Richard Brown

You are correct, although it is not the preferred usage. The problem with that usage is that so many people.... and presiding officers.... are not aware that is a non-standard way of stating the motion for the previous question and can lead to it being improperly handled. For the benefit of those who don't have RONR, were is what it says about it on page 202, emphasizing that care must be taken to see that proper procedure is followed regardless of whether the member attempting to close debate uses non-standard terminology: "Further Rules and Explanation EQUAL APPLICATION OF RULES TO COLLOQUIAL FORMS SUCH AS "CALL FOR THE QUESTION." A motion such as "I call for [or "call"] the question" or "I move we vote now" is simply a motion for the Previous Question made in nonstandard form, and it is subject to all of the rules in this section. Care should be taken that failure to understand this fact does not lead to violation of members' rights of debate."

Based on his posts, I cannot tell if guest A Brown completely understands either the motion to reconsider or the motion for the previous question. I cannot tell if proper procedure was followed in either case. Part of my concern is based on his repeated statement in this thread and his other thread about members calling the question. A member may move the previous question, but it is not proper to ever simply call for the question or call the question or demand the question. When a member tries that, the chair should make sure it is treated properly as a motion for the previous question and that it is seconded and adopted by a two-thirds vote. Also, the member who moved it must have been properly recognized and did not simply shout it out without being recognized. If someone just shouted it out without having been recognized, the chair should ignore it, at least if anyone else is seeking recognition.

No, you are not.

I just deleted my response as I thought we were in the discussion about the bylaw amendment that got reconsidered. I think you have it right with your post immediately above, except that it is not proper to "call for the question" or to "call the question". The proper motion is, "I move the previous question". It requires a second, is not debatable and requires a two thirds vote for adoption.

The problem I am seeing is still with step four. The motion to reconsider is a two-part or a 2-Step motion. First, the assembly votes on whether to reconsider the motion. If that passes, then the motion which is being reconsidered is up for debate and a vote. It is in the same position it was in immediately before it was originally voted on. It can be adopted again or amended, or rejected. It sounds like it was rejected, but you are not saying so in plain language. I still don't understand exactly how your organization handled the motion to reconsider.

That's not the way I read it. That's the point that I said guest A Brown was not clear on. I think what he means or was trying to say that when the amendment to change the number from 50 to 40 was reconsidered, it failed upon reconsideration, causing the pending question to again be the original main motion to change the number in the Constitution from 50 to 30. It would help if A Brown would explain just what he means when he says the motion was reconsidered. Did they follow the proper two step process for reconsideration? Based on his description I don't think any of us can be sure exactly what was done during the so-called reconsideration. It sounds to me like they did it in just one step, bypassing a vote on the actual motion to reconsider and went directly to the reconsideration itself. Or perhaps he thinks that by adopting the motion to reconsider that in itself amounted to rejecting the motion to change 50 to 40.

I agree with Kim Goldsworthy. Amending the new number from 50 to 40 is within the scope of notice. It could be amended to any number between 50 and 30. Also, once the motion to reconsider is adopted, the motion which is being reconsidered is back in the same status as it was before it was originally adopted. It can be adopted again, amended, or rejected. As Dr. Kapur pointed out, a motion to reconsider is actually a two-step process. If the motion to reconsider is adopted, it simply means that the assembly will then, at that point, revisit (reconsider) the adoption of the motion being reconsidered. It opens that motion back up to debate and amendment. I can't tell from the original poster's comments whether this is what was done, but it seems clear to me that he and probably the assembly are under the impression that regardless of whether they followed the proper procedure, the adoption of the amendment changing the figure from 50 to 40 was reconsidered and failed upon reconsideration The motion to reconsider is a bit complicated and it is late, 1:30 a.m. in New Orleans, and I am tired, and perhaps I didn't express myself very well either! 😉

Yes, it is. However, as Guest Zev pointed out, the member who made the original motion has the right to be recognized and to speak first on his motion if he seeks recognition. If he chose not to speak first, then it was proper for the chair to recognize someone else who could immediately move the previous question. However, if the member who made the motion was seeking recognition to speak on it and the chair instead recognized a different member who moved the previous question, that was inappropriate and would have been subject to a point of order if one had been raised. The member who made the original motion should have immediately raised a point of order that he was entitled to preference in recognition and wanted to speak on his motion. That type of breach does not constitute a continuing breach and what was done is done and it is too late to do anything about it now.

Beats me, but from a purely logical and procedural standpoint, it seems it would be the reverse: the question would be "shall the ruling of the chair be overturned?" It seems to me that an appeal from the ruling of the chair is, in essence, a motion to overturn the ruling of the chair and that is the way the question should be put to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair, just as with any other motion. The motion would fail on a tie vote, thus sustaining the ruling of the chair. My best guess as to the reason for the rule is to preserve some sort of presumption that the ruling of the chair is correct. It does seem to be getting things backwards, though. Good question. I'm curious, too.

That's the question that Mr. Lages said he will not pursue at this time. Did you read the previous linked threads? They are not definitive, but my take away from them is that the recount can be used as a means for correcting the announcement even if the actual count doesn't change. That is something that I hope will be clarified in the 12th edition.

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, it doesn't matter if a proposed by law change conflicts with any rules in RONR because your own bylaws are superior and take priority. Your bylaws trump any contrary Provisions in RONR.

Thanks, Weldon! I realize I probably should have included that detail as well!

While I agree almost completely with my friend Mr. Mervosh, RONR does contain one small exception on page 240 to the general rule that once the chair declares the meeting adjourned, it is over. Here is the pertinent passage: "If the chair learns, immediately after declaring the assembly adjourned, that a member seeking the floor for one of these purposes had risen and addressed the chair before the adjournment was declared, then, since the adjournment was improper and this breach was promptly noted, the chair must call the meeting back to order—but only long enough for the purpose for which the member legitimately sought the floor."

Who or what is a "PE"?

I share the concern of GWCTD. It is my understanding that a point of order about an incorrect announcement of a vote result must be raised timely... immediately after the announcement and before the next item of business is taken up. The OP does seem to state that the bylaws require a majority vote to elect to office, but a bylaw provision regarding a vote requirement is in the nature of a rule of order. I don't believe the breach of such a rule constitutes a continuing breach. I would say that it is too late to raise a point of order about the result of the election unless it is within the time period allowed for ordering a recount. Even then, the issue is probably not with the vote count itself, but the chair's erroneous announcement that Candidate A had been elected. I'm fairly certain that a search of the forum will locate other threads where this issue has been discussed. If I recall correctly, there have been extensive discussions regarding the difference between a math error in calculating the result of a vote and a mistake by the chair as to the vote required for the adoption of a measure. I think the bottom line, though, is that a point of error order as to the chair's incorrect announcement of the result must be raised at the time of the breach. Edited to add: Official Interpretation 2006-18 seems to be applicable here: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

The society could always insist on such a rule, but it is not customary. Customarily, when a budget of a certain amount is approved for a project or even for the society as a whole, the treasurer (or the committee) is considered authorized to write checks for up to the budgeted amount. Amounts not budgeted usually do require specific approval. I think it is impractical in many organizations to require that each and every check be specifically and individually approved by the board or the membership. It should not be necessary, for example, to get board or membership approval every month for the treasurer to write the check for the rent, utilities, salaries, etc which have been, in essence, approved by the adoption of a budget including those expenditures.

But, it doesn't appear that the bylaws define such an officer as an "acting" officer. That is a position or custom that the organization seems to have informally adopted. The bylaws, from what I understand, just say that someone appointed to fill a vacancy serves until the next annual meeting. In my opinion, that makes such an officer a full fledged officer, not an "acting" officer. It is equivalent to having been elected, just perhaps for a shorter term... but not necessarily for a shorter term. It depends on when the term expires. It might be expiring at the next annual meeting.

Yep, sure did! Just learned something new. I don't know that I've ever seen that done here, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention to it or didn't know why it was being done. Thanks! btw, this is something that maybe should be posted in the "questions about the forum" section. This is good information to know.... there have been many times I have wanted to "tag" someone like that without actually inserting a quote, but didn't know how. Thanks!

And what does that do/accomplish? Does it send Stella 13 a notification of some kind?

Guest SSA, you are right that RONR does not directly address the issue of whether a member who made a motion may propose an amendment to his own motion in the traditional way of proposing amendments. RONR seems to pretty clearly take the position that a member who wants to propose a change to his own motion should seek to MODIFY his motion rather than to amend it. Or, if the motion has not yet been stated by the chair, he may withdraw or modify it without permission. I believe the reason we have not yet addressed your question with a definite yes or no answer is because of two things: First, RONR does not address it but seems to say that the preferred method is for the member to seek to modify his motion rather than to amend it. Second, a member is not permitted to speak against his own motion. He may vote against it, but he may not speak against it. By proposing an amendment, it can be argued that he is, in essence, speaking against his own motion. RONR seems to be getting around that thorny issue by saying that the original mover of a motion may seek to MODIFY it, avoiding a direct statement or rule as to whether he may propose an amendment as any other member would do. By proposing an amendment, he is saying, in essence, "I don't like my own motion and don't want it adopted in its current form". Here is the statement in RONR on page 393 regarding a member not speaking against his own motion: "REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97)." That statement, by saying that if the maker changes his mind while the motion is pending he should ask permission of the assembly to withdraw the motion (or, as stated elsewhere, to modify it), seems to indicate that a motion to amend it by the original maker might not be in order.... or at least would not be the preferred method. All of the statements I have found in RONR that appear to be pertinent suggest that the preferred method is for the maker to seek to modify his motion rather than to amend it. I agree that that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but it still seems to be what RONR says (or suggests). Also, the process of the maker asking permission to modify his motion, rather than to amend it, seems to me to be an easier route and one that the assembly is more likely to along with. However, you have asked a specific question and would like a specific answer. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that in my opinion nothing in RONR actually prohibits a member from proposing an amendment to his own motion and that he may therefore do so. This is based in at least some part on the language on page 3 and on the premise that proposing motions and amendments (which are actually motions) are rights of membership. I don't see where RONR has specifically taken that right away from a member who wants to propose an amendment to his own motion. Stay tuned. Others may well disagree.

Both Bruce Lages and Dr. Stackpole posted their comments just as I was about to post my reply. I agree with their responses. i think the person currently serving as president, no matter how he got the "job" or how long it is to last, is your president and will become the immediate past president the instant a new president takes office. Ultimately, however, this is a matter of bylaws interpretation and that is something that only your own members can do. Your organization must interpret its own bylaws. I don't know what you mean by your question of how to "flag" someone in a reply. Where are you seeing that option? Usually, to "flag" a post means to report it as inappropriate. I haven't seen anything inappropriate in this thread. Are you perhaps asking how to "tag" someone, like we do in Facebook? This forum does not offer that option, but if you use the quote feature to quote a member's post, he might receive a notification that he has been quoted... depending on his notification settings.

If RONR is your parliamentary authority, only members of the organization which is meeting have the right to speak at meetings. Non-members are considered guests and have no rights at all from a parliamentary standpoint. However, they may be permitted to speak by a majority vote or unanimous consent or based on your own rules. This issue is frequently handled by the presiding officer as long as there is no objection from a member. It is important to note that your own bylaws and rules and school policies and stae law will probably supersede any of the rules in RONR.

That is an issue which RONR does not address. You have to interpret your own bylaws when it comes to past presidents. However, most of my colleagues and I are of the opinion that anyone who has ever been president, even for one day, is a past president. Also, in the opinion of most of us, the immediate past president is the last person who served as president, regardless of how he became president or how he ceased to be president. Do your bylaws actually provide for such a thing as an acting president? I'm thinking that person either was or was not your president. There is no provision in RONR for an acting president. Please explain what you mean by acting president and how he came to be acting president and whether that office is provided for in your bylaws. It is ultimately going to be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but we will give you what guidance we can.

Thanks, Hieu, that is very helpful. I had completely forgotten about that old thread. Reading it again just now, I'm struck by how I said just about exactly the same thing about the subject in my posts today as I did in that old thread from three and a half years ago!

How about this language from pages 295-296: "REQUEST FOR PERMISSION (OR LEAVE) TO WITHDRAW OR MODIFY A MOTION. Conditions for withdrawing or modifying a motion depend upon how soon the mover states his wish to withdraw or modify it. Permission for him to do so is required only after the motion to which it pertains has been stated by the chair as pending. Before a motion has been stated by the chair, it is the property of its mover, who can withdraw it or modify it without asking the consent of anyone. Thus, in the brief interval between the making of a motion and the time when the chair [page 296] places it before the assembly by stating it, the maker can withdraw it as follows: MEMBER A (who made the motion): Madam President, I withdraw the motion. Or: MEMBER A (who made the motion): Mr. President, I wish to modify the motion by striking out "demand" and inserting "urge." In the same interval also, another member can ask if the maker of the motion is willing to withdraw it or accept a change in it, which suggestion the maker can either accept or reject. In such a case the chair either announces, "The motion has been withdrawn," or states the question on the modified motion. If a motion is modified, the seconder can withdraw his second. When the seconder withdraws his second to the modified motion, the member who suggested the modification has, in effect, supplied a second. After a motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the meeting as a whole, and the maker must request the assembly's permission to withdraw or modify his own motion, according to the rules stated in Standard Characteristics 1–8, above. In such cases the procedure is as follows." Edited to add: All of our citations are to the 11th edition of RONR. Is that the edition you are using? btw, the citation Mr. Huynh gave you is the procedure to be used when the maker wants to modify his motion after it has been stated by the chair and is "the property of the assembly". The citation I gave you is the procedure for withdrawing or modifying a motion before it has been stated by the chair and placed before the assembly.