Standing Rules and the Program (or agenda?) of the convention are approved by vote (2/3 and majority respectively) at the beginning of the convention, in their appropriate order and timing (after the Credentials Committee report, it appears), and as possibly amended. If no vote is taken, and no Point of Order (POO!) is raised, it would be ass-u-me'd that they were approved by general consent.

Correct?

[Josh Martin]

As I understand p. 600ff and p. 610ff, the Standing Rules and the Program (or agenda?) of the convention are approved by vote (2/3 and majority respectively) at the beginning of the convention, in their appropriate order and timing (after the Credentials Committee report, it appears), and as possibly amended. If no vote is taken, and no Point of Order (POO!) is raised, it would be ass-u-me'd that they were approved by general consent.

Correct?

The chair should have actually asked for general consent, not merely assumed it, however, if the chair declared them adopted, it would be too late to raise a Point of Order after the fact. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 51-53; pg. 243, lines 19-20)

[J. J.]

The chair should have actually asked for general consent, not merely assumed it, however, if the chair declared them adopted, it would be too late to raise a Point of Order after the fact. (RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 51-53; pg. 243, lines 19-20)

I think that there would be that brief interval between the time the chair declared the result an some member has introduced a motion (pp. 243-4); a point of order could be raised in tat interval. Apart from that, I agree with the answer.

[Rob Elsman]

I think you have confused the assumption of a motion by the chair's stating it with the handling of a motion by unanimous consent. Sadly, you are not alone.

[David A Foulkes]

Upon review, I realize that (hard as I try not to do this, though do fail at times) I inadvertently left out the part about (best as I recall, though I may be in error) there was simply no procedure regarding these issues at all. The Chair did not assume a motion and call for a vote, nor did she ask for general consent in declaring them adopted for the convention. The Standing Rules were simply printed in the program that was handed out to all delegates at registration, and that was that. Same with the agenda. It was (perhaps the best way to put it) "understood" that those were the rules and that was the agenda and "let's get on with things."

As I make my way through the 700+ pages (over and over again), such details pop out at me and my inner parliamentarian jumps up and says "Whoa.... What?"

[Rob Elsman]

Well, for heaven's sake, let's not do anything properly!

[Josh Martin]

I think that there would be that brief interval between the time the chair declared the result an some member has introduced a motion (pp. 243-4); a point of order could be raised in tat interval. Apart from that, I agree with the answer.

Yes, thank you for the clarification.

Upon review, I realize that (hard as I try not to do this, though do fail at times) I inadvertently left out the part about (best as I recall, though I may be in error) there was simply no procedure regarding these issues at all. The Chair did not assume a motion and call for a vote, nor did she ask for general consent in declaring them adopted for the convention. The Standing Rules were simply printed in the program that was handed out to all delegates at registration, and that was that. Same with the agenda. It was (perhaps the best way to put it) "understood" that those were the rules and that was the agenda and "let's get on with things."

As I make my way through the 700+ pages (over and over again), such details pop out at me and my inner parliamentarian jumps up and says "Whoa.... What?"

Well, this was most certainly improper, although I expect you already knew that. A member could have raised a Point of Order at any time throughout the convention when the chair attempted to enforce these so-called "rules" and "agenda" that they were never adopted and are therefore not binding on the assembly. Now that the convention is over, it is most likely too late to raise a Point of Order about anything now, unless perhaps the enforcement of one of the imaginary rules would have given rise to a continuing breach.

[David A Foulkes]

Well, this was most certainly improper, although I expect you already knew that.

Although not at the time. Next year, I'll be more vigilant. Thanks.

[Larry Cisar]

But, to be safe, check the bylaws of the organization just to make sure that they do not give the two committees the power to set the rules without a vote by the assembly.

[J. J.]

Well, this was most certainly improper, although I expect you already knew that. A member could have raised a Point of Order at any time throughout the convention when the chair attempted to enforce these so-called "rules" and "agenda" that they were never adopted and are therefore not binding on the assembly. Now that the convention is over, it is most likely too late to raise a Point of Order about anything now, unless perhaps the enforcement of one of the imaginary rules would have given rise to a continuing breach.

I think that will depend on how the chair handles it.

The chair says, "Here are the rules. Is everyone okay with them. [pause], Okay, they are adopted." No objection or point of order is raised. I'd be inclined to say that the rules were adopted (though the phrasing is horrendous).

[Gary c Tesser]

I think that will depend on how the chair handles it.

The chair says, "Here are the rules. Is everyone okay with them. [pause], Okay, they are adopted." No objection or point of order is raised. I'd be inclined to say that the rules were adopted (though the phrasing is horrendous).

J.J., please read DAF's post of 05 July 2010 - 12:12 PM. It didn't even come close.

On the other hand, I don't go along with Josh Martin's belief that the rules never happened, if they were printed, and everyone read them, and everyone at the convention acted as if they believed that the rules were in force. To test this, I think, would not the convention have happened very differently if those rules were not, in effect, in effect?

That has to count for a lot.

[J. J.]

J.J., please read DAF's post of 05 July 2010 - 12:12 PM. It didn't even come close.

On the other hand, I don't go along with Josh Martin's belief that the rules never happened, if they were printed, and everyone read them, and everyone at the convention acted as if they believed that the rules were in force. To test this, I think, would not the convention have happened very differently if those rules were not, in effect, in effect?

That has to count for a lot.

GcT, I'm not sure, from the description, that this, or something close to it. didn't happen.

[Gary c Tesser]

J.J., please read DAF's post of 05 July 2010 - 12:12 PM. It didn't even come close.

On the other hand, I don't go along with Josh Martin's belief that the rules never happened, if they were printed, and everyone read them, and everyone at the convention acted as if they believed that the rules were in force. To test this, I think, would not the convention have happened very differently if those rules were not, in effect, in effect?

That has to count for a lot.

ON review, I should say I completely agree with what Mr Martin said (and not only because I've been traditionally laconically advised that otherwise is a bad idea), aside from the quibble.

[Josh Martin]

I think that will depend on how the chair handles it.

The chair says, "Here are the rules. Is everyone okay with them. [pause], Okay, they are adopted." No objection or point of order is raised. I'd be inclined to say that the rules were adopted (though the phrasing is horrendous).

I agree. My response is based on the interpretation that nothing was mentioned of the rules whatsoever (which is what I gathered from Mr. Foulkes' new post).