Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Dan Honemann

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Dan Honemann

  1. No, a motion to ratify would not be appropriate. Since the motion was declared to have been adopted, it was adopted. It is too late now to argue that it needed a two-thirds vote for its adoption.
  2. Trouble is, it's been around for well over 100 years, and has been given the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). It's going to be rather tough to get rid of it now. πŸ™‚
  3. I do not understand this distinction you seem to be making between a ballot for a "candidate election" and the sample ballot in 45:24. The sample ballot is for the selection of a city for the next convention. Seattle and New Orleans were the two "candidates" nominated, were they not?
  4. Well, please keep in mind that your original question was about proper procedure under your municipality's "second reading rule." As Mr. Martin properly noted in his response, this is not a question about RONR, but about your municipality's own rules. He suggested consulting your City Clerk or City Attorney on this matter. You then followed up by positing a hypothetical question and asked how it should be handled under the rules in RONR. Please keep in mind that this is what we have been discussing. We have not been discussing proper procedure under your municipality's rules.
  5. I'll repeat what I said before: If an amendment is adopted to add a clause to one sentence of a main motion (as you previously described), and that main motion is then carried over to the next session by one of the ways described in 9:9, at this next session it will be in order to move to amend this sentence in the main motion by striking out the clause that was added to it at the previous session (or by any other change you care to make). The vote required to adopt this motion to amend will be a majority vote.
  6. Well, the only thought that comes quickly to mind is that perhaps my colleagues and I should consider making it even more obvious that 39:5 is referring to main motions. Although perhaps one might also note (when reading the last sentence) that the vote required to rescind or amend the product of a subsidiary motion to Amend that was adopted at an earlier session and now constitutes a part of a main motion that has been carried over from that session to the current session is simply a majority vote. πŸ™‚
  7. Well, perhaps not totally silent. A space for a write-in vote is provided in the form of ballot shown in 45:24, and there is a requirement that provision be made to allow voters to cast write-in votes if electronic devices are to be used for voting (45:42.
  8. According to your bylaws (as you describe them), it appears that your President remains your President until his or her successor is elected.
  9. The only thing previously adopted here was a subsidiary motion to Amend, and the main motion as thus amended has been carried over to, and is now pending in, a later session. Motions to Amend Something Previously Adopted are applicable only to things made or created by the adoption of one or more main motions, and are not at all applicable to situations such as the one you have described here. There need be no rule specifically allowing it; there must instead be a rule specifically prohibiting it. This is due to the general rule concerning the freedom of each new session, as described in 8:11-16, and as reflected in the more specific principle referred to in 12:25. In conformance with this general principle, 12:28 is limited, as it is, to words inserted or added during the same session.
  10. Well, if a quorum must be present in order for there to be such a thing as a majority vote it would be rather difficult to do all those things that can be done in the absence of a quorum.
  11. That's not what concerned me. You need to drop the last six words. πŸ™‚
  12. The rules in RONR clearly provide that the board does not have the authority to make this determination (RONR, 12th ed., 46:50).
  13. Thank you very much for providing this additional information. It does seem to be substantially what I previously supposed to be the case. I gather that a motion was made at your September meeting to amend the document you describe (which had been adopted in 2020) by making certain changes in some of its provisions to reflect changes in California's education code. During debate on this motion, members brought up and discussed the advisability of making certain other amendments to another section or sections of this document that have nothing at all to do with the provisions proposed to be amended. As I previously indicated, I agree with your former president that this was not in order. Debate on a motion must be confined to the merits of the pending question (RONR, 12th ed., 4:30, 43:20, and 61;10), and any proposed amendment to a motion must be germane, that is to say, it must in some way involve the same question raised by the motion that it proposes to amend (12:6, 12:16, 12:22(1)). It seems to be rather clear that these requirements were not met. The motion which was introduced at your September meeting was a motion to amend a portion of the document which was adopted in 2020. This sort of motion is discussed at length in Section 35 of RONR. Since no previous notice was given of the substance of the proposed amendment, a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership would have been required for its adoption. In any event, I understand that it was not adopted. Under these circumstances, it can be moved again at any later session.
  14. RONR does grant the chairman of a committee the authority to call meetings (50:21-22), and a meeting can be adjourned to meet again at the call of the chair (22:8). Although RONR doesn't say so, I would think that, in these instances, the chair would have the right to cancel any meeting called by him or her provided that reasonable notice of the cancellation is given to all members. But I'm open to different opinions.
  15. No, it is certainly not out of order. As I said, I think a call for the orders of the day would be in order for the purpose of calling the chair's attention to the fact that he has failed to notice that the time has arrived to take it up.
  16. You say that the amendment that was adopted was to add a clause to one sentence. At the next session, it will be in order to move to amend this sentence by striking out the clause that was added (or any other change you care to make).
  17. In what particular scenario? As I said before, If #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed during the March meeting, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it. I'm really not sure what you mean by this either. How does the motion (#45, I assume) "come up under new business". Is it the result of a point of order being raised, a call for the orders of the day, or simply by some member moving the adoption of #45 as if it were new business? But putting all that aside, I suppose the real question is this: "At what point, if any, during the March meeting will this breach of the rules (declaring the motion to postpone as having been validly adopted) cease to have any continuing force or effect if no point of order is raised concerning it and motion #45 is not taken up at or prior to the time to which it was purportedly postponed?". In my opinion, once the time to which motion #45 was purportedly postponed is reached, it will then and thereafter be too late to raise any point of order concerning the invalidity of its postponement. Instead, a call for the orders of the day may be in order. But this is simply my opinion. Others may have a better one
  18. I am now convinced that the trouble I have been having all along is that I have not known, and still do not know, exactly what has occurred here, and I have been assuming a number of facts that simply aren't correct. So perhaps a number of additional facts would be helpful: 1. Can you provide us with at least some idea as to the nature of the "document" referred to? If you are referring to your bylaws, or some other comparable document, the answer to your questions would most likely be easily found in Section 57 of RONR (12th ed.). 2. Is there anything at all in your bylaws concerning this document? 3. Was any previous notice given concerning the substance of the proposed amendments to this document? Obviously none was provided in the proposed agenda. Was this proposed agenda adopted? If notice was given, what sort of information did it provide? 4. When you say that "senators wanted to discuss language on the document that did not have proposed revisions and our former senate president told us we could not do that", did you mean that these senators attempted to propose amendments to this language or simply wanted to discuss it? If you can provide this information, it may help me somewhat in understanding what has occurred. Or not. πŸ™‚
  19. Well, I suppose that this is an accurate statement, but it doesn't mean much. The only act which I can think of that puts a main motion under the control of the assembly (makes it the property of the assembly) is the act of the presiding officer in stating the question on it when it is first introduced. After that, it will remain the property of the assembly, and under its control, until such time as it has been permanently disposed of. In the hypothetical case that you have posited, if no point of order is raised during the January meeting concerning the invalidity of the adoption of the motion to postpone main motion #45, that motion will remain within the control of the assembly by having been postponed to the March meeting. If, at that meeting, #45 is taken up at the time to which was postponed, the breach of the rules which occurred when the motion to postpone was declared to have been adopted will no longer have any continuing force or effect, having been fully complied with, and it will be too late to raise a point of order concerning it. If #45 is adopted, its adoption cannot thereafter be declared to be invalid because its postponement was null and void. It may have been null and void but it wasn't that null and void. So what then should be the effect of raising this point of order sometime during the March session prior to the time when #45 is taken up, and having that point of order declared to be well taken? I agree with you that no direct answer to this question will be found anywhere in RONR, and as a consequence the assembly will have to decide it for itself. As previously stated, I think that the assembly should decide that Motion 45 should be taken up at the time when it is in order to do so under unfinished business because that's what I think it is, the assembly never having finally disposed of it.
  • Create New...