Drake Savory

The famous "Count heads not hats".

This reminds me of the question I asked a little while ago in the main room viz. can a person make multiple motions to accomplish the same thing as long as they are different motions and I believe that answer there was yes.  So you can move to Suspend the Rules to do X and if that fails make a main motion to do X and it is not renewing the same motion.

For clarification, we a closely associated with a much larger organization that uses a bastardized version of RONR so that members in my organization see things the other organization does like "voting by acclaimation" and using personal privilege to make announcements and think they are in RONR.  One of the other organization's rules is in order to nominate after the period is closed the motion is to Suspend the Rules to nominate the person.  So naturally the members in my organization think that that is how it done.

So I my take away from this thread is yes I can make multiple motions to accomplish the same goal as long as they are different motions e.g. Suspend the Rules, Amend Something Previously Adopted, and a main motion

On 3/15/2022 at 6:25 PM, Richard Brown said:

Interesting point, but RONR is quite clear that if a member is present, he counts towards the quorum regardless of whether he votes.

That's what I and Speaker Reed both said. 

Election Rule was passed saying nominations close March 1st.  Someone wants to reopen nominations and their preferred method is to Suspend the Rules but it seams that if that is defeated they could Amend the Rule and move to reopen nominations under 31:6. 

I guess my question is can a person make different motions to accomplish the same thing in the same meeting.

Even if that is the case, would a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to reopen the nominations be in order if the Motion to Suspend the Rules to reopen the nominations has been defeated already in the same meeting/session.

The OP may want to look as to how Speaker of the House Reed handled the "disappearing quorum" in the House of Representatives.  He distinguished between those present and those voting such as RONR does and said if you are present you count towards the quorum even if you don't vote.

There is a prohibition against bringing up the same motion without using the proper rule (6:25).  My question is about using a second motion to produce the same outcome as a failed motion in the same meeting.  Basically, someone wants to Suspend the Rules to allow nominations after the period has closed under the Election Rules.  Naturally this takes a 2/3 vote and so let's suppose it fails.  Rule 31:4 says that a motion to reopen the polls only takes a majority vote so what if the person, realize their error, makes THAT motion?  Is it out of order because it has the same effect as a motion previously disposed of?

My question deals more with the history of the 2/3 vote.  I don't want to get into protecting the right of the minority with a 2/3 vote such as the right to debate with Previous Question or voting to Suspend the Rules.  I'm curious where the 2/3 as the itself came from.  Is it a holdover from the British Parliament, its reason lost in antiquity?  Dis someone very mathematically point out that 2/3 means the minority is outnumbered 2 to 1?  Was it the next progression in fractions after majority of 1/2?  2/3, 3/4, 4/5, etc (except there are no 3/4 or 4/5 votes in Robert's Rules).

So how was 2/3 chosen as the higher threshold beyond a majority?

Is that bylaw provision even (parliamentarily) legal?  Isn't it a violation of basic Parliamentary Law to restrict a member's right to vote unless under discipline?  Are bylaws provisions allowed to violate Parliamentary Law?

28 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Since the matter was not referred back to the bylaws committee I can't see this being in order at all.  When the motion is taken from the table, any member may propose amendments within the scope of the notice provided to the members. As I understand your facts so far, the committee is no longer involved in this matter.

If the bylaws committee is helping the member write up the amendments to be offered up when the motion is taken from the table then it would be appropriate.  If they are rewriting the document that currently lies on the table then George is correct as the proposed bylaws belong to the assembly and not the bylaws committee.

51 minutes ago, Rob Elsman said:

The names "policy" and "rule" are not determinative. This is a rule of order under whatever name. 

It's not a Rule of Order if it never passed.  I'm not convinced it was ever passed and would encourage the OP to quote the rule as written to us.

If it is a policy (and not a rule) then I would argue the motion passes the first time and further readings are out of order.

I was in an organization that had the policy (never passed as a rule, a sort of "gentlemen's agreement") that any motion made would be postponed as an "action item" for the next meeting.  That ended pretty quickly when I asked to see where the rule was written.

A president serves as ex officio committee member.  They choose to debate and vote on a proposed motion that the committee wants to make to the general assembly.

Later, the President is chairing the general meeting and the committee makes the motion.  In the name of impartiality since the President qua committee member has made their view known and taken a position on the motion, should they pass the gavel to the Vice-President until the motion is disposed of?

I believe the rationale is that a previous session cannot force the current session to take certain actions.  I'm sure other will have a much better way of explaining this but in your case the current session has the right to not consider item #2 in its meeting - even if it ends up killing the motion.

Blame Jim Wright.

IIRC it is because the PSC does not have the legislative power that a standing committee has.

On 10/30/2019 at 9:27 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But this is not what I said. I said that the President and Secretary to be elected at the AGM in 2020 will each be elected to serve for a two-year term. It's the Vice-President to be elected at the AGM in 2020 who will be elected to serve for only the remaining year of the previously elected Vice-President's two-year term.

I'm not 100% sure about that.  If the bylaws are poorly worded, specifically a person elected serves a two-year term with no reference to a person elected midterm only is elected to complete that term, the isn't the VP in this case elected to a full term?

Two questions here methinks:

Do they typically?  No.

Can they?  I suppose they could and one could argue that Special Orders of the Day where the motion is already known (such as a postponed motion) could be written out on the agenda but other than a specialized case like this I think it would end up leading to problems.

Is it possible for a committee to enter a specific part of their report into the minutes or would it have to be in the form of a motion?  For example, the committee wants to record its appreciation for J. Doe into the assembly's records.  Can it simply ask that it be done as part of it's report or would the committee chair as part of its report move that the assembly approve the committee's appreciation of J. Doe's work?  If the assembly does not want it in the minutes, how would it go about stopping the committee from entering it into the minutes.

So it seems the best strategy at this point is pray for a quorum.

Like I said I totally agree.  So maybe the question should now switch to - if the Council does not have a quorum and passes the amendment believing that it was acting properly would that constitute a continuing breach?

Josh I agree that it is not a correct interpretation* but the membership feels it is and it is believed that the history of that clause of the bylaws was put in because the Council is often inquorate so that the lack of a quorum could not stop needed amendments (such as changing the quorum requirement but that is a whole different issue).  

*My interpretation is that the amendment passes with a majority of all members there so 15 yes, 12 no, 5 abstain means it does not pass.  But then again it's up to the membership to interpret their bylaws n'est-ce pas?

Without a quorum the answer to my question would be, "Of course not."

However, the bylaws state

All proposed amendments shall be submitted to the Representative Council for approval. Upon approval of the majority of the Representative Council present, the proposed amendment(s) shall be forwarded to ...

This has been interpreted by the members that although lacking a quorum the RC can still approve a proposed amendment to the membership by majority vote (although I think it's a majority of all there voting and abstaining).  Assuming that is a correct interpretation and an inquorate assembly can conduct business if permitted in the bylaws and it is not a violation of Parliamentary Law, then the question is can the assembly then make subsidiary motions such as Amend or Postpone?  I think no and that the bylaws only allow an up and down vote but I know some in the organization will say any motions related to passing the proposed bylaws are in order so the amendment.  What do you all say?

p 290  Standard Characteristic 6 states a Request to be Excused from a Duty is amendable so why can't the assembly amend the effective date?

Best I can translate this is:

We elected someone for President but his term has not started yet.  If we no longer want him to become President can we do something to prevent him from becoming President?