J. J.

My problems here are these: 1. A defeated bylaw amendment can be reconsidered by a majority vote, even if it requires a 2/3 vote and previous notice. The fact that this does create a problem with absentee rights or the rights of an individual member, tells me that those things do not apply. 2. On its face, a motion "to suspend the rules and permit someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider the motion," does not "obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly." Therefor it does not meet the definition of being a dilatory motion. The assembly, by majority vote, is the ultimate authority on if the motion is dilatory. On the second point, I will concede that there are circumstances where the motion could be dilatory. I think I could say the same about any motion. I will also concede that there might be some other reason for rule the motion "to suspend the rules and permit someone who did not vote on the prevailing side to move to reconsider the motion" out of order in the general case, but not these two reasons.

You could say the same about any motion. We cannot tell if it dilatory until tested. The chair has to make that determination. In this specific case, the chair rules the motion to suspend the rules to permit a member voting on the losing side to move reconsider. The chair rules it out of order. The chair's decision is appealed and overturned. The motion will be considered by the assembly and could not be considered dilatory. You could pretty much say that about any motion.

However a motion can only be dilatory "if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation (p. 342, ll. 12-14)." This, assuming it gets a 2/3 vote, does not obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly. In fact, it expresses the will of the assembly in this case.

It was suggested that the reason for the higher voting requirement, e.g. unanimous consent, would be to protect the assembly from the dilatory use of a motion to reconsider. There is a problem because the majority determines if a motion is dilatory. If the majority wishes consider or reconsider something, that decision is solely within the control of the majority. At least on that ground, I could not rule that a 2/3 vote was insufficient to empowered the majority to determine what is dilatory.

I think that this is exactly right, as is an example of "one question at a time." I would refer to "Parliamentary Authorities’ Rule Shift Function," Parliamentary Journal, January 2005. I would note that, as stated in the article, this is a function that is far from unique to RONR.

I don't agree since such a rule does not protect that minority. Note that a failed bylaw amendment can be reconsidered by a majority vote, no matter the vote needed to adopt it.

Are you referring to the officers or directors?

IMO, no. Penn State is a large university, of which Abington Campus is part. Your bylaws read that: "ARTICLE VII Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in Robert’s Rules of Order, Tenth Edition shall govern meetings when they are not in conflict with the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the policies of the Pennsylvania State University, the Constitution of the Penn State Abington Student Government Association, these bylaws, or any special rules of order that this body may adopt." The policies of Abington Campus are not the policies of the "Pennsylvania State University," which has its own governance system for issuing policy. The policy making ability at Pennsylvania State University ultimately is delegated by the Board of Trustees, though the university president. It would, in my opinion, have to come from that level to be "the policies of the Pennsylvania State University." I would note that if the bylaw read the policies of the Pennsylvania State University and those of Abington Campus, the policy makers at you campus could do so.

You are correct. I shall fix it.

Sure, but I think, in this instance, it is impractical. This is not a question of walking into a local administrator's and sitting down with him to work out an arrangement. The change has to be made by the University, which is much larger than this particular campus; it more distant, both in terms of geography and responsiveness. It may be somewhat analogous to asking a state to change its laws to permit electronic meetings in incorporated organizations, even if the bylaws prohibit it. In other words, you can do it that way, but the pandemic might be over by the point it is adopted.

There is a difference between it being applied to an existing motion and being made as a main motion. The text currently does permit it. I have no reason for ruling the motion "that the endorsement for any candidate for US Senate be postponed indefinitely," out of order. I can see situations where it would not be dilatory.

That may be more difficult in this situation. The assembly would have to rely on an outside entity, Penn State University, to establish that policy. It is something that the assembly would not be able control.

Why would it be a motion to Rescind? The same effect could be achieved by rejecting the motion "That the assembly endorse (someone deplorable) for US Senate." If rejected it would suppress the question for the session by majority vote.

Why could it not be made?

Any time that a corresponding incidental main motion (IMM) is made, it is not the subsidiary. A motion, for example, "To appoint a committee to review and update the bylaws," is not the subsidiary motion To Refer To a Committee. A motion that the pending main motion that "That the assembly endorse the candidacy of James Thorton for US Senate" be Postponed Indefinitely is a subsidiary motion. A motion "that the endorsement for any candidate for US Senate be postponed indefinitely," is not a subsidiary motion. The adoption of such a motion would prohibit the consideration of endorsing any candidate for the US Senate during that session.

An example would be "I move that the endorsement for any candidate for mayor be postponed indefinitely." That would be made when no business is pending. It would be an incidental main motion, from what I can tell.

Well, since you, effectively, cannot tell yourself to violate your bylaws, you may have no other choice. You could revisit that decision and this could serve as a model for how to do it, without breaking the rules in the process (some ideas are might be found hear: https://pennstate.academia.edu/JonathanJacobs) To give an example, the Pennsylvania Association of Parliamentarians in person last month. It met on the porch of the state president with one member reporting the delegates in attendance. At no point did the two members attending remove their masks nor were they within 6 six feet of each other. The meeting adjourned for the lack of a quorum, but the bylaws were not violated, in letter, or spirit. It happened within 10 miles of your campus.

In my experience "publishing the transactions" is fairly rare. Even in cases where a court reporter transcribes what is said in the annual meeting, that transcription is rarely published.

I can see your point. Minutes, however, are truly not published just by being made public. Absent of an instruction that the proceedings be published, publicly disclosing the minutes is much different than publishing them.

If six members constitute a quorum, why is it not possible for those six to get together in a large area, e.g. a field or parking lot, well distant from each other, and have the meeting. It would be possible to informally discuss the proposed amendment via e-mail and then go through the process of handling it during the meeting. It would not have to be in an enclosed room. The RONR standard is that all members be in the same area; it does not specify the size of that area must be, provided that the members can see and hear each other (p. 1). BTW: I was in the SGA Altoona Senate many years ago, and I an class of 1985.

When the minutes are "published" a full transcript is published, not an abstract. A website would not usually the form for published minutes.

Does it exist in rules or a policy book? It is most likely you could use the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted. It most likely would require a majority of the entire membership, a majority vote with notice, a 2/3 vote.

I think someone would have the argument that it part of the general parliamentary law. In part, that is because the common parliamentary law nebulous.

While you might, with justification, suggest that this standard for the common or general parliamentary law, I think it is impossible to legitimately say that this is the RONR standard. I believe that you are correct that Ballin is controlling, though its prose might be a bit woolly. ;)

I have tried to come up with a procedural reason to rule a bylaw amendment out of order on the ground that is retroactive. In this case, the bylaws would clearly supersede any rule in RONR. I do agree with Mr. Martin that there probably easier methods to solve just about any problem. I recognize Dr. Kaptur's point that it could create problems, however, RONR does not make creating problems out of order. Amending the bylaws, and making a bylaw amendment retroactive, would be a solution. It may be ill advised and overly complicated, but it is not out of order.