Tom Coronite

1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

There is such a thing as a main motion with a blank in it. No one I know has suggested that that is improper.

14 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

Oh? What about page 163 lines 5-11?

I think you guys are agreeing there IS such a thing.

Illegal votes (unintelligible ballots, ballots cast for an unidentifiable or ineligible candidate) are counted as votes cast, but not credited to any candidate or choice. (cf p 416, lines 2-5)

maybe that's what Drake Savory has in mind?

You may find RONR's treatment of "filling blanks" on pages 162-167 useful. But I'm not 100% sure that's what you're looking for, based on your question alone. Maybe some details would be helpful.

It's hard to say which is best without knowing the particulars of your assembly/society/group. 

But keep in mind, even if you do have a nominating committee that prepares a report, listing candidates for office, following the presentation of that report, there should still be an opportunity for (further) nominations from the floor.

Having the committee gauge interest and vet candidates may be something you value. Or, you may prefer to have the assembly nominate those it wishes.

That makes sense. But that sounds an awful lot more like taking attendance than determining if a quorum is present. 🙂

RONR specifies the procedure for a roll call vote indicating that the names are called, and the members respond when called. If that's not what was envisioned when this bylaw was written, I can't imagine what else would be.

If there's no "call" in the roll call, the secretary would simply be counting in his head, and why would he keep counting once he got to the number needed for a quorum?

Not to go off topic, hopefully, but I’m curious as to why you’d suspend the rules, rather than move to remove the item from being tabled.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

That's because it's common for threads to be moved from Advanced to Basic, and if there are any unread posts on a thead that is moved (i.e. any posts you haven't read), from that point on, the Advanced Forum will show up bold on the main page, as if it still had unread posts. You can eliminate that by clicking "mark site read." 

Ah! That makes sense. I will wonder no more. 🙂

18 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

 

Edited to add: Actually, it is not working correctly, I think. The button appears whether there is or is not a next unread post; if there isn't one and I click it, I get an error screen.

I find that happening exclusively in the Advanced Discussion forum. Interestingly enough (or maybe not interesting at all), previously I found that forum always indicated there were unread posts, even after I had read them all.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, that vacancy should have been filled when it occurred, but if it wasn't, the proper move is still to fill the VP vacancy, the person you fill it with becomes President, then you fill the VP vacancy again. 

Now that both President and VP positions are vacant, why wouldn't it be proper to fill both once, as opposed to filling the VP position twice?

20 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

It's because, in other areas, you can have formality for its own sake without doing any real harm. So people learn formality for its own sake as if it were part of proper procedure, and apply it in areas where it does do damage. That's my theory, at least.

Pretty good one, I'd say.

If bylaws specify an officer holds an office for a term of ___ years OR until a successor is elected, the officer may be removed at the pleasure of the society by a 2/3 vote, majority vote with previous notice, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Maybe you should pursue that. It seems that would solve your dilemma, which appears to be more about qualifications to hold office (your point) than when a term ends (the current chief's point).

Much would likely depend on the wording of your bylaws regarding the qualification(s) to hold office. 

It’s likely much would depend on the specifics of the amendment.

For example, if the motion were “to call/hire Rev Smith as Pastor” and someone proposed an amendment to add “for a term of 3 years” would you rule that out of order?

If the proposed amendment were “at a church other than this one” then I might be with you on that one.

Acknowledging that Mr Jstackpo and Mr Martin, and everyone else, for that matter are leaps and bounds beyond me as far as being “experts”...

I’d suggest again that you’d be better served focusing less on the status of the matter “struck” and more on the nature and purpose of the agenda itself.

I may be oversimplifying quite a bit, but it seems to me that you (SAA) are confusing listing and prioritizing items of business (agenda) with the actual conducting of the business of a meeting.

"New Business" simply refers to matters initiated in the present meeting. See p. 26 line 17.

If you're voting on adopting an agenda, you're dealing with that agenda, not the matters #1 and #2. Having a matter on an agenda isn't the same as moving it.

Maybe your group would be better served by using the standard order of business, rather than adopting an agenda. (Although I do note you said this was a hypothetical situation.)

5 hours ago, BrianP said:

I'm just beginning in the book as my question is page 4.

RONR (11th ed.) p. 4, l. 30 - the word "bases" should be "basis" to match

RONR (11th ed.) p. 5, l.4

Sounds the same but there is a subtle difference in the meaning.

I think the first case is the plural of basis, which is why bases is used. The second case is singular.

If anything, in your first case, perhaps the plural, decisions, would be a better fit.

On 12/20/2018 at 8:59 AM, Atul Kapur said:

@Tom Coronite said

I had the same problem. It seems the settings for this forum only allowed you a member title after reaching a certain number of posts (5000, I recall). Administrator SG changed that so it should work for you, too, now.

I recognize that this is an old thread, but wanted you to know.

Thank you!

8 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I tend to trust such matters to the electorate.  

A ton of wisdom in that short sentence!

17 hours ago, Guest SAA said:

 May a motion maker move to amend his/her own motion?

It’s an excellent way, after one senses the direction the discussion is going, of making the motion more likely to be adopted.

Another consideration, and an important one to ensure you follow, is what your bylaws say about how they may be amended. For example, there may be notice requirements for a bylaw amendment, and the scenario described in the OP could be taken as the motion being made without notice and adopted at the same meeting.

If a motion to do A & B was adopted by the body that has the authority to do that, it would take a motion to amend something previously adopted to change it.

You made the motion, and every "board member" approved it. Does that mean you are a member of the board and this was done at a board meeting and the board has authority to take such action?

I'm asking because you also say "members" are saying "they" will vote again. Members of the board, or members of the society/group? It makes me wonder if this is a case where the assembly may want to revisit what the board has done.

Agreeing wholeheartedly with Mr Brown's reply, I would suggest that a helpful way to achieve the buy-in you're looking for is to have some sessions with your church to go over the revision section by section. Even if you distribute the entire revision ahead of time, if the meeting is the first time your church has an opportunity to discuss it and ask questions, it's highly unlikely you'll get a simple up/down vote on the revision as a whole. There is much wisdom in RONR's instruction to consider the revision seriatim; that should not be bypassed.

(edited to fix grammar/wording)

5 hours ago, Tom Coronite said:

Not arguing, but rather honestly asking...

Does suspending the rules make the straw poll any less dilatory? And isn't that the reason such a poll is out of order?  So, are we, in effect, suspending the rules to allow a dilatory motion?

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I think RONR considers it not in order primarily because it neither adopts nor rejects anything.  As to being dilatory,  if a straw poll is dilatory, why on earth would going into a committee of the whole to do the same thing not be dilatory and probably much more time consuming?   If the question is simply a question as to whether a majority of the members prefer a picnic or a meal at a restaurant for their Memorial Day celebration, I think the straw poll is much quicker and simpler.  Then, after the assembly expresses its preference via the straw poll, they can appoint a committee to commence looking into restaurant alternatives and to make a recommendation at the next meeting. 

Going into a committee of the whole to do the same thing would likely take an hour of their time!!  Heck, I am willing to bet that the majority of small clubs and organizations don't even know what a committee of the whole is or how it functions or what it can and cannot do.  But we all know what a straw poll does:  it lets people express a non-binding preference.  And it takes only a few seconds.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No, of course, suspending the rules in and of itself does not make a dilatory motion any less dilatory. If a motion to suspend the rules is adopted by a 2/3 vote, however, this calls into question whether the straw poll is, in fact, “meaningless and dilatory” in this particular instance. Presumably the members who voted to suspend the rules did not feel that it was meaningless or dilatory.

Another solution would be to recess. In such a case, the assembly is not currently meeting, so the prohibition against straw polls does not apply. This also has the advantage of requiring only a majority vote.

Probably.

Thank you, both, for your explanations.

Not arguing, but rather honestly asking...

Does suspending the rules make the straw poll any less dilatory? And isn't that the reason such a poll is out of order?  So, are we, in effect, suspending the rules to allow a dilatory motion?