Joshua Katz

Well, hopefully not. Here's one good practice: when new business comes up, a person makes a motion on a topic - i.e. "paint the clubhouse." It is likely in need of greater clarity. The assembly refers it to committee, which fills in the details, and reports out, at the next meeting, a motion to "paint the clubhouse red." Now debate is on that question. But what if I, a non-member of the committee (or a minority member) want it to be blue? Then I move to amend by striking red and inserting blue, and now debate is on the question: if the clubhouse is to be painted, should it be red or blue? We continue in this manner, getting the details right, and then vote on the now perfected motion. At each stage, we typically (absent filling a blank) face a binary choice (and even when we fill a blank, each vote is up or down), which avoids all the paradoxes of decision. Alternatively, just come in with a full-baked idea. Not having debate without a motion leads to more efficient meetings, in large part by encouraging informal collaboration and cooperation outside the meeting. Think of it this way: meetings are for business. Nights at the bar or a restaurant, with people who choose to come (either informally or by joining a committee) are for informal discussions. Those discussions eventually lead to motions, which are made at meetings.

I don't see what consequences we're discussing; as I understand it, the question is pointing out that individuals cannot speak for an organization of which they are not members. That said, sure, this is an approach that will work, but I don't think it is exclusive - to the point, there's nothing wrong with using a request for information, even if you strongly suspect you have the answer you seek - after all, that's a lot of how trial testimony works. Speaking in debate and saying that the association has taken no such position when, like the previous speaker, the OP is similarly unauthorized to speak for the association, seems like it could backfire to me. It just seems more strategic here to frame this as a question than as a contradictory statement. Plus you certainly don't want to say "the previous speaker has no authorization to speak for the association." First, if you don't either, you're in the same boat. Second, it is very close to a violation of decorum.

I'm having trouble keeping the different organizations straight. It seems the Neighborhood Association has its own committee (which, I'm guessing, is its board?), and we're talking about a public hearing before the city committee, which is something of a city council? What is your role in all this? Are you a member of the city council? If not, do you, owing to a special rule or an applicable law, have the unconditional right to speak and make motions at a city council meeting (or whatever meeting this is)? Assuming you can participate in debate and make motions, I would think a series of questions should do it: Mr. Chairman, is the speaker authorized to speak for the committee? Has the committee adopted such a position, and if so, when? Are those minutes publicly available? Is there an officer of the association present who can verify that the association takes such a position? What you shouldn't do is attack the people and call them liars, or accuse them of lying. Just aim to get the facts straight. If, when you ask questions, they are willing to take positions which are 'creative' with respect to the facts (and, remember, I have no idea what is true and what isn't), you can take it up with the association by asking to discipline the members for speaking on behalf of the association without authorization, and ask the association to take and publicize a clear position. But I see a bigger problem here. So far as I can tell, the only purpose of the association's committee is to review and support (or, presumably, not support, if that's what the review leads to) development projects. Assuming the items before the city are the sorts of things the committee is supposed to weigh in on, the committee ought to be making its position well known enough, at least to those in a position to decide, that individual members cannot get up at a public hearing and successfully misrepresent it. If its entire purpose is to say if the projects are a good idea or not, the city should hear from it, via its authorized representative (such as its chair), and not be fooled or misled by non-members of the committee giving second-hand claims as to what the committee thinks.

I don't know that I follow. If the amendment is simply to strike D and E, then I think, unless the changes are conforming, the question is divisible as to the two sections. When the motion to strike D is pending, though, it would only be in order, I would think, to amend by removing text from the strike, not by making it a strike and insert, because the insertion would not be in scope of notice. Similarly, a substitution for E would probably be out of scope of notice.

This is one of those myths of parliamentary procedure I find puzzling (like accepting the treasurer's report). I wonder how the idea developed that reports had to be approved by people with absolutely no knowledge of the relevant facts, rather than believing those who did the counting (unlike an audited report, where it makes sense for the assembly to act).

No, I think you're exactly right.

I agree. I fail to see how this can be characterized as the same statement in different words.

There is a difference between adopting recommendations contained within a report and adopting a report in its entirety. (Although, to be honest, I do not know why RONR says a motion to adopt a report in its entirety should be made by someone other than the reporting member, and I also do not know why it says this about officer reports.) I think we're all proceeding on the assumption that the discussion is about adopting recommendations made by the committee. Adopting a report in its entirety rarely is something that should be done.

I agree - you don't have to tell them about this difference because that's the rule, and if they look it up, they will know what the notice means. Agreed. Agreed, but we're still talking in circles. The question is what the rule is - saying "they should know the rule" doesn't resolve the matter. What notice was the member given? That a motion will be introduced for 50. Was that motion introduced? No, a different motion was introduced. Did the member have notice of that one? On its face, clearly not. But the argument here, which, granted, seems to be the majority view, is that there is some sort of implied notice, because what could have happened, instead, is that the motion that was noticed could have been made, and it could then have been amended. Fine - so do that. But, you will say, that's mindless formality unless there is a substantive difference. I agree - and there is, in fact, a substantive difference. One requires the majority to act, the other does not - the other gives the member who gave notice the power to unilaterally change his motion, which he could not do after he made it. So, let me ask you a question. When an original main motion is made, without notice at all, and is before the assembly, the mover may not modify it. No one could possibly have taken any action in reliance on the motion not being changed except by a majority vote, yet still he can't do it, only the assembly can, because it belongs to the assembly. What sense would it make to impose this stricture, yet in the case of notice - which is done precisely so that (when exact language is used) people will know what motion is to be made - allow the member to unilaterally change the motion? Yes, you can point to a formal difference, but I'm asking what the logical difference would be. I say it wouldn't make sense. Or, to put it another way - just as a motion, when made, is owned by the assembly, not the mover, so too notice, when made, is owned by the assembly - which is why anyone, not only the person who gave notice, may make the motion and gain the advantage of notice. None of which is to say that I'm definitively right. I don't think the answer is clear, as Mr. Honemann noted. I'm just saying that the answer is not "know the rules." Well, I don't think this argument is obviously wrong, but I also don't think it's obviously right. I think we both could find support for our respective positions in the various sources, and none either way in RONR, at least on its face. But it really, I think, comes down to the underlying question. Whether the motion is made and then amended, or simply made as amended, makes a difference as to the rights of absentees if and only if introducing it as amended is permitted.

I agree with all the above. Just to add a few points, RONR notes that some organizations have the practice of allowing the committee chair to act as if he is presiding over the adoption of the recommendations, and says they ought to cut it out (although more elegantly). Importantly, committees are not supposed to be neutral (most of the time). They are supposed to recommend things they think would be good, and to want them to be adopted. Even if the committee chair doesn't personally love the recommendations that come out of committee, he should not speak against them (since the chair, assuming he is reporting, is moving the recommendations). Committee members, though, are free to speak in debate against proposals they happen to dislike (or those they like, I guess, but they wouldn't do that) so long as they make no reference to proceedings in committee. Also, while presiding officers do often suggest motions as described in the OP, I personally dislike this practice, and prefer to avoid it for all but the most routine of motions (and, on the most routine of motions, it usually can be done away with and the motion assumed anyway, or, in the most routine case, the chair can simply declare the meeting adjourned when there is no further business). To my mind, "the chair will entertain a motion..." just about always signals formality for its own sake, not a meaningful or useful contribution to the meeting.

That's precisely what's at issue here. You're saying it's within the rules, but as was pointed out above, it's not clear in the text. I am saying it's not within the rules. The resolution must involve something other than saying absentees are on notice because it's permitted.

Yes, but they're also supposed to know that the rules for amendment will apply, which is the point I'm trying to make. If you allow it without following those rules, you are not doing what absentees expect.

I disagree. If the motion is made as noticed, it will take a majority to reduce the number to 40. If it is made for 40, it will take a majority to increase it to 50. If I did not go because I was comfortable with a motion for 50 being put up (perhaps I am confident it will fail, and that there will not be a majority to reduce it to 40), I do not have the opportunity to vote on the different question now presented - i.e. to vote in favor of increasing it to 50. If both votes would have exactly half support, this is a difference that will impact the outcome.

An ex-officio member of a body is a member by virtue of a position held. If they no longer hold that position, then they will no longer be members of the body.

Well, depends what you mean by "this," I suppose, I don't think deleting the Facebook post or thread (or whatever the right term is, I don't use Facebook) is a violation, unless you have rules about it. However, when it comes to petitions - the President has those powers assigned by the bylaws, and no others (unlike, Justice Jackson tells us, the President of the United States, who has three layers of powers, only one of them explicitly in the Constitution, or as believers in the unitary executive - like me - tell us, vast implicit powers). Your bylaws not only seem not to give the President the power to decide how these petitions should be handled, but to provide for their handling directly. Thus, your organization should follow its bylaws and honor those petitions (and, probably, only those petitions, but that could be a little unfair under the circumstances) which are turned in using the process in the bylaws. Furthermore, I would note that this seems to be an activity undertaken outside of a meeting, and therefore not a rule of order and not able to be suspended (although it can be amended by whatever process your organization uses to amend its bylaws).

Well, should it arise when I am consulting with an organization (it hasn't yet), I would intend, at least until convinced otherwise, to give the opinion I expressed above. But if an organization asked my honest opinion about who best to consult with, I think the answer would be clear. Here, questioners have the benefit of both of our answers - and I am happy to disagree with you and debate in theory, but when it comes to a practical answer, I think it is fair for me to defer. 🙂

Maybe. "Board Meeting" here would seem to mean a meeting of the board - i.e. one at which business may be conducted. "Meeting with management companies," on the other hand, sounds like talking to company representatives and exchanging information, and so wouldn't be covered - and wouldn't be expected to have minutes at all. However, one would think (although I'd need to know more about your rules to be sure) that the decision to hire one would need to be made at a meeting able to conduct business, so the minutes of that meeting would, so far as I know, be subject to the rule in question. But that's as much as I can say since I haven't seen the actual language, or the rest of your bylaws.

I'm also not sure which answers are being counted for which, but keep in mind that numbers don't tell the full story. If my answer conflicts with Mr. Honemann's, you should listen to him.

Well, it can be suspended, and it appears your organization has done so unanimously...until, of course, it hasn't. Are these voice votes? If so, I'm not sure much can be done (other than getting more honest members, although that is hard for a political party). If it's a balloted vote, of course, you can have the tellers control who turns in ballots. Well, you can't have everything. Why would spouses want to sit together, anyway? Aren't they sick of each other yet? You could credential people at each meeting and make the voting cards temporary. If you want to do it on the cheap, just get colored index cards, and don't let people know ahead of time what color you'll be using. Or don't they give out membership cards or whatever when you pay your dues? Yes you could, and yes it would.

Wouldn't it matter by what means notice was given? One means is to give the general subject - surely in that case there's no issue. On the other hand, the other method is to give the precise language of the motion, in which case it would seem to me that even changes within the scope of notice would not be permitted - of course, the member could simply not make the noticed motion, and give notice of the newly-desired motion for a later date. Alternatively, the member could make the motion as noticed, and then move to amend - or, preferably, seek unanimous consent to change it, to emphasize what is going on. If the new motion had any chance of passing, the assembly would probably not object.

A mobius pancake?

Personally, by the way, I wouldn't bother asking a non-member who is making assertions about procedure for a citation or justification for her claims. I'd just raise a point of order that non-members may only speak with permission, and that there is not unanimous consent to allow this particular interruption since I am objecting, so if the committee wishes to allow its employees to boss it around, it will need to vote to do so - and, if this committee is elected, this abdication to employees is something voters should consider.

Non-members may not raise points of order. This is not a point of order. Even if there is an applicable procedural statute causing this to make some sort of sense (committee debate time is for the committee, not for non-member staff), it is up to the chair to make rulings as to proper procedure, not the ACA. Furthermore, while the chair may seek advice from anyone he wishes, no one may provide advice on parliamentary procedure without being asked - especially non-members. Well, it's true enough that any side conversation, including with non-members, is a breach of etiquette, but she shouldn't have been speaking at this point at all. There might be state laws or local ordinances. Often these spell out, in mind-numbing detail, elements of public hearings and the like. Staff will only dominate the debate (and generally will do so) when the actual members, who are in positions of public trust, allow them to do so. In my opinion, it is a violation of the public trust to allow this.

Then you should amend your bylaws. The only officers, though, are the President, secretary, and treasurer. There really is no concept of "rank" here; the officers each have their own jobs. As to selection, well, I would think if the bylaws are silent that the assembly can choose from any of the methods in RONR, but the question becomes what the assembly is. The fact that the President must be a board member is indicative of something (although I'm not sure what). Can you quote verbatim how your board gets selected, and the designation of the officers?

But the facts here say nothing about the group of people giving binding instructions. That said, why couldn't the assembly adopt a motion authorizing the random group of people to give binding instructions? It's the full assembly, not a board.