Richard Brown

Handyman, does the organization perhaps have a custom of doing what the rspected, well-known, influential member is insisting upon? Edited to add: if it does, it should abandon that custom and start authorizing the board or appointing a committee to actually approve the minutes of its meetings which are separated by more than a quarterly time interval.

There is nothing in RONR about having three readers or any other number of readers to review the minutes before they are approved by the assembly. The influential member does not get that from RONR. Perhaps he is thinking of the provision in RONR which says that if an assembly meets less often than quarterly, it is best to appoint a committee or to authorize the board to approve the minutes of those meetings and of the annual meeting to avoid having to wait until the next annual meeting.

Tammy, here are links to two other threads in the advanced forum about the phrase "majority of the quorum" and "majority of the quorum present". These might help you to understand the meaning (and history) of the phrase. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/27659-majority-of-a-quorum-or-23-of-a-quorum/ https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/17380-what%E2%80%99s-new-in-the-11th-edition-%E2%80%94-part-3-definition-of-%E2%80%9Cmajority-vote%E2%80%9D/

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, it is important to know whether this was a special meeting or a regularly scheduled meeting. If regularly scheduled, such as on the first Monday of every month, every member is presumed to know when the meetings will be held and notice is not necessary per RONR unless required by your own rules. As long as the meeting is otherwise proper (properly noticed or a regularly scheduled meeting), it can conduct business and adopt substantive motions as long as a quorum is present. If you give us more information, we can probably help you more.

Yes. It is still Section 44 in the 11th edition.

No. As I said in my earlier response, in my opinion the motion passed. btw, the book you are citing might be a helpful guide, but it is not the official parliamentary authority for organizations that adopt the current edition of RONR (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition) as the parliamentary authority. Here is a link to the "right book": http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html Your bylaws use non-standard antiquated language. You will not find the term used even once in RONR. I believe the majority of us who post on this forum interpret the phrase as meaning simply a "majority vote, assuming a quorum is present". You have to understand the history of the phrase to understand why it was ever used in the first place. We strongly urge organizations to avoid the term because it is so confusing and because RONR now clarifies that no substantive motions can be adopted in the absence of a quorum. However, because your organization has chosen to use confusing, non-standard language in its bylaws, it is ultimately up to your organization to interpret those bylaws. You do that by someone raising a point of order at the time the chair declares the outcome of the vote and then appealing from the decision of the chair. It requires a majority vote to overturn the decision of the chair. The decision of the chair is sustained on a tie vote. There are a couple of old threads in this forum where the vote of a "majority of the quorum present" is discussed. I will try to find those threads and post links to them. Two members of the authorship team weighed in rather extensively.

I agree with Mr. Katz and was going to suggest the same alternative: asking permission to withdraw the motion.

I agree. Larry, can you tell us what question number it is or what page it's on? Is it the "In Order" study guide or the regular one? I want to check mine. I have both versions.

As you probably already know, the phrase "majority vote of the quorum present" is a term not used or defined in RONR. However, my interpretation of that language is that as long as you have a quorum present, a regular majority vote is required. A vote of 9 to 5 satisfies that requirement and I would say the motion should have been declared adopted. Others might disagree, but since it is a term used in your bylaws and not even mentioned in RONR, it is up to your organization to interpret that provision. As to amending the bylaws, I strongly recommend that you remove the phrase "of the Quorum present". BTW, the most common quorum requirement for a board of directors is a majority, not 2/3.... and not 51% either. A majority is simply "more than half". In your case, that would still require 12 members to be present, but 51% is more than a majority. It is not the same thing.

That is a question which is not addressed in RONR and is actually outside the scope of this forum. It also may depend on your own organization's bylaws and rules. However, speaking personally, and in general, most of us who post on here regularly will probably tell you that we consider that a past president to be anyone who has ever been president. The immediate past president is the person who was most recently president. There can be many past presidents, but only one immediate past president. If the current president resigns prematurely, for example, he instantly and automatically becomes the immediate past president, displacing the person who was previously holding that position/title/honor or whatever. Even if the currently serving president resigns in disgrace over a scandal, he still becomes the immediate past president. So, having the immediate past president serve automatically on a board or as a committee chairman can be problematic for that reason. He may not want anything else to do with the organization and/or the organization may not want anything more to do with him, but they may be stuck with each other with such a provision in the bylaws. I would urge caution in having the IPP (immediate past president) automatically being in charge of anything. Others will say that he shouldn't even serve automatically on a board. I suggest you google the term, but you will probably have better luck researching immediate past president than immediate past commander simply because the term immediate past president comes up more often.

I've got all three editions of Robert's Rules For Dummies. All three are entirely consistent with the rule in RONR and speak in terms of having a personal or financial interest in the outcome not in common with other members.

Or unless state law provides otherwise, as might be the case here based on the information provided. I agree that this situation perhaps presents more of a legal question than a parliamentary one.

Are you sure about the part I have bolded? RONR seems to say pretty clearly on page 653 that the vote of a majority of the entire membership is an alternative to A & B as it does in just about all other instances where the vote of a majority of the entire membership is an option. Previous notice is not required with a vote of the majority of the entire membership. I apologize for bringing this up several days after the last post. I have just returned from a 3-day trip and am catching up and feel that this is too important a point to let pass.

I agree that if the bylaws require that nominations from the floor be permitted, the only way to prevent them would be by amending the bylaws. However, it is my understanding that if the bylaws are silent on that point, then preventing nominations from the floor could indeed be accomplished by the adoption of a Special Rule of Order. I don't think that including it in a policies and procedures manual would suffice unless it is adopted by the vote required to adopt it as a Special Rule of Order

Although RONR permits voting to be extended beyond the end of the meeting, I'm not at all sure that is appropriate in this particular case. There are two reasons. First, as I understand the facts, the voting had already taken place, the polls had closed, the votes had been counted and the motion had failed to pass. Some one or more members, being unhappy with the results, then wanted to extend the voting to try to get enough yes votes for the motion to pass. I do not believe that was proper. Second, the bylaws require such a vote to be taken at a meeting. That causes me to wonder whether extending the voting outside of a meeting would be proper.

It seems to me that a parliamentary inquiry is perfectly proper in a situation such as has been described. Some of the other methods are probably okay as well, but I personally would prefer the simple parliamentary inquiry, "Mr. Chairman, what is it that we are voting on?" or "What is the motion that we are debating?"

Actually, an adjourned meeting is a separate meeting, but is a continuation of the current session.

If the committee was supposed to have reported at this meeting but did not do so because no committee member was present to give the report, I don't think there was a need to postpone anything. This committee simply didn't report as it should have. It can and should report at the next meeting. No postponement was necessary. If the motions had not been previously referred to the committee and the intent at this meeting was to make the referral, the assembly could still have made the referral. It is not necessary that any of the committee members be present in order for a motion to be referred to the committee. Again, there was no need for the postponement. So, I'm not sure what to make of the postponement "until the committee is present". Such a postponement is clearly a postponement beyond the present session unless it is anticipated that a committee member will show up before the meeting adjourns. At any rate, it is improper to postpone a motion beyond the next session. In most societies, as Mr.Kapur pointed out, each meeting is a separate session. Any motions that were postponed beyond the end of the current meeting should come up as general orders in the order of business for "Unfinished Business and General Orders" at the next meeting. Motions which are postponed to the next session are "general orders". That would come up before new business. Edited to add: If the society is simply waiting for the committee to report, the committee can and probably should give its report at the appropriate point for that type committee (standing or special) report rather than waiting for Unfinished Business and General Orders.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say "seven were postponed until a certain committee was present". What does that statement mean? Can you elaborate?

Hmmm. So, we interrupt voting to vote on a point of order that the chair had no right to interrupt voting. Interesting.

I'm going to backtrack somewhat on my previous answer. In that answer, I said that my interpretation of the new bylaw provision is the same as Keefe's, namely that the new requirement is "a vote of two thirds of the entire membership". Now, I'm not so sure. Gary Novosielski's argument and rationale is pretty persuasive. Ultimately, it is a matter of this organization interpreting its own bylaws, but we seem to be weighing in with our own personal interpretations. Keefe knows it's the opinions of his members that count, not our opinions. But, perhaps we can help to resolve the issue. If we were not discussing a recent bylaw amendment and the new wording was the only wording that had ever been there, I would agree with Gary Novosielski's well stated interpretation, namely, that the requirement is an ordinary two thirds vote. I would say that the use of the term "eligible confessing members" refers to the body which must vote on a bylaw amendment. I would say that it is simply stating that it is the members, rather than an executive board or some other body, which must approve a bylaw change. So, I would take the position that the new wording means the same thing as the old wording, namely, an ordinary two thirds vote. RONR is clear on the language that should be used when the vote is to based on the votes of a majority or two thirds of the entire membership and this provision does not use that language. However, that position is complicated... and weakened.... by the fact that this is a change from the previous wording. I think the previous wording was clear that an ordinary two thirds vote is what was required, notwithstanding the use of the term "two thirds majority". I think we all know it means a two thirds vote. Since RONR tells us that we are to presume that nothing was put in the bylaws without a reason, we are left to wonder what the reason is for the change. Since the previous version was clear that an ordinary two thirds vote was required to amend the bylaws, it seems the new wording was likely intended to change the vote requirement for amending the bylaws. With that in mind, it seems to me that the most logical interpretation of the change, based on what I presume was the intent of the drafters, is that the new language requires the affirmative vote of two thirds of the entire membership, as opposed to the previous wording which required an ordinary two thirds vote. Perhaps the members who drafted the bylaw change are still around and can tell the other members what they intended the change to accomplish. Since the language is clearly ambiguous and subject to more than one interpretation, the intent of the drafters can be considered. Ultimately, this a question for the membership itself to decide. I don't know whether we have helped Keefe or if we have confused him further.

As an alternative, the matter or motion could be referred to a small committee, even a committee of one person, to pursue funding or to monitor the funding source and to report the status to the assembly at each regular meeting or in whatever manner or frequency the assembly instructs.

And one of those rules in the book (both books) is that a society can adopt special rules of order which supersede the rules in the book. I also believe it is the inherent right of a society to adopt special rules of order regardless of whether it is specifically permitted by the adopted parliamentary authority... as long as it isn't specifically prohibited. Perhaps this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but if I had a vote in the matter, I would vote that the adoption of special rules of order under the current bylaw provision is in order. All of this may actually be moot since the society is considering the adoption of different language which will clearly permit the adoption of special rules of order.

I agree with Bruce Lages. I think the answer to question 1 is "yes", the society may adopt special rules of order that supersede the rules in the adopted parliamentary authority, "Robert's Rules of Order Revised" (ROR). I say this for two reasons: First, ROR (Robert's Rules of Order Revised) makes plain on page 268 in Section 67 that a society may adopt "special rules of order as are needed to supplement their parliamentary authority". So, relying on the plain text of ROR, a society may adopt special rules of order. Second, the 11th edition of RONR provides, on an unnumbered page where it tells us how to cite the book, as follows: "This Eleventh Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe "Robert's Rules of Order," "Robert's Rules of Order Revised," "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," or "the current edition of" any of these titles, or the like, without specifying a particular edition." Therefore, regardless of whether this society is governed by ROR or the 11th edition of RONR, they both make plain that a society may adopt such special rules of order as it deems necessary and that those special rules or order supersede contrary provisions in the parliamentary authority.

For whatever my own opinion is worth, i would interpret the term to mean a majority vote of those present, which is actually the same thing as a majority of those present and voting. Note that that is not the same thing as a "majority of those present" or "a vote of the majority of those present".. Assume 100 members are present. 50 vote yes, 40 vote no and 10 abstain. If a "majority vote" is required, the motion is adopted. If a vote of "the majority of those present" is required, the motion would fail, as 50 is not a majority of 100. RONR suggests the use of the term "majority vote" when the approval of the majority of those present and voting is required. But, when the approval of the majority of those present is required, RONR suggests slightly different wording that removes all ambiguity. In such cases, RONR suggests "the vote of a majority of the members present". Instead of "majority vote", it is "the vote of a majority". It is a subtle but very important distinction. Note: The quoted language is also subject to being interpreted to mean a vote of the majority of the members present. That is the problem caused by using wording other than that suggested by RONR which has been refined over more than a hundred years. Ultimately, it is up to this society to interpret its own bylaw provision. Also, the term "en banc" means "the full court", but it doesn't mean that each and every member of the court must be present. Some might well be absent due to illness or being unavailable or may recuse themselves from hearing a particular case. I interpret the term, as used here, as meaning "a meeting of the group that will be deciding the issue before them". If we are discussing the student senate, then it means a meeting of the student senate.