Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

paulmcclintock

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by paulmcclintock

  1. Suppose a committee member relocates too far to continue his duties, and submits in writing a resignation from the committee. At the next meeting, the president assumes the motion that the member requests to be excused from the committee duty.  It is adopted by unanimous consent. Assume that the committee members are elected by the assembly, and that immediately a new member is elected to fill the vacancy. 

    RONR 32:2 SDC 8 says:  Where the member requesting to be excused from a duty has learned of the action taken on his or her request, only a negative vote can be reconsidered.

    RONR 56:68(6) says: A prohibition or limitation prohibits everything greater than what is prohibited, or that goes beyond the limitation; but it permits what is less than the limitation, and also permits things of the same class that are not mentioned in the prohibition or limitation and that are not evidently improper

    In the scenario above, can the positive vote to excuse the duty be reconsidered after the vacancy has been filled (before the requester learns of the action)?

  2. When RONR is adopted by motion for a meeting (no PA specified in the bylaws), can a bylaw provision in the nature of a rule of order be suspended?

    My particular concern at present is the bylaw provision that the president chair the membership meeting, with bylaw provisions allowing the VP or Secretary to chair if necessary. Can they willingly step aside to allow someone else to preside?

    There seems to be some amorphous common law or general parliamentary law that bylaws absolutely cannot be suspended, and it is only if RONR is a bylaw-adopted parliamentary authority (PA) that you can suspend a bylaw in the nature of a rule of order. 

    Paul McClintock

  3. On 6/23/2022 at 9:18 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

    Yes, all committee appointments made at a meeting, or announced at a meeting as stated in 50:13(d), should be listed in the minutes.

    Hint: "On motion of Mr. Dorsey, the motion to establish the camp, with the pending amendment, was referred to a committee of three to be appointed by the chair with instructions to report at the next meeting. The chair appointed Messrs. Flynn, Dorsey, and Fine to the committee."  (48:8)

    Ah, excellent hint!  Thanks for the reminder!  However, I'd still like to see it in the rules in 48.

  4. RONR 12th edition.

    50:13(d) says, "When the chair appoints a committee...the chair must announce the names of the committee members to the assembly, naming the chairman of the committee first, as in (c) above; and until such announcement is made the committee cannot act. If the assembly orders the appointment of a special committee and it is desired to let the chair select the committee members after adjournment, this delay must be authorized by the assembly; the names of the committee members must then be announced at the next meeting and recorded in the minutes."

    Questions:

    (1) Must the minutes list the appointments even if they are made before adjournment?

    (2) Must non-committee appointments get recorded (e.g., president appoints parliamentarian) in the minutes?  [48:4(8) says minutes should have committee reports, but I don't see where minutes contain officers' reports.]

    (3) Does section 48 (Minutes...) hint that the minutes are to list the appointments required by 50:13(d)?  If so, where?

    Thanks!

  5. RONR, 12th edition.

    Under rules for contents of minutes, the last sentence of 48:5(2) says "If the chair voted, no special mention of this fact is made in the minutes."

    (2) has 3 parts: (a) is for "when a count has been ordered"; (b) is for "when the voting is by ballot"; and (c) is for "when the voting is by roll call."

    The no-special-mention rule would seem to me to be sensible in any of these 3 cases, but the statement seems to be a part of (c) and by that placement could be interpreted to be applicable only in the case of (c).

    How should the no-special-mention rule be applied?  To all of (2), or only to (2)(c)?

    The 11th edition did not use (a), (b) and (c), but it seemed to me to be ambiguous there.

     

  6. Member A wants his motion to be voted on without debate or amendment. He moves "to suspend the rules and buy a new gavel." It is seconded and voted on without debate or amendment, and lacking the required two-thirds vote, is lost, though it seemed to have a majority in support.

    Is it in order at this point for member A to move "that we buy a new gavel" (without suspend the rules)? Does the lack of suspend the rules make it either a different question, or different circumstances, allowing it to be "renewed" at the same meeting?
     

  7. On 2/2/2022 at 4:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

    It is this committee's duty to report this motion back to the next convention, with whatever recommendation it decides to make.

    You say that a similar situation would exist if a convention ran out of time and adjourned sine die before the committee could report, and I much prefer to respond to this. If the rules in RONR are controlling, I think that, in such a case, the motion remains in the hands of the committee, which has a duty to report it back to the next convention.

    Certainly it is the committee's duty.  But the question is on the status of the motion if the duty is not performed (whether deliberately or inadvertently).

    The discussion so far here supports my initial reading of the rules and DH's statement, "the motion remains in the hands of the committee, which has a duty to report it back to the next convention"; which shifts my focus on the problem that this can create.

    I can envision the bylaw committee forgetting all about the motion, possibly multiple years, and a second bylaw amendment in conflict with it being proposed at a later convention.  I would think that a point of order could be made at the time (I think it would have to be timely) that the second bylaw amendment could not be considered until the first amendment had been disposed of.  But if no point is raised and the 2nd bylaw amendment is adopted, then it legitimately stands adopted. And that the first bylaw amendment is still in the hands of the committee, and could be reported at any convention it remembered to do so.

    Or am I missing something?

  8. Dan,

    A convention last year considered a bylaw amendment reported by the bylaw committee. The convention referred it back to the bylaw committee for further consideration. In preparation for the upcoming convention this year, the current bylaw committee wants to "kill" the motion, and as an alternate to reporting back with a recommendation that it not be adopted, they are considering not reporting it back at all.  If they do not report it, and if the convention this year does not discharge the committee from consideration of it, does it remain in the committee for another year, and perhaps "forever," in which case no other conflicting new bylaw amendments can be considered?

    It seems to me that the bylaw amendment has been temporarily disposed of and carried from one annual convention (last year) to another (this year).  It did not "fall to the ground" upon adjournment last year per 21:7(c) which says "Matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground."

    A similar situation would exist if a convention "ran out of time" and adjourned before the committee could report on it.

    At NAP conventions, bylaw amendments are not generally referred by the convention to the committee, and any bylaw amendments that are not reached before adjournment fall to the ground.  But in this case that I'm presenting, a bylaw amendment being considered by the convention last year was referred back to the bylaw committee, and the wording of 21:7(c) seems to me can be interpreted to say it remains in control of the committee "forever" until either (a) the committee reports it back to some later convention, or (b) some later convention discharges their consideration of it.  But I'm uncomfortable with that interpretation; it doesn't seem "right."  Thus my question to this forum.

    My preferred way to read the 21:7(c) rule would be that the referral had to be in the "current" meeting, or else it would fall to the ground upon adjournment.  But that isn't explicit, and could be reasonably argued against, I think.

     

  9. An annual convention refers a motion to its standing bylaws committee one year, and at the next year's convention, the committee does not report on it, and the convention does not discharge the committee from considering it. Upon adjourning sine die, what is the status of the motion?

    21:7(c) says "Matters temporarily but not finally disposed of, except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground."

    Does this except...referred rule apply only to items referred during the current annual convention, or will this referred motion forever be in the hands of the committee until reported or discharged or irrelevant?

    Paul McCintock

  10. The entity wishing to transfer (delegate) powers may be a member, an officer, an executive board, or a society.

    1. RONR says a member may not transfer his power to vote to another person (unless governing documents or laws allow it explicitly).  Is any other member power transferrable when the rules are silent, e.g., the right to attend even if in executive session, or to nominate?

    2. The bylaws say the president is to appoint the finance committee.  Can the president transfer that power for the current term to the treasurer?

    3. The bylaws say the executive board ("board") is to set the time and location of the annual membership meeting. Can the board transfer these powers to the president for a particular year?  What rule or citable principle answers this clearly?

    4. Assume the RONR sample bylaws apply (56:58-67). 56:67 reads "These bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting of the Society by a two-thirds vote, provided that the amendment has been submitted in writing at the previous regular meeting." Can the Society adopt a bylaw amendment with a blank with the proviso that the board be authorized to fill the blank within one month and that the amendment goes into effect only if and when the board fills the blank?

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nondelegation_doctrine says "The doctrine of nondelegation is the theory that one branch of government must not authorize another entity to exercise the power or function which it is constitutionally authorized to exercise itself. It is explicit or implicit in all written constitutions that impose a strict structural separation of powers."  And further says "However, the Supreme Court ruled in J. W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928) that congressional delegation of legislative authority is an implied power of Congress that is constitutional so long as Congress provides an "intelligible principle" to guide the executive branch."

    Does this have any bearing on #1-4?

  11. 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!

     

  12. (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!

     

  13. 2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

    ...but I do not know why it is said that "the standard order of business applies because they usually have regular meetings quarterly." The adjourned meeting is a continuance of the session of the preceding meeting, and so its order of business is to continue with the order of business which was controlling the preceding 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.

  14. 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?

  15. On 1/31/2018 at 11:38 AM, DrEntropy said:

    Has anyone investigated the source of the two-thirds vote requirement for "previous question" (and a few other things of course).

    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.

     

  16. On 2/24/2018 at 4:18 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

    A main motion can be divided after the Previous Question has been ordered on it (in which event the Previous Question will continue to be applicable to each of the divided parts), but the Previous Question cannot be ordered on any part of a main motion after it has been divided other than on that part of the motion which is pending at the time. 

    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.

     

  17. 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.

     

  18. 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).

     

  19. 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)?

     

  20. Quote

    "As in the case of any committee, in the absence of a superior rule to the contrary a constituent society or unit can instruct its delegation," (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 606)

    Quote

    As RONR notes, on page 606, "...the delegation is in effect a committee to represent and act at the convention for the constituent society or unit that chose it."

    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!

     

  21. 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 :)

     

×
×
  • Create New...