Setemu

So, it sounds like there is a bit of professional judgement and interpretation required by a parliamentarian in a given case. While the list on p. 263 provides some fundamental principles (thanks for pointing me to that page, Mr. Mervosh), it does not include what I would guess is another fundamental principle--the right of a minority to block, for example, taking up an item of business out of order--and that right is expressed in the 2/3-vote threshold for certain rules.

I have had a similar question brewing in the back of my mind. For example, how might I know when a special rule moved for adoption by an assembly violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary law?

Perhaps this it too late and I hope the answer is not superfluous, but it seems to me that the it is the chair's propagative to judge, as JJ indicated, what is or is not of great little importance in determining whether to use unanimous consent. The chair might or not have the same judgement of the assembly in any given case, and there is no way for the chair to always know for sure whether those two judgements are in agreement. The evidence of whether they are in agreement is only given when the assembly either raises an objection or does not (unless, of course, there are written rules to the contrary).

Thank you all. I believe your responses have helped me see the situation more clearly. I do agree, Mr. Martin, that finding a regular place in the order of business for these items would be preferable.

It appears, then, that even if this practice is custom, it is a custom in conflict with parliamentary authority. The assembly appears to adopt these agendas unanimously. Is it in order, though, for the Chair to propose such an agenda for adoption (either out of custom or because he believes it would be preferred by the assembly) and then use unanimous consent to adopt it?

Monthly to semi-monthly. Agenda is adopted at the beginning of each meeting. There does appear to be a standard Order of Business, but these items do not appear to treated as they belong to any clear class, except, perhaps, as Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees.

Thank you, Mr. Huynh. Minutes indicate that the minutes agenda were approved by the assembly in each case. The question for me is how these items have been treated -- sometimes as a class of their own in the order of business and sometimes as part of another Order of Business. When they are treated as part of the class of Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees, then they are being given the same priority as reports from officers and subordinate committees of the assembly (which are necessarily germane to the business of the assembly), even though the information presented from the non-members does not place a question before the assembly, the assembly has no authority over the non-member, and the report from the non-member typically provides little to no information regarding a pending question of the assembly or any question over which the assembly would have authority. The"curve of best fit" I think I have for the situation is that these non-members have been treated as "Other Officers" (RONR, p. 461), but, then again, they are not elected by, appointed by, or formally accountable to the assembly. The closest analogies I have would be an assembly of college faculty receiving reports from, say, the President, the Admissions or Alumni Office, or the Board of Trustees; or, a local teachers union hearing a reports from the District Superintendent or State Secretary of Education.

Colleagues, I solicit your informal interpretations on the following. A non-profit organization adopts the current edition of RONR as parliamentary authority. There are no other written rules regarding the Order of Business. As customary practice, non-members of the assembly, who are nonetheless employees of the non-profit, occasionally report to the assembly on the work of their respective offices/departments. For the earliest years of record, these non-member department reports were placed, by the assembly's Chair, in a specific spot on the proposed agenda, specifically before Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees (of the assembly). When the Chair vacated and a new Chair occupied the Office, the spot in the order of business where these non-member department reports were placed had no clear home. Sometimes they were placed before Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees of the assembly as before, sometimes they were placed afterward, and yet other times still they were intermixed with Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees of the assembly. In none of these case is there evidence in the minutes of motions to suspend the rules to take up items out of their proper order. This pattern appears to be the case over the past three Chairs (including the current Chair). I have read RONR for hours and yet am still no clearer on an answer to the several questions I have: 1) Does the original practice of placing these (non-member department) reports prior to Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees constitute customary practice (and as such should be adhered to unless obtaining a majority vote to do otherwise so long as it does not conflict with RONR)? 2) If it constitutes customary practices, does it conflict in any way with RONR (and as such can be struck by a single Point of Order citing the conflict)? 3) If it does not constitute customary practice, is what appears to be the case now, over the past three chairs, customary practice: that it is the prerogative of the Chair to place these non-member department reports where he pleases on the proposed agenda? Would this practice conflict with RONR?

A request for information is in order when another member [the speaker] has the floor (RONR Tinted Pages, p. 18), but the speaker must consent in order for the inquirer to proceed (p. 295).

I am assuming, as did Joshua Katz, that the primary and secondary amendments are being handled properly. If there is a secondary amendment pending to the main motion, and another member wishes to make it known they too want to make an amendment (thus of the third degree), that member may rise to state that if the pending secondary amendment fails, they will offer the one they wish to offer. However, that person cannot actually move the "amendment of the third degree" until the secondary amendment is dispensed of, because, as previously mentioned, "an amendment of the third degree is not permitted" (RONR Section 12, p. 135).

Thank you, Mr. Gerber, for your clear explanation. I believe I better understand now the criteria and logic for evaluating whether and how a question may be divided.

What are "the rules being followed at that time by that organization"? Are they Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR)? If not, I think you'd need to see what the rules of the organization say.

Follow-up questions Part I: I am now pretty clear on the fact that there are motions that cannot be divided and ones that can must be divided, and I believe I am clear on what criteria are required of each. But I am not as certain about what it means for a question to fit neither of those two categories. Am I correct to assume that the Crestwood example given on p. 273 does not fall into the "cannot divide" category because it meaningfully can be divided by making minor adjustments to language, and it would not fall into "must be divided" category because there has to be minor adjustment to the language in order to divide it, and this is why the Crestwood example is an example of a motion where a motion of Division of the Question is in order? Part II: is the following decision tree sensible? 1) Are the motions independent of each other? If yes, divide upon demand; motion of Division of the Question is out of order. If no, continue to 2) 2) Are the motions divisible with minor adjustment to language? If yes, motion of Division of the Question is in order. If no, move to 3) 3) The motion is not divisible; motion of Division of the Question is out of order. Thank you in advance for your time.

Thank you all. I am much clearer on the possible paths forward now.

Thank you. I think I understand. So, if a member first proposes proposal A above, then no more proposals are in order, because questions must receive separate consideration on demand, and that proposal demands all questions be treated separately. If, on the other hand, a member first proposed proposal C (treating rec. 4 separately) above and then another member proposed B (treating rec 3 and 4 separately), then rec's 1 and 2 would be voted on first, together, and then the ones requiring separate treatment ones would be voted on individually next. Correct?

It is unclear to me at this time whether the report is At the Initiative of a Standing Committee Recommending Action or is On a Referred Subject on Which No Resolution or Motion was Pending, but it would be one of the two. I hope that's enough to answer the question. There is a separate issue, which might complicate matters: the report to the assembly actually came directly from the Chair of a subcommittee of a standing committee as a report from the subcommittee (even though I advised against it when I became aware of the practice; they did so on the grounds it was customary practice--it had been done once or twice before, ). The subcommittee then wanted the assembly to directly charge it with tasks it is recommending, and the rules were suspended by the assembly to allow this. The question was then postponed to our next meeting.

Hello, Everyone. I serve as parliamentarian for my organization (which uses RONR as parliamentary authority) and am quite inexperienced relative to many of you. I have a question about the consideration of multiple recommendations being made in a report. Situation: In this case, there are four recommendations made in a single motion by a committee's reporting member . Each recommendation can stand alone. I know in advance that one member would like to consider one recommendation separate from the other three. I suspect other members might wish to offer other divisions. RONR states that "If several different proposals [for dividing the question] are made, they should be treated as filling blanks" (RONR 11th ed., p. 272). In thinking ahead, I am uncertain about voting procedure. RONR states (continuing from the previous passage) "...[proposals] should be voted on in the order in which they were proposed unless they suggest different numbers of questions, in which case the largest number is voted on first" (ibid.) I have to two questions. First question: I am unclear about that "the largest number [of questions]" means immediately above. In the case where a member proposes recommendation 1 is divided from recommendations 2, 3, 4, is this considered a proposal "two questions" or a proposal that contains one question and three questions? Put differently, would this be an appropriate order for voting on filling blanks on division of the question: Proposal A: rec. 1, rec. 2, rec. 3, rec. 4 (all considered separately = four questions?) Proposal B: 1-2, 3, 4, (three groups = three questions?) Proposal C: 1-2-3, 4 (two groups = two questions?) Second question has to do with gaining majority vote: My understanding is that each proposal is then voted on separately, in the order above, if I'm correct there, until one proposal gets a majority, and then voting stops. In the ideal case, this would mean voting stops at proposal B if proposal A garnered 30% in favor and proposal B garnered 52% in favor. What happens, though, if none of the proposals get majority vote, only a plurality? Does that mean all fail and the assembly is then back to voting on all four recommendations as a whole, as originally moved by the committee's reporting member? If so, can another motion for division of the question be made? Thank you for your time.

Thank you, H.H.H. I believe the discussion provided within that interpretation clears up my confusion.

Regarding an assumed motion, does the status of a motion being assumed by the chair remove the requirement that a member actually move it, or does the chair need to verify his/her assumption is correct by asking if there is such a motion? For example, assume the assembly has a fixed time to adjourn, and that time is approaching. Can the chair say, unprompted, "The time to adjourn is approaching, so if there is no objection, the pending question will be postponed until the next regular meeting. [pause]. Since there is no objection..." (assuming the next meeting is within three months). Or, must the chair first ask if there is such a motion from the assembly, prompting a member to then move it, and only then the chair says, " if there is no objection, the pending question will be postponed until the next regular meeting."