Dan Honemann

I think this is an even worse idea then adoption of a rule dropping people's membership after they miss X meetings.

We are told that the motion to be considered seriatim will contain a large number of individual bylaw amendments addressing numerous subjects. Presumably, some of these are independent proposals which would have to be considered and voted on separately upon the demand of a single member, but once the assembly has decided to consider this motion seriatim it will be too late to demand a division of the question. Under these circumstances, I think it is incumbent upon the presiding officer to inform members at the convention that this is the case before a decision is made to consider this package of amendments seriatim. In any event, suppose, during seriatim consideration, a member becomes convinced that one of these independent bylaw amendments that have been proposed should be considered separately. I gather that now his only recourse will be to move to strike it out at the appropriate time, and if this motion is adopted, to move, after the pending main motion has been voted on, to adopt the proposed amendment that was struck out. He ought to explain that this is his intent during debate on his motion to strike out the proposed amendment.

Judgement? What's that, the Brooklyn spelling?

No, the rule that a secondary amendment cannot be amended is not just like the rule that motions to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate (or for the Previous Question) are not allowed in committees, since the rule that a secondary amendment cannot be amended is not a rule which is especially created for committees, and imposed only upon committees, which are subordinate bodies. Nothing in RONR says or implies that subordinate bodies have the power to suspend unique rules especially created and adopted for their governance by their parent assemblies. That would make no sense at all.

Yeah, Mr. Martin got it right.

Okay, and just to be clear, it seems that those who you say "are outraged" and "have held a caucus and are planning to write-in another name", will certainly be able to do so.

Let's take one step at a time. Do you now understand that if, as appears to be the case, your bylaws require a ballot vote for the election of officers, your past practice of having someone make a motion for the secretary to cast the ballot for the unopposed offices is very much out of order, and that it must not be allowed to happen again? This is what previously seemed to be your main concern.

Based solely upon what you have posted from your Bylaws, a ballot election is required.

No rule in RONR requires that a person be present in order to be nominated or elected.

I think that what is said on page 435 means that a nominee can indicate that he does not wish to be a candidate and will refuse to serve if elected, but this does not mean that he can "un-nominate himself", as Mr. Arnold phrases it. If the nominating committee is unable to meet and agree upon another nominee, I think the reluctant nominee will remain a nominee whether he likes it or not. Of course, we don't even know whether or not a nominating committee is involved in any of this.

I don't see how anyone can respond to your questions with any confidence, since a great deal more information as to the relevant facts and familiarity with all relevant provisions in your bylaws is necessary in order to do so. Generally speaking, however, I think it highly unlikely that an assembly can be forced, under any circumstances, to elect someone by acclamation against its will.

If there is such a thing as presumptive "nesting", wouldn't a rule such as the one which says that a motion to Suspend the Rules requires a second be rather meaningless, since it should be presumed that one of the rules sought to be suspended is the rule that a second is required?

Will someone please explain to me what all this business about "nesting" and "intermediate steps" has got to do with the question as to whether or not a motion to suspend the rules can be used to secure the adoption, without debate or amendment, of a proposal not previously introduced as well as one which has already been introduced?

I think it is almost certain that Guest Joe's City Council has its own rules governing the reconsideration of vetoed bills or resolutions. That is where Guest Joe needs to look. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, it is ordinarily in order to move to reconsider a vote previously taken on a subsidiary motion to amend a main motion while that main motion is pending (whether on reconsideration or not).

By "next meeting", HHH means "any later session", and each of your council's sessions may continue over a substantial period of time. Your city charter (or whatever) will determine this.

If you have no record of or recollection of the motion having been made and disposed of in some fashion, then I think you should include no record of it in your draft. When your draft of the minutes is presented for approval at the next meeting, the minutes can be corrected in any way the assembly itself decides, by majority vote or by unanimous consent, to correct them before approval.

Yes, if the vote fails, the motion you describe will have been defeated, but just to be clear, this is not the same thing as defeating a motion "to paint the clubhouse taupe", and will not preclude the making of a motion "to paint the clubhouse taupe" at any later time during the same session. Frankly, if you look carefully at the history behind the motion to "suspend the rules and agree to" (p. 262, ll. 6-8), some question arises as to whether or not such a motion to suspend the rules can be used to secure the adoption, without debate or amendment, of a proposal not previously introduced as well as one which has already been introduced. All three editions of ROR seemed to make it rather clear that it could be used in either instance (pp. 86-87). The 1970 edition of RONR, however, appears to refer only to instances in which the proposal has not as yet been introduced, whereas all subsequent editions appear to refer only to instances in which the proposal has already been introduced. For the time being, I'll accept Shmuel's word for it that this motion to "suspend the rules and agree to" can still be used in either instance.

If you vote "no", you are contributing to defeat of the motion, and if it is defeated, no motion will remain pending.

If a motion actually requires previous notice for its adoption, the only way to validly adopt it is to either, (I) give the requisite previous notice or, (ii) adopt it at a meeting at which all members are present. There are no other options.

And perhaps of even greater significance, what powers do the bylaws vest in the board? Based solely upon what has been posted, it appears that this club may have adopted bylaws which vest the power to adopt rules and regulations exclusively in the board.

Actually, what is merely crazy is a rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended." A rule "to never bring something up again and this rule cannot be suspended or rescinded or amended nor have a bylaws amendment proposed on it" is completely insane. The bylaws themselves may impose limits on their own amendment (unless some higher authority, such as applicable law, prohibits it), but if they do not do so, no lower ranking rule can do it.

I thought I answered this question earlier this morning when I said that the bylaws may be amended to incorporate a provision which conflicts with the rule, and if this happens, the bylaw provision will take precedence. For example, suppose the rule which was adopted (after previous notice and by a two-thirds vote) was that "there shall be no smoking in the club house, and this rule may not be suspended, rescinded or amended for a period of two years". This would not prevent the adoption of an amendment to the bylaws, at any time within this two-year period, incorporating into the bylaws a provision that "smoking shall be allowed in the club house at all times." I realize that all of this is a bit of an oversimplification of the facts, but I hope it's clear enough to make the point.

1808 has absolutely nothing to do with the restriction on amendments to which I referred (any which might deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate).

Do you really have some doubt about bylaws taking precedence over standing rules and special rules of order whenever they conflict? Gee, you will flunk that RP test. The part of Article V to which I referred was the very last part. It says that no amendment to the Constitution may be made which will deprive a state of its equal suffrage in the Senate without that state's consent.

A committee hearing is simply a type of committee meeting, and the quorum requirement doesn't change (RONR, 11th ed., p. 501, ll. 7-13).