Dan Honemann

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.

Of course. That's why I said that under such circumstances reconsideration is a "possibility".

Based solely upon what you have posted, it seems rather clear that the amendment which was adopted is in full force and effect.

Oh, I think you can expect that some change will be made in this troublesome language on page 499, but until then I think it best to construe it to mean that the right of committee members to call a meeting if the chair refuses to do so is not restricted to the committee's first meeting.

I'm always a bit unhappy about being asked to respond to questions when all relevant facts are not provided, and in this instance we still haven't told whether or not the meeting to which this resolution was postponed will be the next meeting in a continuation of the same session during which it was postponed. If so, reconsideration of the vote or votes by which the undesirable portions of the resolution and its preamble were inserted is a possibility, as has already been noted. If not, then when the resolution is brought back before the assembly, motions can be made to amend it and its preamble by striking out the undesirable portions.

I think the answer to this question is yes, a member's rights can be suspended through disciplinary proceedings, but I'm not sure what you mean when you refer to the "assemblies can't constrain future assemblies" principle. I suppose you may be referring to the one mentioned on page 87, lines 4-11, but I don't see what it has to do with any of this.

My guess is that this thread has languished for a few days without further response because virtually everyone agrees with Mr. Katz that whenever an original main motion has been divided before there has been any debate on it and before any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair, an objection to the consideration of any one of the parts into which it has been divided can be raised whenever that part becomes the immediately pending question provided that the objection is raised before there has been any debate on that part, and before any subsidiary motion applied to it (other than Lay on the Table) has been stated by the chair. Looks right to me.

And by the way, are you sure that the next meeting of this County Board will be a continuation of the same session as the one in which this motion was defeated? Normally, the next monthly meeting would constitute a new session, but it is true that county boards and city councils often operate under rules which extend the length of sessions for a substantial period of time, often for a year.

As previously noted, this is nonsense. Your board may be operating under rules which require such notice, but there is no such requirement in Robert's Rules. Just as the minutes of the first meeting should reflect exactly what actions were taken by the board at that meeting, the minutes of the second meeting should state exactly the wording used by the chair when putting to a vote the question on the member's request (RONR, 11th ed., p. 44, ll. 19-24; p. 469, ll. 10-21). It is not the secretary's job to characterize this motion in any way, such as referring to it as a motion to reconsider, or to rescind, or to ratify, and it is certainly not the secretary's job to reword it in some way in order for it to make more sense. Have your minutes reflect exactly the wording of the motion or motions voted on, as used by the chair when putting them to a vote.

I'm afraid that you will need to address this question, which concerns the meaning and effect of your state's statute, to an attorney in order to determine whether or not any administrative or judicial gloss sheds light on your question. Action taken in violation of procedural rules prescribed by applicable state law is null and void. Please understand, however, that what you have quoted from Sec. 47 of the 1915 edition has nothing to do with any of this.

No, I don't think so. I don't think that this right to participate in deliberation and discussion carries with it the right to make motions or raise points of order.

Based solely upon what you have posted it would appear that the answer to your first question is no, the Chairman, in his capacity as Chair of the meeting, without any determination from the quorum of the Board, did not satisfy the requirement in the bylaws relating to restriction of participation by nonmembers. However, in view of the fact that no point of order was raised at the time, it would also appear that the motions declared to have been adopted are valid and enforceable, assuming that they themselves do not conflict with the bylaws. In such a case, the procedure used in their consideration may be in conflict with the procedure mandated by the bylaws, but this, in my opinion, will not, in and of itself, invalidate the actions taken.

You're right (except that you may have meant to refer to page 251 rather than page 250 🙂). Take a look at what is said on page 12, line 8 to page 15, line 3, and on page 565, line 5 to page 566, line 16.