Dan Honemann

Perhaps you missed my colleagues rather dashing point. 🙂

A presiding officer who thinks that a motion to create a rule such as the one you describe, which specifically says that it will be effective only for the duration of the session in progress, is a motion to create a special rule of order is not competent to serve as a presiding officer.

And you would tell him (I trust) that the rule he is proposing is not a special rule of order described in 2:22

I disagree. I suppose one could quibble about calling this a rule instead of an order, but this is of no real significance.

The motion you presented was as follows: "That the following special rule be adopted: Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes. This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session." The only thing wrong with this is the use of the word "special", which isn't even a part of the proposed rule which is clearly a rule described in 15:4. This is nothing more than a mistake in nomenclature. The substance of the proposed rule is what is important, and calling it by the wrong name is inconsequential.

Rather than rule it out of order, I think it would make much more sense for the chair to treat it as a motion described in 15:4, which is what it really is.

This is incorrect. A special rule of order is a rule which continues in effect from session to session (8:14).

In the first situation you described (Questions 1 and 2), the motion which was made and adopted was a motion to create a special rule of order. This motion was not in order because it was not business mentioned in the call of the special meeting. Its purported adoption was null and void, since it violated a rule protecting absentees, thus creating a continuing breach (see 23:6(d)). In your second situation (Questions 3-5), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption. In your third situation (Question 6), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

Question 3 is an entirely different question, having nothing to do with the vote required for adoption.

The answer to 4 and new question 6 are both no because, as indicated in 15:4 and 15:5(7), they both constitute a suspension of the rules.

The answer to question 1 is no, assuming that this motion to create a special rule of order is not the business described in B or C. The answer to question 2 is yes, assuming some attempt is made to enforce the rule at the next regular meeting. The answer to question 3 is yes. Such a motion is referred to in 15:4. The answer to questions 4 and 5 is no.

FAQ #10: A “proxy” is a means by which a member who expects to be absent from a meeting authorizes someone else to act in his or her place at the meeting. Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless federal, state, or other laws applicable to the society require it, or the bylaws of the organization authorize it, since proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly. As a consequence, the answers to any questions concerning the correct use of proxies, the extent of the power conferred by a proxy, the duration, revocability, or transferability of proxies, and so forth, must be found in the provisions of the law or bylaws which require or authorize their use. [RONR (12th ed.) 45:70–71.]

The limitations on use of the motion to Ratify are set forth in 10:55.

If a count was not ordered, the minutes would simply reflect that the motion was lost. If a count was order the minutes would say something such as "the motion was defeated by a vote of 3 in favor and 4 opposed."

Based solely upon the facts as stated, I do not think it is entirely clear that the action taken by the officers was in excess of their authority. If the action they took was in excess of their authority, I agree that a motion to ratify would be in order. If it was not, then such a motion would not be in order. If, after a careful review of the motion or motions which had been adopted, the bylaws, and applicable law (if any), doubt remains concerning the question as to whether or not the officers had the authority to do what they did, this question concerning their authority should first be answered by the organization's assembly (e.g., by raising a point of order concerning a motion made to ratify the action).

The adopted motion cannot be amended to add a proviso setting a date on which it is to become effective because the motion became effective upon its adoption. However, if no action has been taken to implement it, a motion can be made to add a proviso stating that no action is to be taken to implement it until some specified future time.

RONR, 12th ed., 47:8: " At each meeting, in addition to the necessary papers proper to that meeting's business, the presiding officer should have at hand: • a copy of the bylaws and other rules of the organization; • a copy of its parliamentary authority (that is, this book, if it is prescribed in the bylaws); • a list of all standing and special committees and their members; and • a memorandum of the complete order of business listing all known matters that are to come up, shown in proper sequence under the correct headings—or with their scheduled times—as applicable."

How is it that C did not receive a majority of the votes cast on the second ballot? What did the tellers report? In any event, the answer to your question is that repeated balloting is required until someone is elected by a majority vote.

I wouldn't think so. You're mixing apples and rutabagas. My previous response was referring to the fact that Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be used to add something that was said in debate to the adopted minutes of a meeting, such as has been described in the facts presented in this thread. This is obviously not an effort to correct "an error or material omission" in the minutes (48:15). Neither Rescind nor Rescind and Expunge from the Minutes can ever be used to do nothing but simply subtract something from previously adopted minutes. As noted in 35:1 (with emphasis added by me): "Rescind—also known as Repeal or Annul—is the motion by which a previous action or order can be canceled or countermanded. The effect of Rescind is to strike out an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted at some previous time. Amend Something Previously Adopted is the motion that can be used if it is desired to change only a part of the text, or to substitute a different version."

I presume the emoji means that you are not really looking for an answer to this question

I think a couple of things are worth noting in this regard. First of all, when RONR says, in 48:3, that "a majority vote may direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting", it is referring to the fact that this may be done by the adoption, by majority vote, of a subsidiary motion to amend the minutes while they are pending for adoption. If such a motion is rejected, or dies for lack of a second, the minutes make no mention of it. Secondly, what RONR says, in 48:15, is that, after minutes have been approved, they may be corrected by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, but this may only be done to correct "an error or material omission in the minutes". If I understand the motions complained of here, they certainly are not made for the purpose of correcting an error or material omission, and should be ruled out of order for this reason. The minutes then need only reflect that "a motion made by Mr. Smith to amend the minutes of the meeting held on October 20, 2023, to include statements which he made [or which Member B made] in debate was ruled out of order by the chair for the reason that it was not made for the purpose of correcting an error or material omission" (or some such thing).

No, I am simply saying that a subordinate board does not have the power to adopt a special rule of order such as that mentioned in 48:3.

Such a rule would have to be adopted by the whole membership.

As far as RONR is concerned, no perceived conflict of interest deprives a member of his right to vote, and his abstaining under such a circumstance has no effect upon the presence of a quorum. Your Council's rules may provide otherwise.

Well, one can always insist that RONR should not say what it says, but one is not entitled to deny that it says what it says. Earlier in this thread there seemed to be some misunderstanding as to what RONR says in this regard.