Tim Wynn

Presumably, a member of the board MADE the motion and the board ADOPTED the motion. In general, the motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted can be used to cancel or change a previous action, as long as it is not too late (meaning you cannot rescind a motion to chop down a tree after is felled). If you're referring to some vote by mail or other absentee voting method that the board is authorized by the bylaws to initiate, then the board could use the motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted to modify the motion that will be sent to the members. If you're referring to a recommendation contained in a board report to the general membership, this recommendation could be amended in a board meeting before the report is presented at the general-membership meeting. This would also be done by the motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted. In any event, when a recommendation contained in a report comes before the assembly, it is generally subject to debate and amendment before it is put to a vote. For more information on the motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, see RONR (12th ed.) Section 35. For more information on the motion to Amend, see RONR (12th ed.) Section 12.

#1. What vote is required to suspend the rules to allow the transaction of business not mentioned in the call of a special meeting (with no absentees, of course)? A. Two-thirds vote, since there are currently no absentees whom the rule is protecting B. Unanimous vote, since the rule against the transaction of business not mentioned in the call of a special meeting protects a minority as small as one if that one should opt to leave the meeting (and presumably, requiring the member to actually leave in order to receive this protection would be an unnecessary step when the member, instead, could simply vote against the suspension of the rules) #2. Is the answer the same for a motion to suspend the quorum requirement when there are no absentees (with the obvious exception of the case mentioned in 25:10n8)? A. Yes B. No

Thank you, sir. What is said in 12:25 does give me comfort.

If a motion to strike out inserted words can present a new question (even though it is not a question that is in order), then the reason for its being out of order must be based in some principle other than the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session.

I'm trying to understand whether any of its being out of order is based on a perception that it does not present a new question. I'm trying to fully understand the underlying principle.

The main motion is "That the Southern Historical Society commends the following Florida-native staff members for their hard work on this year's annual Florida Day parade: . . . [names of hard working staff members]" A motion to amend by striking out "Florida-native" and inserting "Floridian" is adopted. Does a motion to strike out "Floridian" present a new question (in relation to the one decided by the adoption of the amendment) since a) those who oppose any Florida reference altogether might have only preferred "Floridian" to "Florida-native" as opposed to actually wanting it in the motion, and b) the motion to strike out and insert did not present the question of removing it altogether? My question is not whether the motion is in order, but whether it would present a new question.

That's the magic of the RONR forum. You're welcome.

Clever! 😉 (I trust and respect Bruce's instinct, though) I actually wrote a long response declaring how it would not be in order to strike the inserted language, but when I saw Bruce going the other way, I began to over (actually under) analyze.

Reading Bruce's post on this question rattled my conviction. Always beware a man on a boat. 😉

I believe the following passage covers it (except for the crying "uncle" part): "If, for any reason, the assembly does not complete an election at the time for which it was scheduled, it should do so as soon as possible and may do so at any time until the expiration of the term the election is to fill. In the meantime, if the term of office extends until a successor is elected (see 56:28–30) failure to complete an election leaves the incumbent, if any, in office. Otherwise, a vacancy in office arises (see 47:57–58 for procedures for filling vacancies). Once the election is completed, however, the person elected replaces anyone who filled the vacancy. Failure to hold or to complete an election at the scheduled time does not deprive the membership of its right to elect an officer of its choice." - RONR (12th ed.) 46:45

Shmuel, Thank you, sir. I believe that clears it up, if my understanding is correct: the crux of the matter is whether this represents a new question, not whether other words were struck out, since in your example you concur that in some cases a motion to strike out and insert is in order even if it is striking out only words that were inserted. For the past ten years or so, up until yesterday, I was under the complete conviction that inserted words could not be struck out through a motion to strike out and insert, unless they were joined with other words being struck out. However, I'm now of the understanding that this is not the case, so long as a motion to strike out only inserted words and insert other words succeeds in creating a new question. This explains why 12:28(2) and 12:28(4) contain slightly but precisely different wording. It just doesn't explain this . . . 😁

You mean as it says in 12:28(2)? "To strike out a portion of the paragraph, including all or a part of the words inserted and enough other words to make a different question from the one decided by the insertion." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(2) The omission of this from 12:28(4) would make this reference less than obvious. "To strike out a portion of the paragraph (including all or a part of the words inserted) and insert other words, in a way that presents a new question." - RONR (12th ed.) 12:28(4) It appears that the "other" that is necessary in (4) is to "insert other words." If the first seventeen words in 12:28(2) mean the same thing as the identical first seventeen words in 12:28(4), why is it necessary to have the language "and enough other words to make a different question" in the former but not the latter? Is this language redundant in 12:28(2) and implied in 12:28(4)? In fact, this language appearing in 12:28(2) is the only thing that makes me believe that an amendment described in 12:28(4) does not require the striking of "enough other words to make a different question."

I suppose that's the same way using the standard order of business doesn't make it a Standard Order of Business. "This is also frequently done when, for any reason, neither the standard order of business nor a special order of business established by rule of the organization is practical or applicable." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:60

But it's easy to see why someone might think so: "In organizations that have adopted this book as parliamentary authority and that have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is the prescribed order of business for regular meetings, unless the periods intervening between consecutive regular meetings are usually more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7)." - RONR (12th ed.) 41:6 😉

And it seems to me that this is the exact type of permissible amendment that is described in 12:28(4).

Yes, a special order of business can be adopted that would apply to all sessions. Mr. Novosielski thought you were referring to a special order, an understandable mistake. An order of business could be provided in the bylaws or adopted as a special rule of order.

I think your question needs some clarity. Are you asking for recommended bylaw language to achieve a certain purpose, or are you asking whether an individual is eligible to serve in office according to a particular bylaw provision that exists in your organization?

From the information in your post, there's nothing to put anywhere. If the treasurer has a recommendation for the adoption of a motion in his report for the June meeting, a member can move the adoption of the recommendation at the time the report is presented. Additionally, a motion regarding the funds could come up under new business. There is no unfinished business here.

If they vote both vote in favor, yes. Of course, if they both vote against the motion, it fails. No, that's not how it works. When a motion requires a majority vote for adoption, a tie simply means that the necessary majority was not achieved, and the motion is lost. In a case where the presiding officer is required to maintain impartiality, he only votes when his vote would affect the outcome. In the case of a tie, he would only vote if he wishes to vote in the affirmative, since adding a negative vote to a motion that is already lost would not affect the outcome. There is no need to "break" the tie. The motion will simply be lost. However, whether this rule (the rules against the chair voting unless his vote would affect the outcome) applies to your mayor is another question.

A vote has no effect on satisfying a quorum requirement. A quorum is the number of members who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted. To better understand the comments between Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Honemann, see the following passages from RONR: "As indicated in 3:3, a quorum in an assembly is the number of members (see definition, 1:4) who must be present in order that business can be validly transacted." - RONR (12th ed.) 40:1 "Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as “voting members” when it is necessary to make a distinction." - RONR (12th ed.) 1:4

Personally, I feel too strongly on this matter to weigh in. (perhaps I'll circle back around when I care less)

I'm curious about how access to last year's minutes would inform a voter in regard to an election. Reviewing the sample minutes in RONR hasn't given me any clue whom I would choose for president of the L.M. Society (Mrs. Smith or Mr. Gordon, I suppose). I also have an unsubstantiated fear that the original poster's organization's board selects the executive officers from its own board members, in which case the question seems to have completely overlooked the newly elected directors as contenders in the election.

A question of privilege is not a privileged motion. The motion Raise a Question of Privilege is a privileged motion, which attempts to allow the consideration of a request or main motion when it would not otherwise be in order because other business is pending. I'm certain Mr. Elsman knows this; I only post this clarification for others who may read it.

When a question is made and seconded, the presiding officer must place it before the assembly, unless he is obliged to rule it out of order (in which case he explains why it is out of order) or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear (which doesn't appear to apply here). I'm assuming this motion was not made before voting had begun and that some form of electronic voting was to be used, since it is uncommon to have time limits on other methods of voting. Any ruling of the chair is subject to an immediate appeal, which, if seconded, takes the question out of the chair's hands and places it before the assembly for final decision.

Speeches are still limited to ten minutes, but of course ten minutes multiplied by unlimited equals unlimited. So, yes. However, the difference between unlimited speech and unlimited number of speeches is that ten minutes later someone else is afforded an opportunity to speak. This is made more plain by the following text, which discusses how an assembly can take on characteristics of a committee: "On the other hand, if, in considering a particular question, it is desired to retain the usual limit on the length of speeches but remove restrictions on the total number of times members can speak, the assembly by a majority vote can resolve itself into a committee of the whole or into quasi committee of the whole, or it can consider the question informally (see 52:1)." - RONR (12th ed.) 43:18