Josh Martin

Yes, I understand that. That is why the rule in question reads the way it does. The board cannot strike a name and insert a new name in its place. If there were multiple names submitted, however, the board could strike one of those names and proceed to confirm the others, or the board could strike one of the names to force the President to submit a new name. Since there is only one nominee in this case, it would seem the motion cannot be modified at all, since striking the name would have the same effect as defeating the motion. Yes, I think it is correct that, so far as RONR is concerned, the President may not withdraw his nomination at this time.

RONR does not directly address the question of what happens if the chair wishes to withdraw a member he has nominated, it would seem that the general rule applies - that, when it is pending, it may be withdrawn at this point only with the assembly’s consent. As to the question regarding modification of the motion, I would note that the rules on this subject are unique. “Any member can then move to strike out one or more names—but not to insert new ones, which the chair must do if such a motion to strike out is adopted.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 495) This is, however, a rather unusual situation. It may be helpful if you could explain what exactly gives rise to this issue and what everyone is trying to accomplish. Or is this a purely hypothetical question? To be clear, however, the President withdrawing his nomination will not change the motion before the board. Yes, if the situation is that both the President and the nominee no longer wish for this person to serve, then it would seem rather pointless to confirm this person. I am not certain, however, that this is the situation. I can think of at least two other possibilities: The President no longer wishes for this person to serve, but both the board and the nominee wish for this person to serve. The board doesn’t intend to confirm the nomination - it wishes to go on record defeating the nomination.

First, check to see if your bylaws say anything about filling vacancies. If so, follow those rules. If they are silent on this subject but grant the board full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the general membership, then the board may act to accept the resignations and accept the vacancies. If they are silent on this subject and do not grant the board the authority mentioned here, the society itself would accept the resignations and fill the vacancies. In either of these cases, previous notice is required of the elections to fill the vacancies. Until the vacancies are filled, the Secretary would call meetings to order and preside over a brief election for a Chairman Pro Tempore, who would preside for the duration of the meeting, or until a new President is elected, whichever comes first.

So far as the rules in RONR are concerned, yes. Nothing in RONR permits a member to submit a resignation orally to the Mayor alone over lunch.

I don’t know whether it is legal, but it is not in compliance with RONR. A resignation may be submitted orally at a meeting or submitted in writing outside of a meeting. The board may not accept a resignation which has not been offered. Yes, but at this point, there is no resignation to accept. Regardless of whether the board believes the mayor, a resignation may be offered orally at a meeting or otherwise must be submitted in writing. Nothing in RONR permits a resignation to be submitted by a third party. I would add that, if the rules in RONR are controlling, previous notice is required to fill a vacancy. Since this appears to be some sort of public body, however, it seems highly likely that there is some rule in applicable law governing this subject.

Yes, I understand that some believe that there were two separate motions made - a motion to take some action, and then a separate motion to “approve” this motion. If this is in fact the case, this was improper, and may affect the proper understanding of what was referred to committee. My own reading of it, however, is that only one main motion was made on the subject (the motion to approve, which stated what was being approved) and the reference to “Matter comes to the floor” is an indication that the chair was announcing the next item on the agenda and/or a reference to informal discussion before a motion was made.

When no main motion is pending, the motion to Refer is in order as an incidental main motion. It is possible that the assembly erroneously believed that it was necessary to withdraw a main motion in order to refer that same main motion to the committee. It is also possible, however, that the assembly intended to refer only the general subject to the committee, in order to grant the committee more freedom in its consideration of this matter. We (and the committee) could spend all day guessing what the assembly meant, or the assembly could adopt instructions for the committee at its next meeting. The latter seems more productive.

Is it at all certain that this is “what they wanted to do and thought they were doing”? There appears to be significant disagreement within the assembly whether the amendments were referred, for instance. Perhaps it would be prudent for the assembly to instruct the committee on this matter at its next meeting, in order to clear up any ambiguity.

It would seem that neither of them were referred to committee, since the motion was withdrawn. If the intent was to refer the main motion, as amended, to committee, Step 4 should have been skipped. The motion to refer may be applied to a pending motion. If this had been done, it is indeed correct that the amendments would have been included. Since the motion was withdrawn, however, I think that the subject was referred to the committee, but no particular motion was referred. Follow the same process as above but skip the motion to withdraw.

No, unless the bylaws so provide. No, but it doesn’t seem it will be very difficult for her to be elected, given the lack of competition.

If a non-member parliamentarian is asked to speak on a matter not related to parliamentary procedure, then it would seem to me that the parliamentarian has no more right to speak in this regard than any other non-member. As a result, it is not sufficient for the chair to direct the parliamentarian to respond to this inquiry. That is a decision for the assembly to make. The chairman should ask whether there is any objection to the parliamentarian answering the inquiry. Whether the parliamentarian should answer the question, even if granted such permission, is a separate question. In this regard, the parliamentarian should keep in mind his obligation to maintain an appearance of impartiality. With all that said, however, I have no objection to the parliamentarian answering the hypothetical question about what is for lunch, although it seems doubtful this is what the OP had in mind.

That is correct. Yes. I’m not really clear on what “other inquiries” you have in mind, but as noted above, the parliamentarian is an advisor on parliamentary procedure. He is not permitted to respond to inquiries not related to his role.

Where do you get this idea? “A matter that the bylaws require to be attended to at a specified session, such as the election of officers, cannot, in advance and through a main motion, be postponed to another session. It can be taken up at any time when it is in order during the specified session (that is, either as originally convened or at any adjournment of it); and it can be postponed to an adjourned meeting in the manner explained above, after first adopting, if necessary, a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn. The adjourned meeting, as already stated, is a continuation of the same session. The procedure of postponing such a matter to an adjourned meeting is sometimes advisable, as in an annual meeting for the election of officers on a stormy night when, although a quorum is present, the attendance is abnormally small. If the matter has actually been taken up during the specified session as required, it also may be postponed beyond that session in accordance with the regular rules for the motion to Postpone. It is usually unwise to do so, however, unless completing it during the session proves impossible or impractical.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 185)

If no motion was pending, then a motion for a roll call vote must indeed specify what vote(s) it shall apply to, or the time period for which it shall apply, or in some other manner define the extent of its effect. In such instance, this is an incidental main motion, which means that it is debatable and amendable and would be recorded in the minutes. Since there appeared to be some discussion about extending this order past the current meeting, it should be noted that this would make it a special rule of order, which makes the requirement for its adoption a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice. Yes, it is correct that only the final motion needs to be in the minutes. I think some of the discussion that follows casts doubt on whether a motion was pending, such as this comment. I think the meaning of “duration” here is how long the effect of the order requiring roll call votes would be. Some of the ensuing discussion hints at this. Bill asks whether a roll call vote would be required if another vote on this topic in two months. Sue asks whether, if multiple motions are made on this topic in the present meeting, a roll call vote will be required on both. A motion relating to closing or opening the polls is only applicable to a ballot vote, but the size of the assembly is not a factor in whether such a motion is in order. “Motions relating to opening and closing the polls are applicable only with respect to ballot votes.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 286)

All I think this amounts to is that, if the chairman of Committee B makes his request without formally stating it as a motion to suspend the rules, the chairman should go ahead and state it as a motion to suspend the rules instead of being a jerk about it. I have no objection to this.

Such a motion is not debatable, but the chair was otherwise correct (assuming your organization does not have its own rules on this subject). When made while another motion is pending, the motion for a roll call vote automatically applies only to that motion, so most of this is unnecessary. I suppose an amendment regarding the order in which the roll would be called would be in order. By default, it is generally called in alphabetical order. This was most likely improper. See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13. Or if they were accepted by the mover, for that matter. This was not a main motion.

I would not presume that. Even if such a special rule is adopted, the members are still free to vote for any eligible candidate. ”An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See pp. 430–31.)” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 441, footnote) The assembly (and the candidates) will have to reach some sort of compromise. Even if such a rule is adopted, however, members are still free to vote for the dropped nominees, unless a rule in the bylaws provides otherwise.

Yes, I think the chair should respond that a motion to Suspend the Rules for this purpose is in order.

In my view, no new notice is required in any event. If the motion is carried over, through postponement or otherwise, to an adjourned meeting or the next regular meeting (within a quarterly interval), then I certainly think it is clear that no additional notice is required. I think it is an interesting question as to what happens in the event that no adjourned meeting is scheduled and the next regular meeting is not within a quarterly interval. As you note, in the ordinary case, a motion which is pending in such cases “falls to the ground” and dies upon adjournment of the session, in which event the motion must be made anew, and therefore any required notice must be given again. I am inclined to think, however, that an item which automatically becomes an order of the day due to a requirement in the bylaws (as opposed to the making of a motion) cannot “fall to the ground” in this manner, although I acknowledge that RONR does not directly address this question. Nonetheless, I certainly think it would be a good idea to provide notice of the completion of an incomplete election in any case, and especially if it will not occur for some time. Just the remaining four. I do not think 30 days of notice is required, but it wouldn’t hurt.

No, you can’t. You can make requests which are in order at that time. No, the worst that can happen is for the chair to rule your motion out of order. It is prohibited for a committee to make a recommendation outside the scope of its charge (which may be the case here), and it is also prohibited for a committee to make a recommendation on a matter which is currently under the control of another committee (both of which are the case here). I suppose that a motion to Suspend the Rules would be sufficient, as it does not seem to me that any of these rules are unsuspendable, but the chairman of another committee may not simply request to make a report on a matter referred to another committee, especially while the report of the other committee is pending. Committees are not free agents. They act only under the instructions and authority granted by the parent assembly or the society’s rules. Individual members of the committee (if they are also members of the assembly) are free to act as they wish, but committees cannot do whatever they please. If the society has instructed Committee A to investigate and report on this matter, it is not proper for Committee B to report on it, especially when it is not time for Committee B’s report. Actually, I think the business at hand is the report of Committee A on the subjects assigned to it.

No, I disagree that the Chairman of a committee may request to submit “a form of minority report” regarding the report of a different committee. There is no provision in RONR for such an action. It is of course correct that the individual members of Committee B (including the chairman) may speak in debate and offer amendments. If the committee wishes to report on the matter as a committee, a member of Committee B could move to refer the motion to the committee.

The chair may order the nonmember to be removed on his own if he is disruptive (subject to appeal) or if, by rule or custom, the board’s meetings are open only to members of the board. Otherwise, the board may order the nonmember to be removed, by majority vote. It should also be noted that, unless your rules otherwise, the situation would be the same even if this person had an invitation from the chair.

“The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise. In the case of a society whose bylaws confer upon its executive board full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly (as in the example on p. 578, ll. 11–15) without reserving to the society itself the exclusive right to fill vacancies, the executive board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies between meetings of the society's assembly.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 467) So if your bylaws grant the board “full power and authority over the society’s affairs between meetings of the society’s assembly,” then the board may fill the vacancy. If not, the vacancy is filled by the same body which elected the position in the first place.

Well, RONR already provides the following: “Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also pp. 394–95).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 451) This would seem to cover the most egregious conflicts, such as if the Vice President himself is the subject of the hearing. Additionally, the assembly has the power to suspend the rules (by a 2/3 vote) to remove the presiding officer for up to the duration of the current meeting, so if it is believed that the Vice President has a “conflict of interest” which will infringe upon his ability to maintain the appearance of impartiality required to effectively preside, and the VP does not willingly step aside, the assembly may exercise this power. So no, I do not think it needs to be explicitly stated. If the society wishes to add “conflict of interest” rules for such matters, however, it is free to do so. If this is done, it may be beneficial to either define a “conflict of interest” and/or to define who ultimately determines whether such a conflict exists.

No.