Alexander George

We'd like to change the days/times of our regular meetings.  I believe this is a bylaw change that requires a 2/3 majority.  Some have proposed splitting the vote into two.  First, a motion to effect a change in our regular meetings (requiring 2/3 majority) and, should this first motion pass, a second motion to the effect that the change is so-and-so (with a bare majority required). 

Is this a kosher maneuver?  (I speculate the root of this maneuver is a fear that the particular change might not reach a 2/3 majority if proposed as a single motion.)

Thank you.

Can members, at a formal meeting, vote to allow for an electronic vote (some time after the meeting) on a motion? 

Thanks.

Hello.  My college is proposing hybrid faculty meetings at which some people are present in the room, and some are watching remotely but unable to participate by speaking or writing.  There is a proposal that those watching remotely be given a vote.  Are there any Robert's Rules issues here?

Thanks.

Thanks, Gary.  I'm not concerned that the motion to delay time of adjournment is out of order.  I'm wondering whether, given that our custom and explicit statements declare that meetings be two hours long, such a motion to delay adjournment would require a 2/3 majority. 

The agenda isn't formally adopted.  It's sent out to all members by an executive committee and governs our faculty meetings.  These meetings are always scheduled to last 2 hours.  At close to the 2-hour mark, someone moved to extend the meeting. 

At a meeting of my organization, which was (as per distributed Agenda) scheduled to end at a particular time, someone moved to extend the meeting past that time.  I said that this motion required a 2/3 majority because I took the motion (to extend the meeting time past the agenda-announced time) to be a motion to change the orders of the day - is that correct?  (I am leaning here on p. 223 of RRoR, 11th edition - I trust this is the germane discussion.)  I just want to make sure that my advice was correct.  (And I presume the same would apply if it had been the chair who had proposed this extension of the meeting.)  Thanks for your thoughts.

Thank you, Mr. Kapur.  Would you be able to expand on that?  How might such a motion to change the rules be formulated (and would that require a 2/3 majority)?  And once the rules are changed to allow for straw polls, what is the nature of the motion requesting such a poll and how does it fit into the order of priority of other motions?

With thanks,

Alexander George

RR forbids straw polls.  One solution is to move to enter the Committee of the Whole (in order to conduct the poll there).  This gives members the choice of whether they wish to suspend discussion of the motion at hand in order to take a straw poll.  One member of my (academic) organization asks whether the rules can be changed so as to permit straw polls without using the device of the Committee of the Whole.  I'd appreciate your thoughts about this.  Thanks.

Hello.  My organization is faced with motions of the form: Either A or not-A; if A, then B or C; if not-A, then D or E; etc.  I hope you understand.  Could someone advise me about the best way to structure, within RRoO, such a series of motions?  Thanks so much.

Hello, everyone.

If the body is presented with a motion that contains several parts (to be voted en bloc), can someone move to divide the motion into its parts and to vote on each part separately?

Thanks.

Yes, a central committee prepares an agenda for meetings (this agenda includes all motions that this central committee intends to bring forward) and by rule this agenda must be sent out to members one week in advance to give them time to reflect on the motions that will be brought forward by the central committee.

In light of this, this particular proposal:

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Nothing wrong with making "A" the main motion listed in the pre-distributed agenda... AND   including a statement that once "A" is moved, a member will move "B" as an amendment (or amendment by substitute).

makes sense to me.  Thanks.

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

However, I presume that as the rules may be suspended in order to agree to a motion without debate or amendment, they could also be suspended to allow a motion to be considered with debate but without amendment.  A motion of this form could be used:

 I move to suspend the rules and consider, without amendments, the following resolution: "Resolved, That ..." (Second.)

It would require a 2/3 vote to agree to that motion, and if passed, the resolution could be debated, adopted (presumably by a majority vote), defeated, referred, postponed, etc., but not amended. 

If a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules was not achieved, the resolution could be considered in the normal way and amended in the normal manner.  But this would simply mean that the organization did not, in fact, wish to prevent amendments.  After all, who is the "organization" if not the membership?

Thanks - that's very helpful.

2 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I would think the easiest way to accomplish this is for someone to move A, and someone to move to amend to B, or to substitute B (depending on how different they are). 

On the agenda to be distributed a week before the meeting, we'd like everyone to see the two options, A and B (so that they can reflect before the meeting on their relative merits).  I'm not sure how to construct a single motion that would do that.  On Mr. Katz' solution, it seems option A would be on the agenda and someone would move to amend to B on the floor of the meeting.  But then members wouldn't have advance notice of the two options.  Thanks in advance for any further concrete suggestions.

Thanks, Mr. Mervosh.  My organization would like to allow debate on the motion but not allow any amendments to the motion. 

2 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Certainly not in this form.

Thanks - it seemed problematic.  How would one allow one's body to express their views about whether they'd prefer Option A, Option B, or neither then?

Hello.  I've been asked whether a motion can be moved that contains within itself the provision that it is not amendable.  It seems to me that this is out of the spirit of RRoR, but I wanted to make sure that no such thing was indeed permitted.  Thanks!

Hello.  Can one have a motion to the effect of "Choose either option A, option B, or neither"?  I find this raises voting procedure issues and am not sure how RR would handle such a thing.  Thanks for any help!