Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

paulmcclintock

Members
  • Content count

    98
  • 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. paulmcclintock

    Postponing beyond a quarter via adjourned meeting?

    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.
  2. 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?
  3. paulmcclintock

    Two Thirds vote to close debate, History

    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.
  4. 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.
  5. Dan, Thanks super much for your reply! I like the logic and clarity! Paul
  6. 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.
  7. 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).
  8. 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)?
  9. paulmcclintock

    Where does a delegate report to his unit occur in agenda?

    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!
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. paulmcclintock

    Need second for officer recommendation?

    Thanks! That's helpful.
  13. RONR, page 356, lines 5-8 states: "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." After another member makes the motion, does it need a second? I think not, since the recommendation from the officer already ensures that a second member wishes for the motion to be considered, assuming that the officer is a member. But I wonder if there are other opinions and the reasoning for them.
  14. "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21). Q1: Can this rule be suspended? Q2a: If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere? Q2b: If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote than two-thirds? I lean toward the notion that it cannot be suspended, because the group "protected" is the assembly, rather than some subset of the committee (whether present or absent). And even if there was no objection to "suspend the rules and close debate" (for instance), I'd think that it would not be in order, but that the chair could appropriately say something like, "Although the rules may not be suspended to close debate, the fact that there is no objection to doing so indicates that no one else is seeking to debate, thus we will proceed to putting the motion to a vote." Or am I missing something?
×