MFMauceri

On 4/25/2021 at 6:17 AM, Guest Puzzling said:

Don't  be so negative " Rosenberg's rules of order" are at least 7 pages long. 

But I fear many members will not even read those 7 pages.

If you are in an assembly that rarely refers to Roberts rules, get two copies , one for yourself and another to lend to the member referring to it and simply ask where?

@guestI'm seeing an opportunity to publish 'Rosenberg's Rules for Dummies.'  It will be a laminated index card we can sell for $4.99 (bargain!).

On 4/25/2021 at 2:06 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

If you look at p. vii, you will find that if you only say Robert's Rules of order in your bylaws, without specifying an addition or the words current edition, then you are assumed to automatically follow the current edition.

@Atul KapurYou see, you just can't get that kind of definitive specificity just anywhere!  Thanks.

35 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I don’t think anyone on here has suggested that your bylaws should cite a particular edition. To the contrary, most if not all of us believe that it’s best that the bylaws do not refer to a specific edition  but rather to the “current edition“ of RONR. See, for example, §56:66. 

@Richard Brown I agree. Thank you.  "Current Edition" covers it.  I really don't think anyone on this council even realizes RONR's periodically updated.  Then again, they don't know about this forum's resources, either.   The City of Los Angeles would prefer that we didn't use RONR at all.  They recommend a 5-page Playskool version called "Rosenberg's Rules of Order", which essentially turns the Chair into a depot.  This body rarely has to refer to Roberts, but when we do, it's usually procedural but sometime's controversial.

Insofar as a motion to Commit, thank you for the full text, although I will pick up the most "current edition" (12).  In the situation I first asked for advice on, there was no specialization to the motion (Commit or otherwise).  It was a routine amendment motion with a very unreasonable twist (clearly being made to kill the issue in committee).

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

We are told that this Board is governed by bylaws which seem to rather clearly state that only a majority vote is required for the adoption of the motion which was made "to send an item back to committee, except with a condition that it can only return to the Board for approval if the committee approves it by a 75% threshold." We are also told that this motion was declared to have been adopted by a majority vote. Even if we assume that this was in error and that a two-thirds vote was required for the adoption of this motion, it is now too late to raise a point of order concerning this violation of the rules. 

But MFMauceri appears to be arguing that the motion which the Board adopted should be ruled null and void because "In this body, the bylaws and standing rules govern both the board and committees", meaning, I gather, that the bylaw provision requiring only a majority vote for any decision to be made applies to proceedings in this committee to which the contested item has been referred. If MFMauceri is right about this, then I would agree that the Board's instruction to the committee is null and void. However, nothing posted so far indicates that this bylaw provision is, in fact, applicable to this committee.

@Daniel H. Honemann  Thank you, yes.  The Board's bylaws pass down in their entirety and also direct the conduct of committees, including RONR being the Parliamentary Authority, as does the "Standing Rules, Policies & Procedures" which includes special Rules of Order that have been enacted over the years; one set of "body-specific" instructions and RONR to provide guidance for anything the bodies rules are silent on; pretty standard stuff.

The amended motion in question actually failed, but my poit of order was that the amendment was out of order in the first place because it was in contravention of the bylaws, so rather than "null and void" it became a moot point.  However RONR is quite a tome and there's always something that may be in ther that requires a little due diligence.

Based on the Bylaws the body has three vote thresholds: "Unanimous" (not required to approve anything but nice when it obviates a roll call vote); "2/3rds (or 66%) to amend the bylaws or expel a boardmember, and simple majority for all other "decisions."  I believe the language needs to tightened up to let simple majority apply to issues, and the Parliamentary Authority govern procedures.  The Bylaws actually only cite RONR as the Parliamentary Authority, and I thank everyone for pointing out they need to cite eith a specific edition or "latest edition).

On 4/21/2021 at 3:28 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

@Daniel H. Honemann Have you read the paragraph in RONR that I referred to above?

I have the 10th edition as that's what specified in the bylaws, and probably needs to "revised."  Can you cite the index heading, instead of chapter and verse?

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

No one said that.  Instructions to a committee and suspending the rules regarding the vote requirement in a deliberative assembly are two different things.

@George Mervosh In this case, the instructions were to violate the rules that require only a majority.  Had the motion been made to suspend the rules (it wasn't), followed by a vote to confirm the suspension of the rules, then the body could set the threshold to whatever % level, provided a majority approved it.  This sound right?

@Richard Brown  Thank you.  If a motion was made to suspend rules was made, Roberts (the named "Parliamentary Authority") requires a 2/3rds approval or 12 Votes.  However there was not a motion to suspend rules, only to amend a motion to return an issue back to committee for further deliberation.  The add-on 75% approval threshold seemed a bit capricious, as its intent was kill the issue, because it would never reach 75% in committee.

In other words, the motion (as stated) was out or order, because it was in contravention of the overriding bylaw that decisions are made by majority votes (except bylaw changes).  What probably needs to be added is a specific citation for "suspending rules".  Presently, by dint of the bylaws, the answer is currently a majority to suspend, should such a motion to be made.

As I'm sure is true with most bodies where Roberts is the Parliamentary Authority, Roberts holds if the governance is silent on a specific issue.  No?

@GeorgeMervosh  I understand what you're saying, however in this case there wasn't a motion to suspend rules made, nor adopted.  It was an amended motion to require a 75% approval for one specific issue.  It was made because 75% is essentially unattainable.  In this body, the bylaws and standing rules govern both the board and committees.

So, if they are both silent on whether or not voting thresholds can be set "on the fly," I'm trying to find the cite in Roberts that may clarify.  My RONR is at home, so I'll have to look up Daniel Honemann's cite, but on its surface, the ability to arbitrarily set voting thresholds, seems counterintuitive.

It seems the consensus here is that Roberts enables any majority faction to change the voting rules at will by conditioning any motion to a threshold that's easily obtainable or completely unattainable.  Kinda sounds like democratic tyranny.  If Roberts controlled the senate, then democrats could have reset the threshold for impeachment conviction to a majority?  Or House republicans (with a majority) could condition a motion to impeach must attain a 75% majority to pass.

@Richard Brown

Section 3. Official Actions

Consensus. Decisions of the Governing Board can be made by consensus, meaning

unanimity amongst the voting Board Members. In the event consensus is not reached,

decisions will be made by a roll call simple majority vote by the board members present

and voting, not including abstentions, except that amendment of these Bylaws shall

require a super-majority vote, which shall mean no less than twelve (12) votes.

@Joshmartin

Yes.  Our bylaws and rules are silent on this matter and thus we turn to our Parliamentary Authority (RONR) for guidance.  So I'm looking for folks that might know where an exact cite is on committee meeting calling and agenda setting.

@Richard Brown.  Yes.  This body is a local governmental body called a neighborhood Council: https://empowerla.org/lfnc/

@jstackpo.  "Brown," depending on the local jurisdiction in California can be applied to committees (even ad hocs);  in Los Angeles, yes, it's extended to Committees.  Ironically,the agenda item trying to be avoided is a regarding a committee that didn't conform to Brown and has now created a dull but growing roar.

Good question.  Here in California, we are bound by the Ralph M. Brown Act regarding public noticing.  We must set an agenda, publicly post and distribute it for the public to be properly informed of pending discussions that may affect it.  We cannot add agenda items on the fly, the agenda must be set, and can only be changed under specific  (read: "emergency") circumstances.

If the chair agendizes something as DISCUSSION ON "X," then it implies no action will be taken.  If it is agendized as "DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON "X," then motions may be brought forward, seconded, debated etc.  It affords for some clever obstructionist maneuvering if a Chair doesn't want to talk about something.  In this instance, we're talking about an Executive Committee with powers that is some cases override the body, itself.

So, I need to be able to cite both parts:  

  1. A meeting is compelled.  

  2. At said meeting, this agenda item will be entertained.

One more question.  How does one compel an actual motion onto said agenda?  So, two members (out of 5) can compel a meeting, but if the Chair is responsible for setting the agenda, is there similar language to compel the inclusion of a bona fide agenda item?

BAM.  Thanks Richard Brown!  I hate when people "weaponize" RONR.