Dan Honemann
-
Posts
10,290 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Dan Honemann
-
-
While the minutes were being considered, would it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes? If so, what vote would be required to adopt such a motion?
No, it would not it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes.
-
I must learn more about this fascinating incidental motion.
What vote is required for its adoption? Is it a majority vote, just like other motions relating to methods of voting? Is it a majority vote even if the question to which it applies requires a higher vote?
With you indicating that it's out of order if the bylaws require a ballot vote, we know that it is actually deciding the question, not just a ceremonial gesture. However, you indicated (by quoting a starship captain) that it's merely a ceremony that decides nothing. Which is it?
What if the secretary were not a member of the assembly, would the motion to allow him to cast the vote be in order?
Who can move to reconsider the vote cast by the secretary (in situations where it can be reconsidered)?
Would a motion to not allow negative votes on a main motion be in order and require a majority vote?
I think General Robert may have answered some of your questions in Q&A #186 on page 477 of PL. Actually, I suppose I should refer to Q&A Nos 184 through 189 on pages 476-78, since they all appear to relate to this question.
-
Doesn't this imply that the assembly is thus denying the secretary his individual rights as a member to abstain and to vote for any eligible candidate? I agree with Tim that such actions would be out of order even if a ballot vote is not required.
Oh, I think Josh has this right.
-
In my opinion, a motion to Lay on the Table (like Previous Question) cannot properly be applied to approval of minutes. The assembly may, instead, adopt a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes (RONR, 11th ed., p. 474, ll. 8-18.).
-
"A record of the board's proceedings should be kept by the secretary, just as in any other assembly; these minutes are accessible only to the members of the board unless the board grants permission to a member of the society to inspect them, or unless the society by a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the total membership, or a majority vote if previous notice is given) orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly." RONR, 11th ed., p. 487
-
Yes, I know. But it makes the mistake of confusing the role of a minority of one third in determining the result of a two-thirds vote. In other words, if a rule protects a minority of one-third, that rule cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Tinted page 27, therefore, must have mistakenly assumed that one third in the negative would defeat a two-thirds vote. For why else would it have excluded it?
Although there may well be a nit to pick in #80 on tinted page 27, it in no way justifies post #26, since nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.
-
Don't believe what is said on tinted page 27 #80. A minority of one third cannot prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.
Nothing on tinted page 27, #80, says that a minority of one third can prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.
-
Let’s just say that RONR, by observing (on p. 128, ll. 19-24) that the making of a motion to Postpone Indefinitely “enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further”, neither endorses nor condemns its use for this purpose.
-
The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is indeed a different question, but debate is allowed on the main question, unlike with other subsidiary motions.
For instance, if a member repeatedly made amendments to a motion that, despite presenting different questions, clearly were introduced solely to prevent the main motion from coming to a vote, the chair should, as I understand it, rule such motions to be dilatory and out of order---such as an incident in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario where, in opposition to a bill to amalgamate several municipalities into one, the opposition introduced an amendment for each street in any of the affected municipalities to the effect that the residents of that street would receive a public consultation on the matter (sadly, they were ruled in order and the Legislative Assembly took several days to dispose of all the amendments).
So my question is why this use of Postpone Indefinitely is explicitly a legitimate use of the motion. The notion that it presents a different question is not necessarily sufficient, given the other circumstances where the chair can rule a motion to be dilatory.
To be precise, it isn't "explicitly a legitimate use of the motion", and it is also incorrect to say, as in post #1, that “to simply get more debate time … is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.”
RONR merely observes (on p. 128) that the making of this motion "enables members who have exhausted their right of debate on the main question to speak further because, as explained under Standard Characteristic 5, the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, though technically a new question, necessarily involves debate of the main question."
-
Is that an explanation of why the subversion is allowed?
It's an explanation of why there is no subversion (I'm guessing at what is meant by the use of the word in this context).
-
I don't refer to the use of the motion to kill the question without voting, which is precisely why it exists, but rather to simply get more debate time. Surely this use of the motion is a waste of time and a subversion of the notion that two-thirds are required to extend debate, yet at the same time, this is clearly expressed in RONR as being one of the uses of the motion.
Technically, the question before the assembly is a different question.
-
I had a dream that this topic had been locked.
That was just a gentle warning.
-
Officer George and I have established a society named the Assembly of Responsible Censure (ARC) with the sole purpose to study parliamentarian guides, manuals, practices and references and submit a collective definition, purpose and authorized use of censure on the RONR web site discussion forum.
Not a good idea -- it will almost certainly be deleted.
-
And if you don't have a quorum, but at least a majority of those in attendance feel this whole meeting-canceling business is not right, you can adopt a motion to Fix the Time to Adjourn To (Section 22, RONR 11th), creating an "adjourned meeting" (which actually would be a continuation of this meeting), at which you might have a quorum (if you can get the needed number of members there) and can get down to business.
That motion is called something else in the Deluxe Edition.
-
George, from what you've written about what's in your bylaws (which apparently don't refer to executive meetings), apparently no individual members have the authority to call an executive meeting, which would include the Chair. However, at a properly called meeting, you should be able to make a motion as to how to schedule these meetings. I would also suggest revising the bylaws to allow for special executive meetings to be called by executive members.
Please stop referring to "executive meetings".
-
Take a look at this earlier thread, for some relevant discussion of bylaws definitions of authority, and the relative authority of the board and the membership:
But keep in mind that applicable law (if any) controls if it conflicts with the rules in your bylaws or in RONR. Consult a lawyer.
-
Not sure if "chain of command" was the wording that was meant to be used. Organizations that I have been involved with have always listed officers as Chairman or President, Vice Chairman or Vice President, Secretary, and Treasurer. I think what Matt may have been looking for was who comes first, Treasurer or Secretary as a matter of protocol.
First for what?
-
Fair enough. But I doubt most regular chat room users would consider this fourm to be a chat room, as the term normally is used. Perhaps part of the problem is a lack of understanding of the actual nature of a properly-conducted chat room meeting. If so, maybe a debate would help to dispel some of the concerns.
Cheer up, the situation is worse than you think. Based upon my own personal experience, I am convinced that no meetings of any kind other than those held in a single room or area are held “under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.”
Forget about chat rooms. I have recently been involved in a number of telephone conference-call meetings (none involving more than five participants), and not one of them offered an opportunity for aural communication anywhere near to being equivalent to that offered by a meeting held in a single room or area.
Be that as it may, in setting forth (on pp. 1-2) the characteristics of a deliberative assembly, RONR is simply defining the kinds of gatherings to which its rules are principally applicable. This doesn’t mean that your chat rooms can’t use any of them. Be our guest!
-
The new section on electronic meetings (pp. 97-99) also emphasizes that 'the opportunity for simultaneous aural communication is essential to the deliberative character of the meeting.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 98 ll. 12-14). That suggests that the availability of 'simultaneous aural communication' is considered even more fundamentally necessary in some ways than the traditional requirement to meet in a single room. Like Mr. Merritt, I've been thinking about the implications of the requirement for 'simultaneous aural communication'... however, my focus has been on 'simultaneous' rather than on 'aural'... a different topic, with different questions than the ones raised in this thread.
Well, then let me ask you, what difference does it make whether or not a particular group possesses all of the characteristics listed on pages 1-2), and what do you make of what is said on page 2, lines 19-24?
-
The 11th edition, like the 10th, lists as one of the "distinguishing characteristics" of a "deliberative assembly":
- The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.
RONR (11th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14; RONR (10th ed.), p. 1, ll. 12-14 (emphasis added). Does this mean that a meeting compirised entirely of deaf people, who communicate solely through simulataneous visual means (ASL, PowerPoint, or the like) cannot be connsidered a deliberative assembly even though they are meeting "in a single room or area"?
Any group which "meets in a single room or area" is a group which possesses the characteristic of a group which "meets in a single room or area", so what's the problem?
Anyway, why do you ask (that is, what difference does it make whether or not a particular group possesses all of the characteristics listed on pages 1-2), and what do you make of what is said on page 2, lines 19-24?
- The group meets in a single room or area or under equivalent conditions of opportunity for simultaneous aural communication among all participants.
-
I have been asked how to record a point of personal privilege in board minutes and I am not sure how to do that. Would appreciate any assistance. Thank you.
What, exactly, was the point that was raised, what was the chair's ruling with respect to it, and if it was admitted as legitimate (they seldom are), what was its disposition?
-
We have an uncontested slate of officers.
As Chair of the Nominations Committee I would
Open the floor for other nominations
Hearing none
Entertain motion to close
Call for second
All in favor say aye, all opoosed
Close the floor
Is another motion needed to accept a candidate by acclamation or can I simply do that?
I have seen others start a new motion to accept the candidate by acclamation and then go through another round of asking for a second and then a voice vote.
As chair of the Nominations Committee you should be doing none of these things.
-
I would like to point out that in order to claim NAP credentials, one must be a member of NAP.
Well, this is certainly true, but I'm not sure what it is getting at at.
-
See it now?
Yeah. I'm pretty quick on the uptake, don't you think?
Secretary casting vote in uncontested election
in General Discussion
Posted
The statement found on page 443, lines 7-12, tells us what the chair should do if only one candidate is nominated (and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken), but if an assembly wishes to order that a vote be taken in an election, even although it isn't necessary, no rule in RONR prevents it from doing so. There are often very good reasons for ordering that a vote be taken by ballot, even if there is only one nominee.
All this business about the secretary casting a ballot in the assembly's behalf is an anachronism and much ado about nothing. A number of organizations still use this procedure instead of simply declaring a sole nominee elected, and RONR isn't about to stand in their way.
The same is not true with respect to the approval of minutes. Although it is not out of order to move that the minutes be approved, no vote of any kind is ever to be taken on approval of the minutes.