Dan Honemann

Well, it's not a violation of Robert's Rules, it's a violation of the bylaws.

Without objection, so ordered. 🙂

Indefinite postponement of a motion is effectively a rejection of it, just the same as if it had been voted on and rejected. Withdrawal of a motion has no such effect.

Your best course of action is not to make the motion. And I'm not at all sure that I agree with my friend Dr. Stackpole that it is proper to make a motion and then, while speaking in debate on it, move its indefinite postponement.

It is certainly true that a special rule of order can effectively deny members the right to abstain since a rule requiring the vote of a majority of the members present (or a majority of the entire membership) can be created by a special rule of order (RONR, 11th ed., p. 404, ll. 20-24). But that's beside the point. The rule in question here is a rule which effectively denies a member who, for example, supports only two of three candidates the right to vote for the two candidates he supports, since he cannot do so without also voting for someone he does not support. A rule of this sort is a rule which effectively denies a member his right to vote for the candidates of his choice, and such a rule cannot be created except by a bylaw provision.

Well, no, what is said on page 356, lines 35 ff., does not tell us how an item of business can become a special order because what is said there refers to items which have already become special orders by some other means.

There's nothing to "correct", since no error has been committed. If the vote was on a motion requiring a majority vote for adoption, the motion was defeated. Additional facts would be helpful.

No.

All of the confused members (I'll admit that that is a good way to described them) were the ones causing whatever disorder existed, and they all voted no, which is exactly what they said they would do. They accomplished what they wanted to accomplish. Time to move on. And in any event, this has nothing to do with Robert's Rules of Order.……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..……………………………………….

The member who was allowed to express his reservations just prior to the vote had made it plain that he was not offering an amendment.

I don't think there was any real question about what was being voted on by the committee. The vote was simply preceded by one member stating that, although he would vote yes on the question being voted on, he wanted to make it clear that he would not vote yes in the full assembly unless certain conditions were met prior to the question coming to a vote.

But I'm not at all sure that any motion was pending at the time the effort was made to "ask" for a roll-call vote, and if not, any motion that the vote be taken by roll call would be a debatable main motion.

What are the regular time limits you are imposing? The rule in RONR is two speeches (of not more than ten minutes each) per member per day on any one motion. This is usually more than enough.

Strike out "roll call" and insert "counted division vote."

Just a simple request, huh? 🙂

You will find the rules regarding nonmembers rights (or, more accurately, the absence thereof) in RONR, 11th ed., on pages 644-45 and 648; and on page 263. As to the footnote on page 263, you will recall that a two-thirds vote is required to suspend rules of order. After you have reviewed what is said on these pages, let us know if you have any further questions.

The rules in RONR provide that the day of each regular meeting should be prescribed in the bylaws, and if this is not done, that notice must be sent to all members in advance of each regular meeting. (RONR, 11th ed. p. 89, ll. 5-15) It would appear, therefore, that in addition to amending the bylaws to remove the rule requiring that notice be sent, it will also be necessary to have the bylaws themselves fix the date on which regular meetings are to be held.

… preferably the same thing "it" refers to here. 🙂

The answer to your question is no. "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 470)

Although RONR tells us that, in these instances, the sole nominee is said to be elected by "acclamation", I must admit that I find "on the nod" better by far. Perhaps we shall make the change in some future edition. 🙂

No, it would appear that neither is appropriate. “The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly.” (RONR, 11th ed., p. 124) Any action taken before an assembly determines that a quorum is not present must be regarded as having been validly taken unless and until the assembly also determines that a quorum was not present at the time when such action was taken (RONR, 11th ed. p. 349, ll. 21-28). As best I can determine from the facts as stated, no such determination has as yet been made.

Nothing in Section 12 specifically refers to the treatment of motions to Amend which were finally disposed of by being adopted or rejected during a session preceding the session at which the motion to which they were previously applied is being considered, and the so the principle to which you refer has no application (at least not in the way in which you seem to think it does).

I'm afraid that the best I can do at the moment is to suggest to you that, while reading the rules in Section 12 relating to the effect which the adoption or rejection of a motion to Amend will have upon subsequent motions to Amend (such as, for example, those found on page 140, line 13 to page 141, line 4), you keep firmly in mind what is said on pages 87-88 concerning the freedom of each new session, as well as what is said on pages 336 ff. regarding the renewal of motions. Nothing that is said in Section 12 is intended to override or negate the basic principle concerning the freedom of each new session as reflected Sections 8 and 38 (and I suspect elsewhere, but I'm too lazy to keep looking).

Well, this is rather surprising. Would you all also say that, if this motion to Amend had been defeated instead of adopted it could not be renewed at the next session when the postponed resolution is taken up?

Yes.