J. J.

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Ah, so now we have an organization full of bogeymen, all of them up to no good and determined to do you harm. 

I suggest you resign your membership as soon as possible.

 

Not a bad suggestion; I have suggested it on one occasion.

Hopefully the meeting was taped.  I have read about one case where that did occur. 

8 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

No, a point of order that the outcome of a motion was declared incorrectly, given the vote count, must be timely. See OI 2006-18.

No disagreement on that point.

The total number of votes cast is 97.  We do have more information than that.    

7 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

This cites p. 411, ll. 19-21, which states that the tellers' tally sheets are subject to recount, but (by implication) that the vote itself cannot be retaken. So I agree with Josh. If there were tally sheets taken, then they could order a recount of them and, even if the same total is arrived at, thereby change the outcome.

I  agree that the vote cannot be retaken (and that this would not be subject to a point of order, in case anyone is looking at that).

So, in this case, the statement of the result in the minutes could not be subject to a recount?

11 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Josh already answered this. If nothing was recorded other than the total number of votes cast, then there is literally nothing that could be recounted.

There is a record, however, in the minutes.  "For the motion, 64.  Against the motion, 33.  The motion was adopted."  That is standard on a counted vote.

I agree that you cannot recount a vote that wasn't counted in the first .  Is the count, as recorded in the minutes,  enough to trigger a recount.  I can argue this, forcefully, either way.

58 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

So far as I can tell, a "recapitulation" is only applicable to a roll call vote, so no, I don't think this could be ordered. The assembly could theoretically order a recount for a counted rising vote, but only if tally sheets or other written records of the vote counts were taken and preserved, which seems unlikely in practice. Assuming this could actually be done, however, I see no reason why the chair could not use this opportunity to correct his math.

A "recount"  can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least.

The vote was counted, so it should have been in the minutes.  An uncounted standing vote could normally not be recounted, nor have a recapitulation done, for the reason you mention, no record of the vote.

The chair counted a standing vote, and the count was properly included in the minutes.  All parties agree that the was 64 to 33 and that this is less than the required two thirds vote.

A member moves that the vote be recounted or recapitulated at the next meeting.  Is that in order?

If so, the secretary reads the result.  Can the chair then announce that the result is not 2/3 being in favor and that the motion is lost?

The society's bylaws require that "Any expenditures above one thousand dollars shall require a two-thirds vote to be adopted."

At a meeting of the assembly there is a motion to approve an expenditure of $2500.00.  The chair calls for a standing vote, and the assembly adopts a motion that the vote be counted.

The vote is taken and counted.  The result is 64 in favor 33 against.   The chair announced that the ayes have it and the motion was adopted. No one raised a point of order.  The vote is recorded in the minutes

Could, at the next meeting, a "recapitulation" be ordered.  If so, should the chair state that the motion was not adopted as it did not receive  the required 2/3 vote?  I think those could be two separate questions.  

I will note that a special meeting must be authorized in the bylaws.  Provided that the meeting was properly called, permitting a nonmember to speak, or even to enter into debate, would neither invalidate the meeting nor the motion being considered. 

On 4/29/2017 at 10:38 AM, Richard Brown said:

RONR expressly prohibits non members from voting and says the rule may not be suspended. RONR goes on to say that the rule against non members speaking in debate can be suspended, but it is silent as to whether the rules may be suspended to permit non members to make motions. Taking the language on page 263 as a whole, it is my opinion that since suspending the rule is not prohibited, it may be suspended to allow a non member to make a motion.

However, as has already been pointed out, it may be better, easier and less controversial for the non member to ask a member to make the motion on his behalf. 

I agree.  I would also not that, if a motion were to be made by a nonmember, but properly entertained by the chair, and debated, it would be too late to raise a point of order.  Such a point of order must be timely.

On 4/28/2017 at 1:53 PM, Josh Martin said:

It would also be in order to amend a motion to donate a million dollars into a motion to donate a hundred dollars, but I think we can both agree that those are substantially different questions. So the fact that it could have been amended, in and of itself, does not mean that the new motion was not a substantially different question.

I can see reasonable arguments on both sides for whether a 75%/25% split and a 60%/40% split are substantially different.

I would rule it to be the essentially the same question.   Now, as always, the assembly is free to appeal that ruling.  However, this still an academic question as there was no point of order or appeal. 

On 4/26/2017 at 2:03 PM, Guest MAK said:

If my County Commission wants to pass say a fire levy or some sort of County Ordinance there is a protocol that they must follow.

Has to be posted publicly, voted on by the Commission members and so on.

Would an employee handbook follow those same rules?  Or do they not have to because the County Commission is considered the employer. They create the vacation policies, rate of pay, etc.

First, a commissioner should to the board's solicitor to determine if it is required or advisable to be adopted by ordinance.

If not, it should be handled as a regular main motion. 

Since we do not what is in it, nobody here could possibly say who this policy would apply to. 

13 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

Our Residential Condo Association and a Commercial Association occupy the same building; commercial units on the bottom floors and the residential units are on the upper floors.  The associations split shared expenses and project costs

 

The residential Association has regularly scheduled monthly meetings and an Executive Board consisting of 7 members.

 

"Mr. A” immediately then made a motion to split the costs 60%40%.  It was seconded and then debated.  A vote was taken and the motion adopted 4 to 2.

 

 The Chair then ruled that the motion could not be put to a vote until he was satisfied a parliamentary rule had been violated.  No motion, however was made to table, delay or otherwise postpone the question.  

Two questions:

Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?

 

Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?

 

 

 

12 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

For the first question, no, it should not have. An assembly may not vote on substantially the same question twice in one meeting, but a 75%/25% split is different enough from a 60%/40% to present a meaningfully different question (and this is evidenced by the fact that one was adopted and the other was not. Mr. A could also have proposed to amend the original motion by replacing the 75/25 numbers with 60/40, but either approach is permissible.

 

 

  On this point I disagree with Alexis, partially.  The 75%/25% split could have been amended by striking out 75%25% and inserting 60%/40%. The chair should have properly ruled the motion out of order that it was substantially the same question.  However, a ruling, or a point of order, would have had to have been timely. Once discussion began on the question, it was too late to do anything about it. I do agree with Alexis it does not make a difference. 

Mr. B, effectively, moved to Rescind the motion at the next meeting, which was acceptable.  His remark about the motion being out of order, in my view, was improper debate.  RONR notes that, "Members have no right to criticize a ruling of the chair unless they appeal from his decision (p. 256, ll. 4-5)."   It also confused the issue.  Mr. B may move to rescind the motion, and discuss the merits of doing so in debate, but should not enter into if it was technically in order at the March meeting. 

I think it is a question of evidence.  The minutes provide evidence of what happened.  That is what must be relied on to show what happened, at least initially.

9 minutes ago, Guest Matthew said:

I am relatively new to a high school board of education and we use the Roberts Rules Revised to run our meetings, so a quick question.  When is it, or is it permissible to ask members of the audience questions during an Agenda item discussion?  For example: during a recent meeting an agenda item was in the middle of the discussion period, and we had an individual in the audience who had information which a board member believed could be useful, the board member asked the audience individual a question.  Is this ok to do?

The rules can be suspended to permit a nonmember to enter into debate, which is much more involved that asking someone to provide information (p. 263, fn.).  With the consent of the majority a nonmember attending could be asked to provide information. 

NB:  It is neither the right of the attendee nor the member to provide information.   Further, the attendee may decline to to answer.

On 4/23/2017 at 5:54 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

 

But there is no suggestion in RONR that action taken in the absence of a quorum is invalid ONLY when when the votes of the absent members could have affected the result of the vote.

I would say having not enough members at the meeting to conduct business would effect the result. 

20 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think you meant to say the "UNEXECUTED part of an order can be rescinded or amended", not the "UNEXECUSED part".  Right?

Yes.  I'm blaming that one on Spell Check!!!! 

20 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

Well, if you think that it's possible for a standing rule to have the effect of suspending a rule of order, then so be it. But if it's actually a rule of order because it suspends a rule of order, then it's not a standing rule. So either way, there's no problem.

I don't, in the general case, but I think the bylaw could be interpreted that way.

I do think that the bylaw, "No rule in these Bylaws many be suspended, unless that rule provides for its own suspension," would work.

The advisability of adopting such a bylaw, is a different question. 

7 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

Is there a RONR reference for this?

 

Right. That's understood.

Thank you, both.

First, I would note that, as Alexis said, nothing in the description indicates that some action must be stopped when Rescind is moved.  It also indicates that an "unexcused part of an order can be rescinded or amended(p. 308, ll 21-23)."  That indicates that rescind only could stop an action when the motion to rescind is adopted, not when it is made. 

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Nice try, J.J., but no cigar. 

I think it works.  It says nothing about if rules other than a bylaw can be suspended; that would default to the parliamentary authority says about other rules.

Under  589, #3 , a rule that said, "No bylaw may be suspended," would yield to a clause in the bylaws that said a specific bylaw can be suspended, including something that isn't in the nature of a special rule.

The phrase, " Other rules of the society may be suspended" kind of opens the possibility that a standing rule could be adopted to suspend a something in nature of a rule of order.

4 minutes ago, ParliamentaryPlayer said:

I have a committee with multiple policy action items (8 total) As such, is there a motion to bundle these action items as a singular voting item instead of going line by line?

That can be done, provided that no one objects,  I would suggest that  the committee chair ask for unanimous consent that they be considered as a whole.

13 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

 

But if the society wishes to prohibit the suspension of rules of order in the bylaws, they are erasing the distinction between rules of order and other rules in the bylaws, so it seems perverse to craft a rule that specifically applies to rules of order in the bylaws. I agree with Dan that such a rule could be taken to imply that other rules in the bylaws --  those that are not rules of order -- can be suspended.

I do not agree,

Having adopted RONR, the society is in a position where a rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, unless that rule:

A.  Provides for its own suspension.

B.  Is in the nature of a rule of order.

That bylaw removes case B, but it leaves the remainder of the bylaw exists.

If there was a bylaw that said, "No one may enter the inner sanctum, except Shmuel and J. J.," and the words "and J. J." are removed, only Shmuel can enter the inner sanctum.  That would not say that, everyone else except J. J. could go into the inner sanctum.

Also p. 589, #4 would apply.

Perhaps an even more succinct way of expressing this would be:

"No bylaw may be suspended, unless that bylaw provides for its own suspension."

15 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Oh, I'm inclined to prefer Shmuel's version, since it avoids the implication that any rule in the bylaws that isn't in the nature of a rule of order can be suspended. 

A rule in the bylaws cannot be suspended, in the normal case, unless the rule is in the nature of a rule of order or the rule provides for its own suspension.  The second one seems to only remove the option of suspending a rule in the nature of a rule of order. 

The line, " Other rules of the society may be suspended if, and in the manner that, their suspension is provided for in the society's parliamentary authority," seems to be superfluous.  It merely restates the existing rule. 

There are no specific rules in RONR to cover this. 

4 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

It doesn't seem like a good idea. But if it's going to be done, I think it would be less confusing to not specifically mention rules of order, but rather to say something like this: "No rule contained in these bylaws may be suspended except for any rule whose suspension is explicitly provided for in these bylaws. Other rules of the society may be suspended if, and in the manner that, their suspension is provided for in the society's parliamentary authority."

I would go with this:

" Any rule in these Bylaws in the nature of a rule of order cannot be suspended, unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension."

The group that adopted it uses RONR. 

11 minutes ago, coleche said:

Hello  

Your help needed.

We have a couple of members that want to contest our election based on the fact that our membership did not recieve 10 days notification of election. Our bylaws state

"Prior written notice of ten days for any election shall be given to chapter members via U.S. postal service communication."  Which is debatable, because the President did send notice out via US mail, but it was sent out with other information as: campaign information and again with sample ballot. Also, it is in our bylaws that all elections are to be held in April and it was announced at a previous meetings.

Based on RONR (11th ed.)  pp. 444-446 shouldn't this have been done prior to voting and not after these candidates lost election?  What other recourse do we have in dealing with this issue?

Thank you!! 

Did the president send out something that said, "The election will be held on [date/time] at [location]?"  If the answer to the first question is yes, when did he mail it and when the date of the election?

If this a question on what are general types of things that can void an election, I'd say these:

1.  A violation of an absentee right, that could affect the result.

2.  A violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, that could affect the result.

3.  A violation of a basic right of an individual member, that could affect the result.

4.  A violation of the bylaws, unless the bylaw in question is in the nature of a suspendable rule of order (which might encompass one or more of these others).

5.  A violation of a procedural rule of law (which might encompass one or more of these others).