Alexis Hunt

The internal cross-reference you omit is critical, because page 411 is where the conditions under which a recount can be taken of a counted vote are explained.

No, a point of order that the outcome of a motion was declared incorrectly, given the vote count, must be timely. See OI 2006-18.

On 01/05/2017 at 9:57 AM, Josh Martin said:

It's not clear to me whether the organization's nominating committee functions in the same manner as the nominating committee in RONR. If the nominating committee only nominates candidates of its choice, then yes, nominations from the floor must be taken. It seems, however, as if the committee may be required to report all nominations which it receives by the deadline, in which event this process is more similar to nominations by mail. In that case, nominations from the floor are not required, but the assembly may permit them if it wishes. Of course, the bylaws take precedence in any case.

Can you provide a citation for this? I cannot find any text saying this is the case.

14 hours ago, J. J. said:

A "recount"  can be ordered on a standing counted (pp. 444-45), in an election at least.

This cites p. 411, ll. 19-21, which states that the tellers' tally sheets are subject to recount, but (by implication) that the vote itself cannot be retaken. So I agree with Josh. If there were tally sheets taken, then they could order a recount of them and, even if the same total is arrived at, thereby change the outcome.

Except that, when adopting a bylaw amendment, the assembly may give the Secretary the authority to update cross-references and numbering as reqiured to give effect to the amendment. That is on a case-by-case basis, however, and not a general power.

Note that giving a general power like this can be useful, but it can also be dangerous,  because seemingly innocuous changes can be significant.

Since the rule about having to resign in order to be nominated is in your bylaws, it will be up to your organization to interpret it. Robert's Rules has no restrictions on nominations of this form, so any rule restricting EB1 and EB2 from running for reelection after they lose FS would have to be in your bylaws. Robert's Rules does provide for nominations from the floor immediately prior to an election, so unless you have more special rules about nominations there is nothing preventing that nomination.

> What if both EB1 and EB2 old position are run unopposed? Vs having multiple candidates?

This has no bearing on how nominations work. If there is only one nominee for an office, rather than having a vote, the chair simply declares them elected. The exception is if the bylaws require a ballot and don't have an exception for an unopposed candidate. In this case, you must still have a ballot.

I don't think it offends a FPPL to let a nonmember make a motion, so it seems to me the rules could be suspended to allow it. In any case, if 2/3rds of the assembly wants to let them make a motion, one of them could also just do it themselves.

And, importantly, none of this changes the fact that any point of order had to be timely. Once debate started on Mr. A's motion, it was too late.

That seems quite explicit.

3 hours ago, Need 2 Learn said:

What constitutes "notice"? 

Does Mr B's  motion in #3 above at the beginning of the meeting  constitute "notice" and lower the threshold of adoption

No. Notice is given for a motion either at the previous meeting e.g. "At the next meeting, I will move X", or sent out in the call of the meeting (the message that goes out to members saying that there is a meeting).

Once the meeting has started, it is too late to provide notice for a motion at that meeting. Notice can be given for a motion at the next meeting, however. In your example, Mr. B's attempt to explicitly include it in the agenda at the start of the meeting does not count as notice. Asking to have the motion considered at the next meeting could be considered to be notice, however: if everyone at the meeting understands that the motion will be brought forward again at the next meeting, then I would consider that to be a valid previous notice and so it will have the lower threshold of only a majority vote at the next meeting.

It's important also to distinguish between the motion to Rescind, which is a fairly straightforward motion to undo some action taken, and the motion to Reconsider, which is a much more complex motion to undo a vote and resume consideration of a question that was decided earlier at the same meeting. In this case, Mr. B's motion was a motion to Rescind, not Reconsider.

47 minutes ago, Need 2 Learn said:

hwo questions:

Should #2 been ruled out of order at the first meeting?

 

Was “Mr. B” correct for insisting the question in #4 be put to a vote before proceeding with the meeting since no one made another motion to deal with the current main motion to nullify ?

For the first question, no, it should not have. An assembly may not vote on substantially the same question twice in one meeting, but a 75%/25% split is different enough from a 60%/40% to present a meaningfully different question (and this is evidenced by the fact that one was adopted and the other was not. Mr. A could also have proposed to amend the original motion by replacing the 75/25 numbers with 60/40, but either approach is permissible.

For the second question, based on what you said. I would say that Mr. B was indeed correct about the vote on the motion to nullify (rescind) the original motion. Although Mr. B was wrong about Mr. A's motion being out of order, there is no rule against having to be correct about a motion when you make it. Mr. B's motion was in order which means that it must be properly disposed of before the assembly moves on to further business. If a member wanted to put the motion off to a later meeting, the correct way to do this would be with a motion to Postpone.

In general, if there is a point of order made, the chair must rule immediately. Some legislative assemblies have rules allowing the presiding officer to reserve their ruling and make it later, but Robert's Rules does not. The chair would either rule the motion out of order or not. If it is out of order, then the motion is nullified and the meeting continues; otherwise the consideration continues. Note also that a point of order must be timely, so (with a few exceptions) a point of order about the admissibility of a motion must be made right when the motion is moved, not after debate has begun.

Some other notes: a tie vote means the motion is lost. That said, there is nothing preventing Mr. B from moving it again at the next meeting. Additionally, no member has the power to unilaterally "call the question" and force a vote; only a motion can do so with a two-thirds vote. The proper course of action there would be for Mr. B to raise a point of order that there is no more debate on the motion and therefore it must have a vote called.

I agree with Mr. Honemann that the presumption must be that the minutes are correct, but a presumption is rebuttable. If there is evidence that contradicts the minutes, and indicates that a motion was indeed passed, then that evidence supersedes the minutes. Incorrect minutes are not a back door to reversing the decision duly made. Any officer who deliberately tries to do so, or who carries on insisting that the minutes are a more true record of what happened than the actual happenings, should probably be subject to discipline.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

If the committee chair fails to follow Mr. Mervosh' advice, then no, he may not speak against the recommendation - but he may vote against it.

If the committee chair is the one to move the motion, this is true, because a motion's mover may not speak against it. If, however, the committee chair reports the recommendation and another member moves to adopt it (which is not as ideal as Mr. Mervosh's advice, but may be necessary if, for instance, no other member of the committee is present), then the chair is free to speak against it.

It may be that the original form of the motion is locked in, however (for instance, due to it having been sent out in a notice), but there is still opportunity for the Board to recommend an amendment from that form.

Ah, yes. Whether or not absentee rights could affect the result does not matter. The same is true if notice is required but not provided. If one member is missing, even a unanimous election cannot get past a notice requirement.

Just now, Guest ParliEn said:

What about a scenario in which case it were determined that a quorum was not present at the meeting?

Quorum is, ultimately, a rule protecting absentees, so it falls under 1.

15 hours ago, jstackpo said:

A VERY formal way to take care of the problem  --  which can turn into a teaching moment for parl procedure  --  would be for the ExecBoard spokesman to move to adopt the original motion, warts and all, exactly as the ExecBoard adopted.  Then have someone (a set up, of course) move to amend the original motion by striking out (or whatever is appropriate) the text that you have discovered to be impossible to implement.  Then, when the amendment is adopted, the cleaned up motion can be adopted (or defeated, of course!) with no danger of adopting nullities, or whatever.

Parl proc, when used formally, can solve all sorts of problems.   (On Saturday evenings, we have an answer to anything here.)

I agree with this. Furthermore, if the executive board is meeting before the membership meeting, then the Board could consider adopting a motion recommending the amendment to the membership so that it is clear that the board agrees with this version.

5 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

As an alternative, if there are numerous errors, you or someone else may submit an entirely different draft of the minutes. The board can then decide which version to approve, or at least which version to use as the starting point. Nothing prevents other members from submitting their own draft version of minutes.

I'm not sure I agree. The Secretary is responsible for presenting a single version of the minutes to assembly, and this can subsequently be corrected. But there is no process for substitution of the minutes.

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I can envision many instances where a motion not to do something might be in order.

For example, assume that an organization normally participates in an annual Christmas Parade, and the board of directors, which is empowered to act for the society between meetings of the membership, usually enters the society in the parade on its own volition.

It would be appropriate at a general membership meeting for the society to adopt a motion that the society not enter the 2017 Christmas parade ( or any future Christmas parades). Or,   the alternative, the membership could adopt a motion directing the board not to enter the society in the parade. The board would then be bound by the decision of the membership and would be prohibited from entering the society in the Christmas parade.

A motion not to do something might also be a way of stopping a custom, such as a custom of having an invocation and reciting the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of every meeting, or of passing a hat at every meeting for the collection of donations for the Ronald McDonald Foundation. A motion to not have an invocation or a pledge or to noy take up collections during meetings would be in order. Perhaps the motion would be in the nature of a standing rule or a Special Rule of Order, but it is still a motion to not do something.

We're possibly splitting hairs, but I suppose I'll clarify: A motion must not be phrased in such a way that adopting is a statement in favour of the status quo. In these examples, the motion actually has an effect if adopted, even though it's phrased in the negative.

54 minutes ago, Transpower said:

The board can direct a committee to research and propose a new standing rule for the board--but only the board itself can adopt or reject it.

 

Unless the committee has authority (either on a standing basis or a one-off) to do so. If it's a committee of the membership and not the Board, moreover, the Board may not have any authority over it.

Well, this one is straightforward at least. Your quoted language quite clearly refers to a fraction of the Board. The Board of Directors comprises its members, and empty chairs are not members. So you compute quorum based on the current number of members.

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

The answer depends on exactly what your bylaws say about a Quorum of the board. Please quote for us exactly, word-for-word, what the bylaws say about a quorum of the board. Don't paraphrase, quote exactly.

Straying into bylaws interpretation, are we...

4 hours ago, Guest Curious said:

Is there a RONR reference for this?

I'm not aware of one. However, you may want to compare and contrast page 321 which explains the manner in which the motion to Reconsider does have a suspending effect, while there is nothing in section 35 about suspension of the motion to be rescinded.

You do not need to ask for a vote or even unanimous consent for approving minutes. They are approved automatically once all corrections are dealt with.

Also, in this case, the recission would only apply to the parts of the motion that haven't been carried out. It doesn't operate retroactively.