J. J.

On 3/3/2024 at 10:53 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Table II, Motion 3 on pages t6-7 says a majority vote is required to "Adjourn ... in advance of a time already set" (this is a main motion rather than a privileged motion, but the vote required is the same as Motion 2 in that table).

So I differ from Mr. Martin's answer and say a motion to adjourn immediately requires a majority vote in either circumstance.

 

While I agree, it is dependent of if another motion is pending or not.  If there is another motion pending, the main motion to adjourn is not in order. 

There are a lot of nuances in this situation. 

If the purpose is not to defeat the motions, and you meet at least as often as quarterly, you could lay each question on the table, when pending (17:14).  That would require a majority vote. 

If this is done, the motions could be taken from the table at the next meeting under either unfinished business, new business, or under the class of business to which the motion belongs.  For example, if this were a standing committee report, it could taken off the table at the next meeting during standing committee reports, or  under unfinished business, or under new business.

On 3/1/2024 at 5:48 PM, Howard Roark said:

. 

• Or, this malicious chair, knowing the result but before announcing it, could direct his supporters to depart and thus deny quorum.  (In fact, this may not even be necessary: at many conventions, a large proportion of members depart immediately after casting their final vote.)

Even without a quorun present, it is possible to schedule an adjourned meeting (40:7). 

On 2/26/2024 at 9:09 AM, Dan Honemann said:

How so?

The standard in RONR is expressed by Mr. Martin, without regard to what the society's rule might be.  That is parliamentary law, in the sense that RONR uses it (p. xxix).

The possibility that I note includes rules that the creating body may have adopted for bodies of this specific type (p.  xxx).  It would be a better analogy if the assembly adopted the varying rules.  It would not be "parliamentary law" as defined in RONR.  

It did occur to me that this exchange illustrates the difference between parliamentary law and parliamentary procedure.

On 2/25/2024 at 9:07 AM, Rob Elsman said:

I think the correct answer depends on whether the final disposition of the main motion occurred at the same, or a later, meeting.

I agree with Mr. Martin and would not find that it makes a difference if reconsideration took place at the same meeting or not.

As per 48:4 #6, both final and temporary disposition should be shown.  For example, a main motion is tabled (properly) and taken from the table later in the meeting, both actions should be shown. 

On 2/25/2024 at 9:16 AM, Josh Martin said:

I agree that to the extent the Mayor's term ended and the terms of the council did not, and assuming the Mayor is not a member of the council, then the motion would not fall to the ground. My answer assumed that the terms of some or all of the council members coincided with the term of the Mayor.

I have no disagreement with this, but generally my experience is that when the terms of some or all of the council members end, that constitutes the end of the session.

I suppose, however, that if the terms of council members have not ended, this fact would prolong the length of time the motion could remain on the table.

"A question that has been laid on the table remains there and can be taken from the table during the same session (8), or, if the next regular business session will be held before a quarterly time interval has elapsed (see 9:7), also until the end of the next regular session. If not taken from the table within these time limits, the question dies, although it can be reintroduced later as a new question. As long as a question remains on the table, any member can move to take it from the table at a regular meeting, including a meeting that is an adjournment (9) of a regular meeting. At a special meeting, however, a question can be taken from the table only if: (a) it has been laid on the table earlier at the same session, or (b) the call of the special meeting specifies either the particular question that lies on the table or its subject matter." RONR (12th ed.) 34:3

In some states, a mayor may be elected by a shorter period.

In my state, of the more than 900 mayoral positions, most are not permitted by statute to be a member of the council at the same time (though they are elected at the same time as council); you comment would be correct as to the election timing. However, not every state is my state.   

Guest Robert could provide perhaps more detailed information. 

On 2/24/2024 at 9:00 PM, Guest Jen Nichol said:

do consultants on a board of directors subcommittee get a vote on motions made?

Only if they are members of that subcommittee (1:4). 

List the adoption of the motion. 

Then, when reconsider is moved:

"________  moved to reconsider the motion [list motion].  The motion to reconsider was adopted. 

Upon reconsideration, the motion [list motion] was defeated."

This would be how I would do it.  The motion to reconsider should clearly be included in the minutes, when it involves a main motion (48:4 #6). 

Two offices can be filled by one person, especially due to a single absence.  The chair of a small committee often keeps a memorandum that is similar to minutes.  It violates no rule.

On 2/24/2024 at 11:07 AM, Josh Martin said:

 

As to your question, my understanding is that the situation in question is one where certain appointments are made by the Mayor, but are then confirmed (or approved, ratified, whatever term you use) by the City Council. The appointments were in some manner delayed until after the Mayor's term ended and a new Mayor took office, and the question is whether the council may still act on these appointments.

In so far as the rules of RONR are concerned, these appointments (and any other business under the control of the council) "falls to the ground" when new terms of office begin.

 

That may not be correct.  It is possible that the mayor made the appointments and submitted then to council; when pending, they were laid on the table.  The mayor's term ended, but the term of council did not.  In that case, the motion could be taken from the table and considered, subject to the rules relating to the motion Lay On the Table, i.e. at some point beyond the end of the next session and within the quarterly time interval (17:6-9). 

There is also the possibility that there is a single session, that may constitute a number of meeting throughout the year, with each additional effectively being an adjourned meeting.  (I have references to some public bodies doing that in previous posts.)

There is not enough information provided to determine if this correct or incorrect under RONR. 

A just love ambiguity (this site needs a sarcasm font). 

Putting something on a proposed agenda is not making a motion. 

Without knowing what your bylaws say, specifically, a clear answer could not be stated. 

On 2/16/2024 at 9:29 AM, Dan Honemann said:

When I said "will guarantee election" I meant election of the minority's candidate to a seat on the committee. Have I still got this wrong? 

It has to be greater than 1/5 in this case.  1/5 will not guarantee an election. 

The problem with Dr. Kapur's premise is that it assumes coordination of the minority and it implies that this minority is needed to elect.

Even in the example, one person is shown not coordinating his votes and voting for four candidates.  Several others could do the same.

In this example, there are five candidates, G, H, J, K, & M.  120 voters each cast 4 votes for the seats, using cumulative voting.  Voting is done by a non secret ballot.

Ballots 1-20 has all 4 votes for G (80 votes)

Ballot 21-24 has three votes for G (12 votes), and one vote for J (4)

Ballot 25  1 vote each for G,  H, J, & K.

Ballot 26-100 has one vote each for H, J, K, & M (each get 75 votes)

Ballot 101-120 H gets all four (80 votes)

The total are:

G gets 93 votes

H gets 156 votes

J gets 80 votes

K gets 76 votes

M gets 75 votes

Any number greater than 1/(P+1) absolutely assures an election, but someone could get equal to or less than that amount and still be elected. 

No, pre-planning is not necessarily, as was demonstrated.  The minority may be an ad hoc one.  Further, no group could enforce how to vote on even a minority. 

On 2/15/2024 at 5:37 PM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think I see where the difference in interpretation is coming from. The protection referred to in 25:2(7) is to a minority, which only comes into  existence when a vote is taken and is less than a majority; it is not pre-defined. The benefit of cumulative voting is to a minority group, which is pre-defined and needs to plan to coordinate its actions before the vote is taken. 

Therefore, the protection in 26:25:2(7) does not apply to the question posed in the OP.

A minority (of more than one) will always be a group.  It would not necessarily pre-plan action, as in the case of the castor of vote 25. 

On 2/15/2024 at 2:56 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, any number greater than one-half will be "more than half", which is the definition of a  "majority" for purposes of determining the outcome of a vote.

However, I think that only one number or fraction can constitute "a particular size", such as "one-fourth" or "one-fifth" for purposes of 25:2(7).  It is true, of course, that if a rule protects a minority of one-fourth or one-fifth, any fraction less than that will also be protected, but there has to be that fraction of a particular size to begin with.

Mathematically, it can be properly expressed as a "particular size." 

It seems clear that "the minority protected by the rule," in this case is any minority larger that 1/5.  It is similar to saying, correctly, that a majority is any number greater than one half, whether that is a number greater than 51/101, or 101/200, or 501/1000.  Majority still equals any number greater than 1/2 of the votes cast, much like a minority would constitute any number less than or equal to one half of the votes cast.

"Particular" means "of, relating to, or being a single person or thing."  That looks it would be the particular size of the the minority, in the given situation. 

On 2/15/2024 at 2:03 PM, Atul Kapur said:

46:43 provides no right to the minority group to elect a candidate. It only provides the possibility to use a tactic. "A minority group, by coordinating its effort in voting for only one candidate who is a member of the group, may be able to secure the election of that candidate as a minority member of the board." (emphasis added)

It is not correct to label this possibility as a right.

It does give a minority of less than one third (where there are more than 2 positions to be elected), the ability to elect one person in all cases.  That seems to be more than a possibility. 

If there were a rule that said "a vote of one fourth shall require a roll call," that rule only gives 1/5 the possibility of ordering a ballot; maybe when the stating vote is taken, less than 1/4 vote in favor of a roll call.  Yet, even with this possibility, is there any question that the rule protects a minority of any percentage greater than or equal to 1/4 and that this rule could not be suspended by a vote of less than 3/4 of the voters? 

On 2/15/2024 at 11:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

While you are waiting for a response from Dr. Kapur, I can't help but feel it a bit strange to refer to "any number greater than 1/5" as being the number of members protected by a rule. I suppose lots of numbers will be greater than 1/5. Do you mean the smallest one of these numbers?

Would you say any number greater than one half as being a majority is a bit strange?   I don't.

On 2/15/2024 at 10:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I assume this is referring to the election, and so I don't see where this makes any difference.  As I understand it, the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, but I would think that a motion could have been adopted ordering one.  If so, this should have no effect on the responses to the questions asked.

It could, indirectly, reveal voter preference.  I am factoring that issue out, however. 

I would be interested in hearing Dr. Kapur's premise that the rule does not protect a minority of, in this case, less than 1/3.

I will note that the fraction protected by the rule is always the same fraction, based on the number of positions, under Mr. Gerber's premise.  For example, if there were all 200 members voting, the minority protected would be any number greater than 1/5 of the voters*.  Likewise, if only 20 people voted the minority protected would be any number greater than 1/5 of the voters. 

*A voter here is any member who casts at least one vote for the position.  The vote is not by secret ballot. 

On 2/14/2024 at 4:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

So then, would you say that, for purposes of 25:2(7), a rule mandating cumulative voting protects a minority of 5/24, and that this will be so regardless of how many members vote in the election and how many positions are to be filled? 

I would not.

Would you say that for the purposes of 44:1 a majority is 61/120 and that this will be so regardless of how many members vote in the election and how many positions are to be filled?  (I hope not.)

Just for the record, if there are more than one position to be chosen, and the vote is by straight majority voting, it is entirely possible for someone to get a majority and not be elected.  That is why I am seeing something comparable.