Dan Honemann

Well, ESP won't cut it. Adopting something by unanimous consent will.

ESP?

It doesn't. It refers only to the discharge of a committee (Sec. 36).

I'm afraid that you have virtually all of this quite wrong. A revision is an amendment. I suggest you read Sec. 57 in the current (11th) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised very carefully, particularly what is said on page 593 with respect to general revisions. As noted there, revisions should be considered seriatim, a procedure described in Sec. 28. By the way, I suspect that the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised may be your parliamentary authority, since it is the parliamentary authority of your National Society.

... and, if not reached in October, will come up again as unfinished business in November (even although one might not gather this based solely upon what is said in b ) on pages 236-237). :-)

No. (See RONR, 11th ed., p. 237, ll. 6-15.)

Yes, it's a good idea to make a marginal notation in the minutes that have been amended indicating that they were amended on such-and-such a date.

Game playing? In the usual case an assembly has no way of knowing, before it has adopted a motion authorizing the making of additional nominations, that not a single member will want to make one, and that the only thing that anyone wants to do is engage in further debate. To the best of my knowledge, the rules do not require that in order to make a motion to reopen nominations, the member making the motion must intend to make one himself. Perhaps he hopes that simply providing an opportunity to other members to make a nomination may prompt someone to do so. Who knows? In any event, I don't think it matters. I think he is entitled to make a motion to reopen nominations, and the assembly is entitled to decide for itself, by majority vote, whether or not it wishes to do so. "Why not just allow an undebatable incidental motion to reopen debate ... ?" Well, I suppose if I'm the presiding officer I wouldn't like it because I don't know much about such a motion. In post #1, Josh asks what vote is required to adopt a motion to reopen debate if it is in order. I don't know the answer. In post #38 he says he's warming to the idea that it will require a two-thirds vote. If such a motion is adopted, will it be in order to make another nomination, or will the adoption of a motion to reopen nominations still be required in order to do so? I don't know, but I would assume so. On the other hand, I have a set of rules to look to in Section 31 which relate to motions to reopen nominations, so, as the presiding officer, I probably would suggest to the member that he move to reopen nominations rather than to reopen debate. That would do a lot for my comfort level.

Well, the assembly, by majority vote, can authorize the making of nominations from the floor even after they have already been made by ballot (p. 437, ll, 3-7). Pretty much like a motion to reopen nominations, I suppose.

Yes, my view of it is that any member may move to reopen nominations, and if this undebatable motion is agreed to by a majority vote, any member who has not exhausted his right to speak in favor of a previously nominated person may do so (or, with the assembly's permission, may do so even if he has), and this will be the case regardless of whether or not anyone nominates someone new. And I'm still clinging to my assumption that debate is in order only while nominations are in order (as I said all the way back in post #2).

I suppose we can all dream up unusual situations in which various motions would be dilatory, but this is not of much value. The question originally asked was, if an assembly conducts a ballot vote for an election and no one is elected after the first round of balloting because no candidate receives a majority vote, is debate automatically reopened or, if not, is a motion to reopen debate in order and if so, what vote is required. In Q&A 176 on pages 474-75 of PL, reference is made to a situation in which the meeting was adjourned after the first round of balloting had been completed and while the tellers were counting the ballots. When the counting was completed, the tellers determined that no one had received a majority vote for the office of vice-president. General Robert said that, when the election comes up as unfinished business at the next meeting, nominations from the floor will automatically be in order, but this appears to be based primarily on the fact that the election is being resumed at a different meeting. I can find nothing in Robert's Rules to support the notion that either nominations or debate are automatically reopened between rounds of balloting during the same meeting (although it might be nice if there were). To the best of my knowledge, there is no such thing in RONR as a motion to reopen debate. There is such a thing as a motion to reopen nominations, which takes precedence over the pending election and requires only a majority vote for its adoption. I think it is entirely in order to make such a motion between rounds of balloting, and if such a motion is adopted, members who have not exhausted their right to speak in favor of a nominee may do so (or, with the assembly's permission, may speak again even if they have). As a consequence, under normal circumstances there should be no reason whatsoever to need to resort to a motion to suspend the rules in order to reopen debate.

I'm at a bit of a loss as to where we are in all of this. If, after the first round of balloting in an election, no one is elected because no candidate receives a majority vote, as best I can determine no one is asserting that it would not then be in order to move to reopen nominations. If such a motion is adopted, it will then be in order for any member to make a nomination and to speak in debate in support of that nominee. It will also be in order for any member to speak in debate in support of any other nominee (provided, of course, that he has not exhausted his right to speak in behalf of that nominee). If all of this is so, why is it necessary or desirable that there be some sort of "motion to reopen debate"?

I see nothing "off-base" in any of this.

This is an excellent example of one way to go about it.

I find this too broad a question to answer without involving too much typing on my part. If you will provide a number of examples of what you have in mind, both as to exactly what the statement is and the context in which it is made, it will make a response much easier. It may also make the answer rather obvious on the face of it. Generally speaking, relevant information of an adverse nature concerning a candidate may be included in a request for information addressed to a member making a nominating or seconding speech in favor of that candidate, or in a nominating or seconding speech in support of another candidate. However, I think a great deal of care and discretion is required in this regard.

Well, I think a legitimate reason for moving that nominations be reopened might be in order to make a seconding speech in favor of a candidate already nominated.

In my opinion, debate on nominations should be limited to speeches which are made when making or seconding (even although not required) nominations. This, I think, is indicated by what is said on pages 206 and 207 of PL (and on pp. 165-67 as well). I'll admit that nothing in RONR says that this is a rule of some sort, but there is precious little in RONR concerning debating nominations. Isn't George Mervosh supposed to be our resident expert on this subject?

But it is nominations that are debated, not the election.

Yes, but I think the best way would be to reopen nominations.

My assumption is that debate is in order only while nominations are in order.

RONR agrees. "A deliberative assembly or committee is normally entitled to determine whether nonmembers may attend or be excluded from its meetings (even when not in executive session)." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 96, ll. 21-24.)

Yes, perhaps this bylaw provision entangles quorum and voting requirements, which is unfortunate. In this connection, the discussion in What’s new in the 11th edition — Part 3: Definition of “majority vote” may be worth noting.

Even in an election, a bylaw provision that "a majority of the remaining directors ... shall choose a successor or successors" raises questions, unless you see no difference at all between "a majority of the remaining directors" and "the remaining directors."

The question, I suppose, is what does "a majority of the remaining directors though less than a quorum ... shall choose a successor or successors" mean. Does it mean that more than half of the remaining directors must vote in favor of a candidate in order for him to be chosen? If it simply said "the remaining directors though less than a quorum ... shall choose a successor or successors", there may not be any problem.

The following passages are just about all that Robert's Rules of Order has to say about hearsay and the standard of proof required in disciplinary proceedings: "Ordinarily it is impossible for the society to obtain legal proof of facts in disciplinary cases. To get at the truth under the conditions of such a trial, hearsay evidence has to be admissible, and judgment as to the best interests of the society may have to be based on it. Witnesses are not sworn. The persons with first-hand knowledge may be nonmembers, who probably will decline to testify, and may be willing only to reveal the facts privately to a single member on condition that their names in no way be connected with the case. Even members may be reluctant to give formal testimony against the accused. A member can be required to testify at a trial on pain of expulsion, but it is very seldom advisable to force such an issue." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 655, ll. 24-35) "A member who votes for a finding of guilt at a trial should be morally convinced, on the basis of the evidence he has heard, that the accused is guilty." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 668, ll. 16-18)