Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

DrEntropy

Members
  • Content count

    259
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Las Vegas, NV

Recent Profile Visitors

604 profile views
  1. DrEntropy

    Two Thirds vote to close debate, History

    Hi John, thanks for sending your article, I meant to post a reference to it here for the benefit of others, as I had just rediscovered it a few days ago while searching through the PJ index ! Cheers
  2. DrEntropy

    Two Thirds vote to close debate, History

    Thanks for your contribution to my thinking on this. I took a look in Parliamentary Law and there is a nice discussion about it that I will not repeat here, but it says that it should be "the same vote as required for suspending the rules", since in some sense it suspends the normal rules of debate. I note that the US House under it's current rules also requires a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules, but I don't know the history of that particular rule, but intend to pursue it! As for why "2/3" , I think it is a bit arbitrary, but it is also natural in that it is the next bigger fraction that is easy to calculate ( "twice as many for as are against").
  3. Has anyone investigated the source of the two-thirds vote requirement for "previous question" (and a few other things of course). I can't find anything in RONR 11th, but in the 1st edition the General mentions: "In ordinary societies more regard should be paid to the rights of the minority, and a two-thirds vote be required, as in this Manual, for sustaining an objection to the introduction of a question, or for adopting a motion for the Previous Question, or for adopting an order closing or limiting debate. In this respect the policy of the Pocket Manual is a mean between those of the House and Senate." I believe at that time the House (as now) used a majority vote, and the Senate had no such motion. Older sources seem to require a majority vote (e.g. Cushings) Was this a creation of the General?
  4. DrEntropy

    "Tradition" of not following procedure

    The most important person you have to convince is the presiding officer. I have found that you can more easily bring people on board by emphasizing that (at least for RONR) the rules themselves specify a somewhat relaxed attitude for most cases, especially for committees and small boards (where, for example, seconds are not required, and one can speak on a subject when no motion is pending). And consider this: RONR 11, page 456 "The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business." Even if RONR is not your authority, I recommend it for becoming acquainted with the general principles of parliamentary law. And the little "RONR in Brief" which is a great resource for understanding the essentials.
  5. DrEntropy

    Cheat Sheet

    Ah, hand typing up cheat sheets. I remember doing that for this and a few other things ! Nice job on this one, it is tricky to get that formatting right on a typewriter!
  6. DrEntropy

    Carry Over of Motions

    Are you asking about adopted motions, or motions temporarily but not finally disposed of?
  7. p506 l. 9-11 RONR11, although it is stated the other way around: Someone else should report if the committee chair is the presiding officer of the assembly.
  8. Your say your society has bylaws addressing how to bring charges, so you will have to be the judge on how that meshes up with what is in Section 63 in RONR 11th. But in the end the action must be started by a member, perhaps one of the board members, maybe you? Most likely a member will have to make a motion offering charges, something like what is done on page 657 ll 5-17.
  9. DrEntropy

    co presidents

    Hah! Indeed. This is what tends to happen. Consider coming upon a scene with a fallen man lying on the ground. He is suffering grave injury. You have some EMT training and try to help, but someone has to call an ambulance. There are two people who have gathered near. Which strategy is more effective: a) "Someone call an ambulance", or b_) "YOU call an ambulance", pointing at one of the co-observers. ?? I know this has been harped on many times in this forum, but I don't think it can really be emphasized enough: Don't have co-anythings. But if you insist, be prepared to invent the rules for how to deal with the messes it creates.
  10. DrEntropy

    Strange response

    Under Robert's Rules of Order, any statement that begins "Under Robert's Rules of Order" has a 90% chance of being incorrect.
  11. DrEntropy

    The Reciprocal Reading of Bylaw

    In the end, it will be up to your association (in a meeting) to decide the meaning of the bylaws in this regard. Next time it comes up (e.g. if the chair rules the vote insufficient and you disagree) appeal (RONR p 255) from the ruling the chair. In debate on this appeal your association can deliberate and decide the meaning. See also page 588 and following in RONR11 for some principles of interpretation to help you. (The most important of which is: "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws.") It seems that when this bylaw was written it was not anticipated that anyone would want to undo an endorsement. In my opinion there is perhaps some ambiguity. The bylaw should be amended as soon as practical to clear this up.
  12. Ugh, I have been in your shoes. People who misunderstand the rules I can help. But stubborn folks who will stick to their misconceptions (either because they are self proclaimed experts or 'we have always done it this way') and not even try to learn, I cannot tolerate. I wish you the best of luck, and I think your course of action is probably the best.
  13. You have that luxury now, and I think Kim was suggesting you avail yourself of it. Perhaps bring him a fresh new copy of RONR in Brief and if feeling very generous, the full RONR. At the very least I would hope your presiding officer will see that the 2/3 requirement for an appeal can't be right. As for the motion to rescind, he is also probably not right, but the "vague reference" to a bylaw means there might be some interpretation issue. Maybe you could ask about that too, while sharing a cup of tea.
  14. DrEntropy

    Minutes approval committee

    Thanks Kim, this makes sense. But could the board, in it's instructions to the committee, realize result #b instead? This might be handy also for assemblies (rather then boards) who actually don't plan to meet again, or conventions of delegates.
  15. DrEntropy

    Minutes approval committee

    I hope folks don't mind me resurrecting this thread, but another question occurred to me since January. Stubborn neurons i guess. Anyway, my question is, when a committee is appointed to approve the minutes, how is the final approval recorded? Does the committee chair just inform the secretary of the results and then the secretary includes them in the official record? (With the notation "Approved by special committee" or some such?). Does the committee report to the new board the results?
×