J. J.

No. The point of order is raised first, and separately; it is raised when no question is pending. The point of order is "That the motion authorizing 123 was adopted at a meeting without a quorum," and because of that, the motion authorizing 123, and its effect, are null and void. Perhaps with some intervening business but in the same session, a motion to ratify "the motion authorizing 123." If adopted, the assembly says that the motion authorizing 123 and its effect are in full force. The assembly at the first point has determined that the motion authorizing 123, the one adopted at the last meeting, and its effect, are null and void. At the second point, the assembly has determined that the motion authorizing 123, the one adopted at the last meeting, is in full effect, even while the assembly was ruling that it is null and void. There may be some technical problems with that. Both the motion to ratify and that point of order apply to the exact same motion, the one that was adopted at the prior (inquorate) meeting.

If the chair announced that a quorum may not have been present and announced that, because of that, the assembly needed to adopt this motion at another meeting, that the chair effectively ruled that the meeting did not have a quorum. The chair's action was not textbook, but if he's around, he should be able to tell you that this in what he did.

About what? At the current meeting there is a quorum, presumably. A member, when nothing was pending, could raise a point of order, "That the motion authorizing 123 was adopted at a meeting without a quorum." The chair rules that there was no quorum and that the motion is not in effect. There is an appeal and the chair's decision is sustained. From what I can tell, technically, that motion authorizing 123 is null and void. From what I can tell, an original main motion, "That 123 be authorized," would be in order. Technically, a motion to ratify is not needed, at least in this case. There may, however, be a problem trying to approve a null and void motion via ratification. If the assembly is dealing with a motion to ratify, the points of order refer that motion ratify, not the original motion authorizing the action. A member raises of point of order, "that the motion to ratify is out of order, because there was a quorum when the that no quorum was present ." The chair would rule in one of three ways: A. Submit the point of order to the assembly. B. Rule that, "The motion to ratify is in order because it applies to a motion was adopted when no quorum was present." C. Rule that, "The motion to ratify is not in order because it applies to a motion was adopted when a quorum was present." The point of order applies to the motion to ratify. Assume that the was no quorum when the motion authorizing 123 was adopted, and member raises a point of order, "That the motion authorizing 123 was adopted at a meeting without a quorum." The point of order is found to be well taken. Immediately, a member moves "that the action authorizing 123 be ratified." That assembly would be be in a position of authorizing a motion that a few seconds ago it said was null and void; I would regard this, at least, as a violation of the rules of renewal. An original main motion, "that the 123 be authorized," would be in order, that authorization would begin if and when that main motion is adopted. Finding that the motion "that 123 be authorized" was adopted at an inquorate meeting and is null and void may technically prevent a ratification of the action authorizing 123. Finding that the motion to ratify is applicable because the motion "that 123 be authorized" was adopted at an inquorate meeting, clearly permits the assembly to use ratification.

I wholly disagree with the last statement. A motion was made to ratify an action taken a meeting that may or may not be inquorate. The chair can do one of three things: 1. State the motion. 2. Rule the motion out of order on the ground that the action was adopted by a quorate meeting. 3. Submit the question on the if the action was or was not taken at a quorate meeting to the assembly. By doing first, he has, effectively, said that there was no quorum when the decision was taken. By doing the second, he has determined that there was not sufficient evidence that the meeting was inquorate. By doing the third, he is asking the assembly if there is sufficient evidence that the meeting was inquorate. The second decision, is subject to appeal (unless the appeal is dilatory). The first decision is subject to a point of order, and that decision is subject to appeal (unless the appeal is dilatory). None of this happens prior to the motion to ratify being made. There needs to be no declaration that the action was authorized at an inquorate meeting. If the chair does feel that there is not enough evidence to show that the meeting was inquorate, he simply rules the motion out of order. His decision is almost always subject to appeal. The only was that the assembly could determine, before the motion to ratify was made, if there was a quorum would be to adopt an incidental main motion, "That there was no quorum present at the meeting where the motion to authorize _______ was adopted." I see no reason why such a main motion would be needed as prerequisite to entertain ratify. Just off the top of my head, I cannot think of any main motion that could not be introduced unless a prior motion was adopted, excluding those that change an adopted main motion.

I disagree on this point (though I a do agree with your other point). The text says: "Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include: action improperly taken in a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present (p.124, ll. 27-32)." The clause does not say **action that has been found to have been improperly taken in a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present.** Though not in this case, an inquorate meeting may adopt a motion knowing full well that it will need to be ratified. At the next properly called and quorate meeting someone moves to ratify the action. There is no need to make that determination. Even if a point of order is raised on the ground that ratification could not be entertained because it was not established that the action was taken at an inquorate meeting, the chair could still rule, "The motion to ratify is in order because it applies to a motion was adopted when no quorum was present." This may especially be true if the chair presided at the inquorate meeting. The chair, just by permitting the motion to ratify come before the assembly, has made the determination that the action was adopted at a meeting without a quorum. It is only if there is a challenge to the chair's determination, would the lack of a quorum need to be otherwise established.

I will agree here, if there is the possibility that the assembly makes this determination prior to the adoption to a motion to ratify.. In terms of the process, the motion to ratify, now introduced, would be subject to a point of order that it is out of order ratify an validly adopted motion. The chair could rule that the motion was not validly adopted because there was an absence of a quorum, and that the point is not well taken. That decision could be appealed and the assembly would rule, effectively, on if there was a quorum. The chair could rule the other way, that the motion to ratify is out of order because there a quorum. That decision could be appealed, and the assembly would again effectively rule on if there was on if there was a quorum. In either case, the chair could let the assembly decide. The chair's decision would be some version of either of these: "The motion to ratify is in order because it applies to a motion was adopted when no quorum was present." "The motion to ratify is not in order because it applies to a motion was adopted when quorum was present." Neither directly answers the question, "Was there a quorum present when the motion was adopted?" Both very clearly establish if there was quorum present. I'm using this because I expect this is closer to the situation described.

Agreeing, I would note that a quorum is usually based on the number of members present, not the number of officers present.

I have to agree with Messrs. Brown, Katz, and Martin. They bylaws have established a rule in their bylaws that, in effect, to engage in this activity, you have pay this fee. It is fairly common, an example being a registration fee for a convention, when authorized in the bylaws. You may be delegate, and, if attending, have a full right to make motions, debate, and vote. You may be prevented from attending by failing to pay the registration fee.

One problem that I see is the phrase, "pending resolution." Clearly, a resolution can be pending during different sessions. The analogy with renewal is not particularly good, because there was no motion to strike out only those specific words at a previous meeting. Generally renewal is used is when something is not adopted or not in force. Neither is the case here. There was a motion adopted and is, "in force" as being incorporated into the pending resolution. That is more of a problem with the analogy than the rule The rules in question are rules of order and they would apply to the next session. It is not necessary to state that. It is the normal case. I would note that the specific rule is more authoritative than the general one. The current wording does not lend it to the interpretation that the rules would not apply in the next session and that the assembly could initially strikeout only words that were inserted. Maybe a future text should clearly permit it.

It may or may not be advisable or a proper reporting of parliamentary law. I will be neutral on that. If the rule beginning on p. 139, l. 25 would end with the added words "during the same session," would at least begin to make these rules relating to amendments only applicable during the same session. That being said, there is a rule of order that says, in effect, "once words have been inserted, they cannot be removed, with the exceptions on page 140." Nothing in that rule of order indicates that the rule is not applicable in some other session. The general rule applies to the "pending resolution, (p. 139, ll 25-29)," not to the **pending resolution during that session.**

The people that adopted the amendment knew that, at the next session, the words that the inserted, could not just be cut out by a temporary majority. They would know this the same way that they would know that in the words were inserted and if reconsideration failed, those words could not just be cut out by a temporary majority at the same session. The question becomes if a rule of order remains in effect at the next session.

The rule on inserted words (p.140, ll. 13-28) is a rule of order. It isn't something "in the nature of a rule of order," or a "special rule of order." When the assembly adopted RONR, they adopted they adopted that as a rule of order. Rules of order do apply from session to session. The rule regarding inserting words is in continuous existence. It is in effect and does not need to be adopted at the session to remain in effect. Then there is the cases of Previous Question and Limits of Debate. Both of these motions involve suspending rules, almost always the rule that debate is limited twice for ten minutes. A rule cannot be suspended beyond the current session (pp. 74, 87, 264, ll.29-30). The rule that "once words are inserted they cannot be removed, with exceptions," paraphrasing, is a rule of order. As long as RONR is the adopted authority, that rule is in force even if the assembly doesn't take some action to adopt it in a given section. To make the argument that the rule providing "once words are inserted they cannot be removed, with exceptions" would not apply you would have to argue either: 1. That the rule is not a rule of order incorporated in RONR. (I think that is an impossibility) 2. That a rule of order will cease to function when the session ends. I do not see anything in text that even comes close the second one. It may be demonstrably false (pp. 16, ll. 21-28; 87, ll 7-10).

One problem that I am having with this is that the assembly can tie the hands of the the next session, by a majority vote, with a subsidiary motion, i.e. Commit. Likewise, when the next session is within a quarterly time interval, Lay on the Table can tie the hands of the next session, unless it does something else first. If the assembly can tie the hands of the next session in regard to considering the main motion as a whole, I would have a problem saying that the assembly could not tie the future session's hands (that session being within the quarterly time interval) for part of that motion. There are certainly situations where the effects of subsidiary motions will not tie the hands of the next session in regard to that main motion. But there are also cases where it will. I'm not seeing any way, based on pp. 87-8, to make that distinction, at least at this point in time.

Page 87, ll. 11-14 does refer to postponement, but note that something cannot be postponed "beyond" the next session. It does not say that the postponed question would be treated as a new question, in regard to amendment. Now perhaps it should. I can see some similarities with Limits of Debate and Previous Question. However, in both of those cases, the executed parts of those motions would not be effected.

Telling members that they have to step up if they want the club to continue may encourage participation.

I am paraphrasing one of our frequent contributors here John D. Stackpole. Basically announce that, since no one is interested in serving, maybe the society should be disbanded. That might spark interest.

Nominations from the floor are permitted, as are write in votes.

Yes, because renewal is limited for main motions and amendments to the same session (p. 338, ll. 5-14). Also based on the same citation, a defeated amendment could renewed in the same session, if, in the circumstance, it becomes a different question. In either case, as of now, I see nothing in that would override p. 140, ll. 13-28, that the inserted would cannot be changed, or struck out, except as provided. I am open to the idea that it could.

That has been my understanding.

Unless the bylaws, or applicable statute, permit something else, only members may vote. The nonmember could not vote.

We are given a set of conditions, in some cases implied, by the questioner, and we giving answers based on those parameters. Implied is that RONR is the authority. If that is not the case, my answers may be very different. Even if RONR is the parliamentary authority and this could be a continuation of the same session, there can be additional factors that would prevent reconsideration. It is also possible that no member that voted for the amendment at the earlier meeting is willing to move to reconsider at the upcoming meeting. It would even be possible that no member that voted for the amendment at the earlier meeting will be attending this upcoming meeting. There are things that will have to be determined by the questioner.

I agree, but I would note that this penalty could be rescinded.

The committee could report back almost immediately, or immediately, if a committee of one, especially if the one knows what to do. I will note that several of the forms of amendments, strike out and insert, striking out the previously inserted words along with others and the various forms of substitute also work. Suspending the rules is, of course, possible. It would also be possible for the committee adopt the motion and amend something previously adopted; if the committee is such that a majority of membership is present, this could be a viable option.

I think it quite possible that there was no violation of the rules in the first place. Whether an amendment germane or not can often be a matter of opinion. Even if a point of order was timely, it might not have been well taken, or the assembly decided it was germane on appeal. The fact that there was no point of order and that the amendment was adopted indicates that the assembly felt it was germane. The resolution itself includes something more than the previously adopted motion. On the face of it, the resolution is probably a different question. There is an element of judgment as to if a question is different enough to be entertained; the assembly exercised it judgement and felt that it was a different question. Where I disagree with you is if either of these things would constitute a breach in the first place. I will agree that a party central committee probably isn't a "committee" in the sense RONR uses the term. The best way to return to the motion to its prior form would be to send it to a committee, perhaps of one, to recommend that the amended words be removed (p. 176, ll. 20-31).

Different session?