Josh Martin

“Motions to "reaffirm" a position previously taken by adopting a motion or resolution are not in order. Such a motion serves no useful purpose because the original motion is still in effect; also, possible attempts to amend a motion to reaffirm would come into conflict with the rules for the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35); and if such a motion to reaffirm failed, it would create an ambiguous situation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 104) RONR notes that “voting down a motion or resolution that would express a particular opinion is not the same as adopting a motion expressing the opposite opinion, since—if the motion is voted down—neither opinion has been expressed.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 105) As an example, the text notes that defeating a motion to “support” a position does not mean the assembly opposes the position. By the same token, it seems that defeating a motion to “reaffirm” a position is not the same as rejecting the position. The assembly has simply decided not to reaffirm the position. So I do not think that the parliamentary situation is ambiguous. The original motion remain in effect. I think what the text means is that the situation is confusing for the members of the assembly. Indeed, while I think they are ultimately incorrect, I fully understand why some members feel that the original motion is canceled. This seems consistent with the rest of the language in the “wording of a main motion” section, which is concerned less with parliamentary rules and more with guidance on wording motions clearly.

It is all well and good to suggest that if a society was to include a specific edition in its bylaws, there would be no real harm because it could be resolved by “one single meeting to change one single sentence once every ten years,” and if this were to actually occur, I suppose this would be perfectly fine. In practice, I am extremely doubtful that the vast majority of societies would remember to do this, and some sixty-odd years later the society now has as its parliamentary authority an edition which is long out of print and no one can find the society’s copy. As I understand it, the main purpose of the language in question is to provide clarity for those societies which do not specify a specific edition in their bylaws (which in my experience is most societies), to hopefully avoid arguments about which edition to use, and especially to clarify that certain other texts with “Robert’s Rules” in the title are not, in fact, legitimate editions of that work. I don’t think the intent of this language was principally to sell more books, and if it was, I can’t imagine it was very successful. Based on the questions we still get on this subject, I don’t think many people outside of this forum have read that page.

Not specifically, but there is a general provision which states that the board can only make decisions at a board meeting. ”In any case, a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting of which every board member has been notified—or at an adjournment of one of these meetings (pp. 93–94)—and at which a quorum (a majority of the total membership unless otherwise specified in the bylaws or established by the constituting power) is present. (See also Electronic Meetings, pp. 97–99.) The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone, by individual interviews, or in writing, even from every member of the board, is not the approval of the board, since the members lacked the opportunity to mutually debate and decide the matter as a deliberative body. If action is taken on such a basis, it must be ratified (pp. 124–25) at a regular or properly called board meeting in order to become an official act of the board.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 486-487)

One of the previous debates on this subject involves further review of the exact meaning of this statement: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32034-incorrect-parliamentary-authority/

No, I don’t think so. The rule in question requires the chair to notify the members of the change, but it does not appear to require the consent of members, nor does the rule appear to place limits on the reason(s) why the chair may change the time. I think your only recourse would be to attempt to amend the bylaws to change the rules on this subject.

I concur that the proposed change is unnecessary, although I would note that it has actually been only 49 years since the name was last changed. The name changed from “Robert’s Rules of Order Revised” to “Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised” with the release of the 7th edition in 1970. I would also add that, even in the event that the name is changed, this language (which will presumably continue to be included in future editions and updated to reflect new editions and new titles) will clarify the matter. “This Eleventh Edition supersedes all previous editions and is intended automatically to become the parliamentary authority in organizations whose bylaws prescribe "Robert's Rules of Order," "Robert's Rules of Order Revised," "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised," or "the current edition of" any of these titles, or the like, without specifying a particular edition. If the bylaws specifically identify one of the ten previous editions of the work as parliamentary authority, the bylaws should be amended to prescribe "the current edition of ‘Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised'" (see p. 588).”

If the bylaws simply said the meeting time was at 7:30 PM, and nothing else, I would agree. We are told, however, that the bylaws provide that the meeting time is at 7:30 PM “unless otherwise determined by the appropriate Chair in consultation with the Director and with proper notification to members, the media, employee groups and the public.” It is not yet clear whether these requirements were met.

Were all of these criteria met? I would not assume that. It seems to me that the change must be made for each meeting, with the required procedures followed each time. The change could only be made permanent by amending the bylaws.

The preferred terminology in RONR when a society intentionally does this is the word “adopt,” and “an affirmative vote on such a motion has the effect of the assembly's endorsing every word of the report—including the indicated facts and the reasoning—as its own statement (see also p. 124)... Adoption of an entire report is seldom wise except when it is to be issued or published in the name of the whole organization.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 508) If the motion fails, the society has not endorsed the entire report as its own statement. There are no other effects of a negative vote on such a motion. Many assemblies have an unfortunate habit of voting to “accept” all reports to come before the assembly. Although likely not meaning to do so, this may be interpreted as having the same effect as a motion to adopt, and for this reason (in addition to the fact that this practice is a waste of the assembly’s time), such practices should be halted immediately.

In my view, the proper interpretation in either case is that the section shall never be repealed or amended (and that there is therefore no solution if the organization later wishes to repeal or amend it), although the latter instance certainly makes this intent more clear. I also advise against adopting such provisions.

I hesitate to give a definitive answer without knowing all of the relevant facts (such as how the time was originally set, who is attempting to change it, how much notice is being given of the change, and what the organization’s rules say, if anything, on these subjects), but I would say that the answer to this question is generally “no.”

I think most people would generally conclude that making a motion, even on behalf of a committee, indicicates support for the motion, and therefore making the motion would undermine the parliamentarian’s appearance of impartiality. Furthermore, even if it is correct that the parliamentarian could maintain the appearance of impartiality by simply reporting the committee’s recommendation and making the motion to implement that recommendation, but then remaining silent in debate, this seems to be a disservice to the committee. It seems preferable to select a reporting member who could not only give the report and make the motion, but also speak in favor of it.

An organization is free to adopt such rules if it wishes. Generally, I would suggest that such rules would need to be in the bylaws. I do not think that a special rule of order, let alone a standing rule, would be sufficient. In the absence of such rules, the rules in RONR are controlling.

No one has suggested that the motion should not come before the assembly, or that a second is required. The only question is whether it is appropriate for the parliamentarian to make the motion, or if another member of the committee should make the motion. I am inclined to think that another member of the committee should make the motion, since the parliamentarian making the motion could interfere with his appearance of impartiality.

I would not suppose this (nor does it seem likely that there is an “emergency” which would necessitate moving a meeting up by a half hour).

In any event, the board does not have the authority to discipline members unless your bylaws so provide. If your bylaws are silent, only the membership would have the authority to discipline this person, and it is a lengthy process. See Ch. XX of RONR. As to the question of whether the member’s wife may vote on any motions concerning discipline against the member, see FAQ #9.

RONR has no rules concerning requiring “sponsors” or “cosponsors” (or “bills,” for that matter), so it has no answer to the question of whether the “sponsor” of a “bill” may make the motion to adopt it. If your organization has its own rules concerning these subjects, your organization will have to interpret them. So far as RONR is concerned, the procedure is simply that one member makes the motion and a different member seconds it. At first glance, however, I am puzzled as to why there would be any issue with the sponsor and the motion maker being the same person. It would seem logical that these would be the same person.

Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, the President could simply appoint this person to serve in the office unless and until someone else wishes to serve in it. There is no prohibition in RONR against serving in two offices. “The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 440) I am not certain of this. I think it depends on what exactly the bylaws say regarding the duties and authority if this position. It is not clear to me that all authority of a position can be properly exercised by someone who does not actually hold the position. I expect the concern is that the OP believes it is not permissible for one person to serve in multiple officer positions, not that the President is opposed to this person serving (or “filling in”).

See FAQ #20. For future reference, please post a new question as a new topic, even if an existing topic appears similar.

“A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move "that no response be made" to a request for a contribution to a fund, or "that our delegates be given no instructions," unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 104-105) In the case of an organization which has a bylaw provision such as the one you mention, such a motion could be adopted by the board for the purpose of preventing the membership from taking action on the given topic.

There is no rule explicitly prohibiting this, but I think most would agree that it is not the best idea. There is no rule requiring a certain number of tellers. If the assembly is sufficiently displeased with this, it is permissible to suspend the rules (by a 2/3 vote) to have the society elect the tellers instead.

This is entirely correct, however, I think it matters in that, if the rule actually makes the dropped candidates ineligible, members are presumably more likely to change their vote to a candidate who has not been dropped.

In this particular instance, I think the slate rule taken together with the rules which require any other nominations to be submitted 15 days in advance and notice given to the membership 7 days in advance suggests that these rules may not be suspended. The purpose of these rules seems to be to prevent votes for any candidates except those on the slate or those nominated by petition at least 15 days in advance. Since there is a requirement for previous notice, I do not think they could be suspended to permit write-in votes or additional candidates. I suppose the rules could be suspended to permit yes/no votes on each individual candidate on the slate.

I don’t think the bylaws are “plain” about this at all. If I were to hazard a guess about the method of election (and assume there is nothing else in the bylaws on this subject), I think it is referring to how the convention “may use multiple ballots or preference voting.” I have no idea what happens if the method of election is not presented six months in advance as required. It will ultimately be up to the organization to interpret its own bylaws.

As I said earlier, if Mr. Zook’s Interpretation is correct, then it would seem the required threshold is “a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, whichever is greater.” Which is greater will vary depending on the number of absences and abstentions.