Weldon Merritt

Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted would work only if the original motion was adopted. In the case that was being discussed in the previous thread, the motion was defeated.

And I am one of those who initially argued that Suspend the Rules required only a two-thirds vote even when the motion to be reconsidered requires a higher threshold. Bu the more I think about it, the more I think that Mr. Honemann's reasoning makes sense.

Sorry, Schmuel. I guess both Richard Brown and I misremembered, as both of us have said that all four of you were present. Since I wasn't the one who made the REM motion, I can't say why the mover thought it was necessary. Maybe he was concerned that it might be hard to find someone who would admit to voting against the resolution. Or he just didn't want to take a chance. Of course, if either Dr. Kapur's or Mr. Honemann's opinion is correct, then the suspension probably should not passed. But in this instance, as Mr. Honemann notes, "the final result was the right one," so it's a good thing that apparently no one thought a the time that it would require a higher threshold than two-thirds.

I agree. And I will reiterate a suggestion I made quite a while ago which, for reason I don't understand, many regulars opposed. That is, that after some period of time (as determined by the moderators) a thread be locked so that no new questions or responses could be added to it. If this would be too time consuming or labor-intensive, I can understand that. But otherwise, I don't know why anyone would object, since the thread still would be available for anyone to find and research.

I still have some doubts, but after giving it more thought, I agree that both Dr. Kapur's and Mr. Honneman's positions are at least reasonable arguments. It would be great if the issue could be clarified in an official interpretation . One of my problems is that either Dr. Kapur's or Mr. Honneman's interpretation is even more likely to encourage insincere voting so as to be eligible to move Reconsider if your true sentiment doesn't prevail. Of course, I know that my personal concern with the possible implications of a rule have no bearing on the correctness of the rule. Finally, for those who are not familiar with the scenario, and who may be wondering how even 10% of the membership could vote against making Mr. Robert an Honorary President, I'll provide a summary. The original proposal came in the form of a resolution submitted by the Board of Directors, first listing Mr. Robert's many accomplishments, and ending with a resolving clause to amend the appropriate provision of the bylaws to directly specify that "Henry M. Robert III shall be an honorary president of NAP" (or words to that effect). If I recall correctly, some of the debate included objections to putting a specific name into the bylaws. So when the vote was taken (using electronic keypads), I strongly suspect that most of the No votes were by those who disagreed with putting anyone's name into the bylaws (a sentiment I shared, but I voted Yes anyway because of whose name it was). And there also may have been some who accidentally pressed the wrong button and even a few (very few I'm sure) who genuinely did not agree with making Mr. Robert an honorary president. As Mr. Brown noted, a member who had voted for the resolution then moved to Suspend the Rules and Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. When the motion was called up the next day, REM was adopted by an overwhelming vote, and on reconsideration, a substitute resolution was offered. The substitute listed the same accomplishments by Mr. Robert, and ended with two resolving clauses; one amending the bylaws to provide for having honorary officers, and one designating Mr. Robert as an honorary president. Both the substitute and the amended main motion were then adopted by an overwhelming vote.

I can understand your reasoning, but it still seems pretty telling that in a roomful of parliamentarians, including four of the RONR authors, apparently no one else saw it that way. One might argue that the authors, at least, didn't want to raise the point because the amendment was one to make Henry M. Robert III an Honorary President of NAP. But I think the authors have enough integrity that if they had thought the threshold for adoption should have been 90%, they would have said so, regardless of their personal desires. I am pretty sure that I have seen instances where they indeed did raise Points of Order that were contrary to their personal interests, to protect the integrity of the rules.

No that's an interesting perspective!

After having slept on it, I agree that the required vote for Reconsider is not the issue. (That's what I get for posting when I am exhausted.) But I still don't agree that the rule requiring Reconsider to be moved by someone on the prevailing side is designed to protect a minority. Rather, it is designed to protect the entire assembly from having to deal with the a motion made by a disgruntled member of the losing side. Besides the example J.J. cited, the fact is that it usually will be the majority that is the prevailing side, except for bylaw amendments and a few other motions that require a higher threshold. I also point out that that in a roomful of a few hundred parliamentarians, including every member but one of the RONR Authorship Team, no one raised a Point of Order. While that's certainly not dispositive, it's pretty strong evidence.

Yes, we are talking about Reconsider (or more precisely, Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes, which has basically the same SDCs). And RONR explicitly says that the motion "[r]equires only a majority vote, regardless of the vote necessary to adopt the motion to be reconsidered. " RONR, p. 320, ll. 32-33 (emphasis in original). The motion to be reconsidered was the proposed amendment, and it indeed did require 90%. But REM clearly did not. Would you say that REM required a 90% vote if it had been made by a member who had voted on the prevailing? If not, then why would a motion to Suspend the Rules to allow that motion to be made by someone who had bot voted on the prevailing side require it?

But the rule being suspended was the one requiring that the mover of Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes have voted on the prevailing side, not the rule requiring a 90% vote for the amendment. Reconsider itself, and its variation REM, always requires only a majority vote, regardless of the vote required for adoption of the motion being reconsidered.

I recall the same instance Richard is talking about. But in addition to the supporters having time to try to convince more members to vote yes, the wording of the resolution proposing the amendment was amended during the reconsideration. I think that also had an effect of the new vote total.

I think some state legislatures have similar practices. I recall that when I used to observe the New Mexico legislature (which I haven't done for many years), Reconsider was used most often for a bill that had just been defeated. The move was colloquially referred to as "driving the nail into the coffin."

It could be that this is some sort of governmental entity that was required to deal with an issue that was the subject of the motions. But if not, then I also wonder why it was handled in the way that it was. (I overlooked that nuance when I initially responded.)

It violates no rule in RONR.

Well, it seems that your initial omission can be attributed largely to poorly drafted bylaws. A section about the term of office is a strange place to put a provision about the board's powers. But it does illustrates why it is important to consider bylaws as a whole, and not just individual sections, when interpreting them.

Given that language, I am now inclined to agree. But it certainly would have been helpful if Barb had told us that in the first place instead of telling us that he bylaws say "nothing about the powers of the Board." "General management of club affairs" certainly is not "nothing." (Yes, that is a double negative, and it this case it does equal a positive.")

Which seems a reasonable assumption, since that's what Barb told us.

I agree. And if the bylaws literally "don't say anything about the powers of the board," then the board has no power to do anything (except maybe make recommendations to the membership), unless the society refers matters to it.. Which also makes me wonder if they actually even have a board. "A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it." RONR (11th ed.), p. 482, ll. 25-29.

I think Josh has it right on this one. Of course, if the chair does fail to call the meeting, I suppose the only consequence would be whatever discipline, if any, the assembly decides to impose. If everyone agrees that the meeting really wasn't need after all, the assembly may very well decide to do nothing about the failure.

Thanks, Josh. That makes sense. I asked my original question because one of my colleagues had suggested that the president could simply not call the meeting. That didn't seem quite right to me, so I thought I'd seek another opinion.

Just thinking about this further, I have a followup question. If the adjourned meeting had been set simply to meet at the call of the chair, without specifying a date, would the chair still have had an obligation to call the adjourned meeting at some point before the next annual meeting? I realize that is a moot issue, because that's not what happened. But I'm still curious. (And it might be good to know in case there is a similar situation in the future.)

That's pretty much what I thought. Actually, "the assembly" in this instance consisted solely of the president. There is a longer backstory, but the bottom line is that even though we knew that we almost certainly would not attain a quorum, we scheduled the meeting to comply with the bylaws requirement that the meeting be held "in the spring." We gave proper notice, and were completely upfront about our intention, and suggested that members other than the president not attend. We had a our usual pre-annual meeting board meeting, except electronically (which the bylaws allowed) and the workshops that normally would be held in conjunction with the annual meeting. Then at the specified time (with members observing electronically), the president convened the annual meeting, appointed himself as the secretary pro tem and the minutes approval committee, set the adjourned meeting, and adjourned the meeting. The date was selected because that is when we had scheduled our Fall Board Meeting and Educations Workshops (which normally do not include membership business meeting). I suppose, however, that even though no one else was physically present, the president was acting in the name of the organization, so the answer is the same. We will be having another board meeting soon to decide what to do about our Fall meeting, so we'll see what we decide.

If a inquorate annual meeting was adjourned to meet on a specific date at the call of the chair (for the time and location), and it becomes apparent that it would be unlikely that a quorum could be obtained on the specified date, is the chair nevertheless obligated to call the meeting even though it almost certainly will have to be adjourned without conducting business? Would it matter if there is no urgent business that could not wait until the next annual meeting?

I don't object to the motion itself, as it can be very useful at times. I just don't care for the requirement that the mover must have voted on the prevailing side. Of course, an organization is free to adopt a special rule of order to eliminate that requirement. Or a member who did not vote on the prevailing side could move to suspend the rules in order to make the motion, which I have seen successfully done on one occasion (although the circumstances were pretty unusual, and the ploy probably would be unlikely to succeed in most instances).

I personally don't like that the mover has to have voted on the prevailing side. Not only does it encourage insincere voting, but depending on how the original vote was taken, it may be impossible to verify whether the mover did, indeed, vote on the prevailing side. I understand the reasoning for the requirement, but I still don't like it. Nevertheless, that's the rule.