Dan Honemann

I suggest that you take a careful look at SDC 6 for the motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted (RONR, 11th ed., p. 306), and what is said on pages 307-308 regarding amendment of such motions which go beyond the scope of notice given regarding their proposed amendment.

Well, the insertion of that word "voting" before "members" may give rise to a bit of an ambiguity unless there are members of this organization who, although they are "members", are not "voting members".

Your minutes should record exactly what was reported by the tellers (scrutineers), and the result of the vote as announced by the chair.

Go out of business?

I think it will be necessary to read the bylaws in their entirety before making any effort to answer this question.

Well, at the risk of starting another kerfuffle of sorts (let's hope not), I'll say that I much prefer your statement to the effect that a bylaw provision would be required to prohibit partial abstentions in instances such as this, as opposed to Mr. Brown's reference simply to an organization's rules as being sufficient.

I agree with Josh Martin when he says that there is some ambiguity in a rule that states that an “Officer who consistently neglects duties can be removed from office by 2/3 vote of the Executive Committee and the organization ….", particularly when it appears that only a portion of the rule has been provided (and perhaps paraphrased, even although in quotes), and when we are told that the parliamentarian interprets it as meaning that two-thirds of the Exec Committee and two-thirds of the organization must be present to vote, indicating that he or she believes, for some reason or other, that the requirement for adoption is a vote of two-thirds of the entire membership of each of these entities. I find the last phrase of the initial post, which indicates that the parliamentarian also opines that "if the voting results in a majority, then the officer is removed" so far out in left field that most likely something has been misstated.

Since you refer (using quotes) to a "friendly amendment", here is what RONR, 11th ed., says about such things (on p. 162): "The term 'friendly amendment' is often used to describe an amendment offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in the belief that the amendment will either improve the statement or effect of the main motion, presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or will increase the chances of the main motion's adoption. Regardless of whether or not the maker of the main motion 'accepts' the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted on formally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is handled under the same rules as amendments generally (see also pp. 295–98)."

I see no reason why a bylaw provision which says, in effect, that any bylaw provision may be suspended by the vote of a majority of the entire membership would not apply to a bylaw provision requiring previous notice of motions.

I gather that there is a requirement in your bylaws that previous notice must be given of proposed bylaw amendments, and I'm curious as to why you say that it appears that this rule cannot be suspended.

I suppose the problem is that the OP has not as yet advised us as to what, if anything, the bylaws provide which specifically relates to their amendment. All we have been told is that the bylaws state that "A simple majority vote will decide all actions".

Nothing at all on page 16 of RONR (11th ed.) is relevant to the questions you have raised. As has previously been noted, bylaw provisions may be adopted that restrict voting rights. You can, at any time in the future, propose the adoption of a bylaw amendment which will effectively remove any provision in the bylaws which you find improper or undesirable.

Yes. See RONR, 11th ed., pages 295-298 (paying particular attention to p. 298, ll. 1-2).

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.