Tim Wynn

The sentence to which the footnote applies is the following: "When these have been voted on, the chair puts the question on adopting the resolution or paper as amended." RONR (12th ed.) 51:48(a) The footnote is making it clear that this sentence only applies in the case of amendments to a pending item, in which case it would not apply to existing bylaws or anything else previously adopted, since adoption of the motion to amend something previously adopted effects the amendment of the existing text (as opposed to only amending text of a pending proposal, as a subsidiary motion to amend does) and requires no additional adoption. See the following reference for adopting multiple amendments to something previously adopted: "It is possible to offer and adopt several amendments to previously adopted text by means of a single incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted governed by the rules in this section and in 10. See 10:25 and 27:5 for the rules governing whether and how such a motion may be divided. (For an example, see 57:3.)" - RONR (12th ed.) 35:5

Very nice to be here, Mr. Honemann. I've been away too long. 🙂

RONR's definition of electronic meetings certainly incorporates the possibility of both electronic and non-electronic communication at the same meeting. Therefore, I believe the term "hybrid" often wouldn't apply to a meeting where members participate in both of these ways, since that type of meeting is defined as an electronic meeting. See the quotation below, where the bold and underline has been added for emphasis: "Among some organizations, there is an increasing preference, especially in the case of a relatively small board or other assembly, to transact business at electronic meetings—that is, at meetings at which, rather than all participating members being physically present in one room or area as in traditional (or “face- to-face”) meetings, some or all of them communicate with the others through electronic means such as the Internet or by telephone." - RONR(12th ed.) 9:31

It's certainly not prohibited, which is to say that notice is not required for most motions. I'm not convinced that "blindsiding" is the true issue that you're having with this matter. Would you be equally opposed to a motion to commend someone for faithful service if that motion didn't have previous notice? Would you be equally opposed to a timid member keeping a fifteen-page proposal quiet until the last minute if the only purpose for doing so was an attempt to get up the nerve to present the proposal? I suspect the nature of the motion has a lot to do with your opposition to it. And from what you've described, I doubt I would be a fan of it either, but I don't think requiring previous notice of all motions fixes anything. It's probably helpful to keep in mind that the assembly (especially if it feels "blindsided"), can adopt a motion to postpone a pending motion to a later meeting, refer it to a committee, postpone it indefinitely, or simply vote against it, no to mention the motion to Object To The Consideration Of A Question.

I don't believe everything in this statement could be accurate. I believe some parts could be, without the others. J.J., I would censure you, but George would probably just rescind it.

The assembly can amend or reject the motion that arises from the committee's recommendation. But the assembly wouldn't be changing or nullifying the motion that the board adopted to make the recommendation. In other words, the assembly wouldn't be using R/ASPA. The assembly would be considering a motion that was never adopted.

If everything the board does is on behalf of the association, then the board could not adopt a motion to censure that conflicts with a motion adopted by the association's assembly. If the assembly of the association adopted a motion to ratify action taken by a board member, the board could not adopt a motion to censure the board member for the same action.

When I say it’s certainly unclear whether the board has the authority to censure its member, I’m indicating that we don’t know all of the pertinent facts, including specific rules of the organization. This, however, has raised a few questions in my mind. Would you consider a subordinate board’s motion to censure to be a) solely on behalf of the board, akin to a board report or a board recommendation, or would you consider it to be b) on behalf of the association, akin to any other motion or resolution the board might adopt on behalf of the association. The board could certainly adopt a recommendation that the assembly reverse a course of action, but it could not adopt a resolution on behalf of the association that conflicted with a motion adopted by the association’s assembly. Also, in my opinion, the association’s assembly could not rescind or amend a board recommendation or a board report. So, if a motion to censure falls into category “a” from above, the association’s assembly could not countermand the board’s censure, and the board could censure a member for doing something that the association’s assembly had instructed the member to do. Furthermore, the board could censure one of its members for something the association had already specifically ratified. If a motion to censure falls into category “b” from above, the association’s assembly could rescind or amend a board motion to censure. Also, a board could not adopt a motion to censure that conflicted with any action taken by the association’s assembly.

This statement is many miles away from working as a sound parliamentary principle.

"It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 643, footnote "A motion to ratify can be amended by substituting a motion of censure, and vice versa, when the action involved has been taken by an officer or other representative of the assembly." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 125, ll. 15-18. The real question is whether this board has the authority to censure its member. It's certainly not clear that it does.

If the board took action without authority, you wouldn't be rescinding that action, you would be raising a point of order that the action is null and void. Rescind (or Amend Something Previously Adopted) would be the proper motion for countermanding a motion properly adopted by a subordinate board.

No, giving notice only reduces the vote requirement. Notice is not necessary for adoption of the motion to Rescind.

If the result of the vote achieves either, the motion is adopted. EXAMPLE 1: 100 Members Total 30 Present in a Meeting 2 Vote in Favor; 1 Votes Against Two-thirds vote is achieved. Motion is adopted. EXAMPLE 2: 100 Members Total 90 Present in a Meeting 54 Vote in Favor; 36 Vote Against Majority of the entire membership is achieved. Motion is adopted. You don't TRY for one threshold over the other, as many people mistakenly assume. In the right circumstance, you may get both, but you only need one.

What does this mean? Are you saying the COO, as a function of his position, received a complain about a member and, also as a function of his position, presented the complaint to the board? Or are you saying this COO drafted a fifteen-page complaint to expound his personal grievances against a member? RONR would have a thing or two to say about the latter, but I'll wait for more information before I start citing.

Probably only those people who don't understand the effect of such a choice.

The rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate. This would require a two-thirds vote. However, it appears that what you're describing might be far less intrusive than allowing a nonmember to join in debate and might be allowable by a majority vote. In practice, these matters are usually handled without a vote at all, unless a member objects. So long as the meeting isn't being interrupted, there is no rule in RONR that would prohibit communication between a member and a nonmember. No, according to Robert's Rules of Order, only members of the committee have a RIGHT to be recognized and to speak in debate. The committee is free to allow it, though, the vote for allowing it determined by what exactly is being allowed. Ultimately, you should ask whoever is telling you what can and can't be done to show you the specific rule. Fortunately, all your questions revolve around Robert's Rules of Order. However, there are certainly additional rules that govern your meetings, and it's possible some of those rules say something very different.

This question may have gone unanswered. Let me offer an answer now: There is no penalty except what the assembly decides through disciplinary measures. Sometimes, in the case of a continuing breach, the action taken is null and void and a point of order can be made at any time. Sometimes, as in cases where a point of order must be timely, it's too late to correct a mistake, and in those cases, the assembly benefits from the fact that what's in the past doesn't haunt future meetings. The best thing to do is be prepared to get it right the next time.

It might be more responsible to simply request that he not shoot anyone.

This is not a parliamentary question, except that the assembly could adopt any motion requesting anything, but that's only a request.

The same way you'd handle an irrational fear of clowns, I suppose. If enough members fear clowns, adopt a rule banning clowns. Otherwise, the issue would seem to be one that does not require attention.

That being said, I think p. 413 should be seen as prescribing what is improper about taking such a vote in some form other than by secret ballot. I don't think p. 413 should be seen as an endorsement or as an indication of when or under what circumstances such a motion would be in order.

". . . since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice." This statement is not true, and it is provided as the foundation of the rule. I doubt many on this thread, if they had voted on a prevailing side, would vote to make unanimous the ballot vote. To me, in the most lenient perspective, the practice of making unanimous feels tantamount to retaking the vote by the same method. From a harsher perspective, it feels tantamount to falsifying what happened, which seems wrong even when there is no opposition. The same harsh perspective would see the minutes as falsified, unless the minutes recorded the tellers' report accurately on the motion and provided a separate entry for another motion to make unanimous a ballot vote. Certainly, only a majority is required to falsify facts. If a unanimous vote is required, then it must NOT be falsification at all, but the actual retaking of a vote by the same method--for the purpose of attaining the same result. Certainly that's out of order. Okay, so, back to the original question. If we assume (heaven forbid) that a ballot vote on the motion to make unanimous the previous ballot vote is in order and it is the duty of the chair to place it before the assembly and that it requires a unanimous vote, the chair could use an interesting adapted form of unanimous consent as a time-saving device: if any member voluntarily indicates his intention to vote no, the ballot vote isn't taken, because it would be a waste of time. IN AN ALTERNATE REALITY I'D LIKE TO THINK THIS MIGHT HAPPEN: "The chair gives up his right to secrecy and declares his intention to vote against the question of making unanimous the ballot, therefore the taking of the vote is dilatory and for that reason not in order. This ruling is subject to appeal. The chair relinquishes the chair to vice-president J.J."

I'm assuming Robert's Rules of Order is your parliamentary authority. Since the rules therein (which are more than adequate for conducting smooth, productive, and orderly meetings) are not being used to their proper effect, the adoption of additional rules is pointless. Start by learning the basics of Robert's Rules of Order: that is truly your best course at this point.

What is said on page 405 (ll. 4-6, specifically) speaks of the location of a rule. It does not speak to any prohibition against suspending a rule.

Thanks, maestro.