Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About paulmcclintock

  • Birthday August 12

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Near Seattle Washington

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Assume that a society's parliamentary authority is RONR, that the constitution requires a notice for meeting 14 to 60 days beforehand, and that the bylaws requires a notice for meetings 10 to 50 days beforehand. 1. Is a notice valid if sent 55 days beforehand? 2. Is a notice valid if sent 12 days beforehand? 3. Do both requirements have to be met, or does it suffice to only meet the constitution's requirements? (E.g., suppose there were no overlap, would 2 notices have to be sent?) Rather than answer that the society has to vote to interpret their rules, assume that you are a member and that such a vote is pending; how would you debate and vote? Thanks!
  2. (1) The concept of a proviso appears in RONR clearly in the context adjusting the time at which a bylaw amendment becomes effective (p. 597). Page 398 hints that it could be used more generally, as perhaps does tinted page 22. Would you agree that its use is not limited to bylaws (and perhaps other types of rules), nor to the time something is effective? For example, assume an important main motion is pending and a member fears the meeting may end with it still pending. The member would like an adjourned meeting, but only if the motion is still pending at adjournment. Can the member "move that when this meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet Tuesday at 7 PM if the pending motion is still pending when this meeting adjourns." Or "... with the proviso that the adjourned meeting be held only if the pending motion is not disposed of before this meeting adjourns." (2) Also, suppose an adjourned meeting was set for Tuesday due to expectations it would be needed, but with no such proviso as above, and with no business postponed or scheduled for it. If the current meeting completes its business (i.e. no one responds to "is there any further new business"), is the adjourned meeting thereby automatically cancelled, just as the current meeting is automatically subject to adjourning without a motion to adjourn? Assume no one thinks to rescind the motion establishing an adjourned meeting. Must the adjourned meeting be held, and supposing the officers and most members assumed it was automatically cancelled, could a quorum-sized faction meet and conduct new business in the name of the whole organization? (3) Can provisos be used with bylaw amendments to "sunset" a provision? E.g., "Amend bylaw article _ section _ by adding xxxx, with the proviso that this provision be automatically struck on January 1, 2020." Thanks in advance for your insights!
  3. I was trying to justify the use of the standard order of business for the 2nd session, because I originally planned a different scenario, with semi-annual meetings, and it remained as a useless, confusing thought in the scenario as posted. Sorry to be confusing! Thanks for all the feedback.
  4. Per bylaws, regular meetings are quarterly in months 3, 6, 9, 12, but bylaws allow cancelling meetings. In March, they cancel the June meeting, and a main motion MM is pending. MM can't be postponed to the next regular meeting (September) because it is more than a quarterly time interval. But is seems to me that in March you could schedule an adjourned meeting for August to continue the current session, and postpone a main motion to the August meeting, and if the August meeting lacks a quorum and adjourns, then at the September meeting the motion would automatically come up as unfinished business (a general order not reached at the August meeting). Postponing in March to the August adjourned meeting (5 months later) because it is in the same session. And the standard order of business applies because they usually have regular meetings quarterly. Is this correct?
  5. RONR 11th ed., page xxxvii, says: Jefferson compiled his Manual of Parliamentary Practice, published in 1801. In it, he extensively cited about fifty English works and documents on parliamentary law and related subjects. Among his sources, however, Jefferson in his preface to the Manual (p. xv) acknowledges primary indebtedness to Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons by John Hatsell, who was clerk of the House of Commons from 1768 to 1820. First published in 1781, Hatsell's work is today the best authority on eighteenth-century procedure in the House of Commons. An electronic search of Jefferson's Manual find's a several situations requiring a two-thirds vote. An electronic search of Hatsell's Precedents (4 volumes) found none.
  6. Suppose Division of the Question applies to an amendment, with the first part immediately pending when Previous Question is ordered on all pending motions. I assume that the PQ will also apply to the other parts. E.g. I move the following Resolution: Whereas A; Whereas B; Resolved C. I move to amend by inserting before Resolved the following: "Whereas C; Whereas D;". While C is immediately pending, the previous question on all pending questions is moved and adopted. My assumption is that D is included in that order. If the assumption is correct, then: When a main motion is divided and the previous question on all pending questions is ordered, the order does not apply to unreached divided parts. When an amendment is divided and the previous question on all pending questions is ordered, the order does apply to unreached divided parts.
  7. A: I move that we paint the meeting room red and buy a new gavel. B: I call for a separate vote on buying a new gavel. Chair: We will have a separate vote on buying a new gavel. The question is on the motion that we paint the meeting room red. C: I move to strike out "red" and insert "green." D: I move the previous question on all pending questions. [Adopted] Question, has the previous question been ordered for buying a new gavel? I.e., is it pending? The explanation of "immediately pending" on page 60 pertains to main motions in connection with subsidiary motions, but the example gavel motion isn't subsidiary. It automatically comes up as a main motion after the painting question is disposed of, though, so in some sense it seems to be pending while the painting motion is pending. Scenario 2: Similarly, if main motion MM1 is pending, and is "postponed till after consideration of [main] motion to __" [MM2], and MM2 is made and has an amendment pending, and teh previous question on all pending questions is ordered, does it include MM1? Scenario 3: MM1 is interrupted by a special order, which then has an amendment offered. Does ordering the previous question on all pending questions include MM1? These examples have an amendment in them, but if the answer if Yes to the above, then it seems the even without an amendment the assembly could order the previous question on all pending questions to include the other motions previously made but not yet disposed of and which automatically become immediately pending when the priority pending motions are disposed of. Correct? Perhaps this is all clear in RONR, but I couldn't find it. Thanks in advance for your feedback.
  8. I expect this is clarified in some existing thread, but I can't recall ever having this clear in my mind, so... RONR (11th ed., p. 343, l. 18-23) says "motions are out of order if they conflict with a motion that has been adopted by the society and has been neither rescinded, nor reconsidered and rejected after adoption. Such conflicting motions, if adopted, are null and void unless adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the motion previously adopted." OI 2006-18 concerns Amend Something Previously Adopted which was amended to be out of scope and then declared adopted with a majority vote without a timely point of order; the OI says a point of order must be timely. The final paragraph says: "In the case of a rule requiring a two-thirds vote, the rule protects a minority of any number greater than one-third of the members present. However, such rules may be suspended, and if a rule is suspendable, a point of order regarding its violation must be timely." Based on this OI quote seems to me to be in conflict with the RONR text. The page 343 situation allows a two-thirds vote (for example) to adopt a conflicting motion, and the OI says that a point of order in such a case would have to be timely, but RONR says it is null and void (presumably without time constraints).
  9. RONR p. 468, ll. 31-32 say that minutes should contain "the date and time of the meeting, and the place, if it is not always the same." An organized society can meet by teleconference per bylaws, and adopts RONR, but has no rule addressing this particular issue. Should (must?) the minutes contain the phone number and access code for the teleconference meeting as it's "location" (assuming it is not always the same)?
  10. Ah, I had missed these in RONR, which answer nicely the question. So even a delegation of one is in effect a committee of one. So reporting under Special Committees seems generally indicated. But if the President is ex officio a delegate, he/she could also give the report under the officers report, I'd think, as it relates to his/her duty as president. Thanks all for your feedback!
  11. An uncounted rising vote is taken. The chair declares the result. It is moved and seconded that the vote be counted. The chair does not process the motion for a counted vote, but instead immediately begins to retake the vote as a counted vote. Although the chair had the right to go to a counted vote before declaring the result (RONR p.52, l.24; p.281, l.29; p.285, l.15; p.401, l.34; p.559, l.19), does he have the right to do so afterward on his own initiative, as in this scenario? Can a point of order be raised that at this point only a majority vote can order a counted vote? - Just curious
  12. RONR p. 356, l. 5 ff says: "If an officer, in reporting, makes a recommendation, he should not himself move its implementation, but such a motion can be made by another member as soon as the officer has concluded his report." 1. Does it need a second, since there obviously is a second member (the officer) in favor of the motion made by another member? 2. If it does need a second, can the reporting officer second it? 3. Why is this "should not" rule in RONR? Thanks for any feedback! -- Paul McClintock
  • Create New...