Dr. John

Gentleman, amen. The council had a very well-oiled rules of procedure very aligned with RONR before it was completely repealed and replaced with this new set. Assemblies are free tp adopt their own rules, but RONR hasn't became the de facto resource for parliamentary procedure by accident.

Yes, I agree... I am putting an inquiry with the City Clerk now. In reading my transcript of the meeting, their answer was neither "here" or "there". I appreciate the input and consideration from the Forum members.

Yes I wholly agree. The rules of procedure definitely leave a lot to be desired in terms of best practices. Here is the text... first is the definition... And then the rule...

I think saying "customized" would be a kind way of describing, I would use perversion based on how I saw these rules come about. But I think reading further into the rules of procedure I have found enough holes that would make a block of Swiss Cheese enviable as to my original concerns.

Yes, I would agree. If the assembly didn't want to deal with it, they could remove the actual motion. I think that would balance a member's right to bring notice and the majority's right to remove items they see as undesirable. Yes, it was two members giving notice in accordance with their rules of procedure. Notice must be in writing and it is read out at the meeting, with actual consideration scheduled for the next regular meeting. Their reconsideration rules are rather rigid and unusual, after previous notice of a motion that constitutes a reconsideration has been given, at the next meeting it requires 2/3 to even be discussed. It was removing a "Notice of Motion", the assembly's version of previous notice from the agenda.

Yes, I do agree. I feel they left the door open the proviso "Roberts Rules *may* be used as an interpretative aid". Too much subjectivity.

It was the Previous Notice, or "Notice of Motion" as the terminology they use, that was deleted. Effectively (in their view) killing motion and preventing reconsideration of it. Yes, the interesting thing is the Rules of Procedure is so poorly written as it has "where there is a conflict with RONR, this document shall prevail". So it appears as if it may be permitted by the rules. No protection of minority rights. Quite ridiculous.

Witnessed what I believe was a complete disregard for parliamentary procedure, if not RONR alone. A local council meeting agenda had two Previous Notices listed on the agenda. At the adoption of the agenda, a member moved and had seconded a motion to have the Previous Notice deleted from the agenda. This was passed by the majority (who often vote in unison). The member who had their Previous Notice deleted was told that any further attempts to reintroduce it would be a "reconsideration" and require 2/3rds. While I am still studying for RP, I am I wrong in believing this is a complete disregard for parliamentary procedure. RONR is quite explicit at 1:4 in saying that being able to give Previous Notice is an absolute right. I would think the only option available to the majority would be to Postpone Indefinitely, once the item actually did come up for discussion. There is no New Business section, so the Member wouldn't be able to just bring up the motion there. Seems very undemocratic that the majority can simply remove items before any debate can take place on them. Am I alone here or ?

I was surprised to see this thread still going... despite the debate, I still favour the opinion that a "motion option"... at least in this case, would be out of order. Bear with me as I am still green in RONR, but in effect such a motion creates multiple questions on one matter.... hence a simple question on whether to adopt (in this example) procedure ABC would be in order. If the assembly through debate thought DEF was the way to go, then ABC could be struck out and the motion could be amended accordingly or if through debate it was determined no change was preferable, the motion simply gets defeated.

I do agree. It is also better from the mover's perspective in that there might be more attraction to the singular proposition rather than having a "menu" to try and decide over. Thanks, we have never really had a COTW and past procedural changes have been dealt with by motion. For this particular assembly, it's best to keep things simple... which is something I should have thought of before posing the question!

Thanks Josh for the clear and concise answer. No wonder I could not find any substantive examples of "motions with options" through Internet searches, it clearly is not the way to go about things. This is definitely not a fill-in-the-blank matter, so I will just recommend what appears to be the best option and see how the debate goes.

While most main motions are pretty cut-and-dry, "Whereas X, Therefore be it resolved that Y"... is it correct, and if so what would be the format to have a motion that gives various options. Say for example, a member wants to bring a motion on a procedural matter with different options. Would it be correct to say something to the effect of: "Now therefore, be it resolved that the Board adopts one of the following procedures Option A: Procedure ABC OR Option B: Procedure DEF OR Option C: No change to the procedure." Or is it wiser to go with one specific option, then debate and amend the motion based on how discussion goes? Ie. "Therefore adopt Procedure ABC DEF".

Thanks Josh and Daniel.... well, the good news part of this is that the By-Law is going to be totally re-written from scratch, and I will be highly recommending that RONR be the gold standard with anything unprovided for (which would be little) going to the By-Law itself. Until a final copy if brought forth for approval, we have to live with the confusing and ill-defined By-Law.

Great point, thanks, I will definitely bring that up.

Yes agreed, incorrect application of previous question. But from my reading of "questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules" is that RR becomes the catchall, and this seems to be the precedent they are following. The clerk will refer to RR if the By-Law doesn't address how a certain procedure is to be conducted. Further down in the By-Law, it addresses a subset of actions/motions under RR including points of order, but is far for complete (hence the fallbck to RR).