Dr. John

17 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

However, as always, it is ultimately up this body itself to interpret its own rules.  The resolution of this  matter seems much more dependent on local law and rules than on the provisions of RONR.

15 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I think this organization erred in trying to write into their own rules parts of the rules in RONR. The rules in RONR for previous notice usually suffice, but transcribing them imperfectly can cause a mess.

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  The council had a very well-oiled rules of procedure very aligned with RONR before it was completely repealed and replaced with this new set.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.

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

As to the question regarding the meaning of the rule, I think that is more of a question for the City Council and the City Clerk than this forum, but for what it is worth, I expect answering that question will require a review not only of the rules pertaining to notice, but also of the rules pertaining to adoption of the agenda.

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.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Can you post the EXACT TEXT of the rule.... not a paraphrase?

Note:  I agree with Mr. Katz that it is becoming apparent that this situation is apparently covered by customized rules of this assembly and that we might not be able to be of much help.

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...

Quote

“Notice of Motion” means a written notice, given by a Member, advising Council that the motion described therein will be brought forward at a subsequent meeting. 

And then the rule...

Quote

7.7 Notices of Motion 

(1) A notice of motion must be made in writing and delivered to the Clerk no later than 4:30pm on the Wednesday prior to the Committee of the Whole or Council meeting to be included on the agenda for consideration at a subsequent meeting. A notice of motion is not debatable. 

(2) A notice of motion, in writing, may also be received by the Clerk prior to the closing of the meeting and in this event, the Chair shall read the notice of motion and it shall be duly recorded in the minutes without debate, and shall form part of the Agenda for the subsequent meeting. 

(3) The presentation of a notice of motion does not require a seconder until it comes before a meeting for debate. 

(4) The motion shall be printed in full on the agenda for the next meeting and may be considered at that time. 

(5) A notice of motion shall not be introduced at Special Council meetings. 

(6) If a motion is introduced and not brought forward in the next two (2) subsequent meetings, the motion shall expire. 

(7) Where it is deemed necessary to not delay the consideration, a notice of motion may be considered immediately upon its introduction by a successful two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Members present. 

10 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

It is becoming apparent that this question intersects with a number of customized rules, which may make some of what we have to say less valuable. 

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.

On 5/5/2021 at 7:45 AM, Josh Martin said:

I agree. I would think, however, that the proper course of action in such a case would be to amend the agenda to remove the motion, not to amend the agenda to remove the notice itself. (I'm also not clear on why the notice is on the agenda rather than in the call to begin with, but that's a separate issue.)

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.

On 5/5/2021 at 8:32 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Now, should an assembly permit a member to give notice? I'd say yes. (Another question is, after all this debate on the topic, whether, in fact, notice has been given because everyone is very much on notice that the member plans to make this motion. I'd say no because it will not go into the minutes.) But I don't think it's impossible not to.
...
This is nonsensical. For one thing, reconsider does not require a 2/3 vote. 37:5.7. For another, while it may be true that trying to amend the agenda during this session to add a deleted item requires reconsideration, it is certainly not the case at future sessions, if that is what is meant by "any further attempts." 

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.  

23 hours ago, J. J. said:

I am reading the question as removing a motion for which an item for which previous notice was given.

Unless some special rule intervenes, under RONR it would not be required to put "giving notice" on the agenda.  

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.

2 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I wouldn't worry about this part too much since you state the notice was given. 

So was it the motions for which previous notice was given that were removed from the proposed agenda prior to adopting it?

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.

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

As previously noted, however, there are quite likely rules on this matter in the council's rules or applicable law, and those rules take precedence over RONR.

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.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree, but I would say - it's not only the correct procedure, but it's also generally wiser. Note that the desire for different options can be met by a sequence of amendments. The effect of that, instead of presenting different options up front, is that debate remains focused on a discrete question at each moment.

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.

43 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I am of the opinion(in the minority on this forum) that, depending on the complexity of the procedures, filling a blank may be appropriate. However, you have said it is definitely not so I won't pursue it in your situation.

Another option is to move that the discussion of the subject of the procedure to be followed be dealt with in committee of the whole, quasi committee of the whole or informally (depending on the size of your assembly). See Section 52 and particularly 52:28 for more information.

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.

10 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Well, a solution to that is to have the interpretation recorded in the minutes so that it can be cited as a precedent the next time it happens. That way, if they want to interpret it a different way the next time, then it will at least be a purposeful decision.

The way this gets recorded in the minutes is to raise a Point of Order. The chair's ruling should be recorded (RONR 11th ed., p. 470, lines 15-18).

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

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Well, this is obviously not how the motion for the previous question works, but I'm struggling to see what it has to do with the bylaw provision you posted.

To put it another way: why do you think that the bylaw provision, which deals with points of order, applies to the previous question? I'm not asking to be snarky, I'm trying to understand your thought process.

Also, it occurs to me that the bylaw provision means that the chair does not rule on points of order, and every point of order is decided by the assembly. Again, I can't interpret your bylaws, but to me personally that's what it seems to be saying.

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).

Yes, they are definitely interpreting the by-laws... in an ad-hoc and inconsistent manner.

For example,  in one meeting someone called the question at two different points in the meeting, once debate was ended as everyone had spoken at least once (no vote)  and another time it was simply ended without a vote of the assembly (neither of which are provided for in the bylaws).

I'm having a tough time deciphering the language in this... while I consider myself a  "Parliamentarian in traning", I defer to learned wisdom in trying to figure this one out...

A society's rules have a catch-all that defers to RR...

"All matters, points of order or questions of procedure arising that are unprovided for in the rules herein contained shall be decided by the concurring votes of a majority of the members present in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order."

Now, the quandary I have is what happens when a Previous Question motion (or any 2/3's rule which is not listed in the society's By-Law) is brought up... since the motion is not specifically listed, we go to RR which requires 2/3 to pass.  But the verbiage of the By-Law gives me the impression that the 2/3rd's requirement of Previous Question would then only requires majority.

Am I interpreting this correctly (majority) or is the 2/3 requirement "in accordance" with RR the actual bar to be surpassed?

Thanks for the comprehensive overview Josh, this assembly definitely needs a "bulk purchase" on copies of RONR.  If only the holiday season were upon us, they would make great stock stuffers.

As the passed motion changing the sub-committee minutes at the previous meeting violates the Procedural By-Law which governs the Council and all committee/sub-committees, namely under "minutes":

Quote

The Minutes shall record:
(i) the date and time of the meeting
(ii) the name of the presiding officer and record of attendance of the Members
(iii) all the proceedings of the meeting without note or comment

... would a Point of Order be acceptable at the next meeting (granted it should have been used at the time, but with a group not fluent in RONR, it did not come to them)?

If so and the Chair agreed, can the majority who voted on that original motion to wrongfully amend/alter the sub-committee minutes "trump" the Procedural By-Law by bringing an Appeal from the Decision of the Chair and not having it sustained, thus maintaining a breach of the rules?

Thanks Gary, I did not quite think of it in that context... but absolutely on point there!

I have stumbled upon a situation where my City Council has an advisory committee (that reports to one of the standing City's standing committees) and that advisory committee conducted it's internal election for a new Chair and Vice-Chair.

There are three lay-members and two Councillors on this advisory committee, let's call them Councillor 1 & 2.  One of the Councillors has to be elected to as Chair or Vice Chair.  At their recent meeting, Councillor 1 put forth a motion, that was passed electing Councillor 2 as the new Chair.

The minutes of that meeting went to the standing committee, approved and incorporated into the Standing Committee's minutes which were then forwarded to Council for approval.

At Council, Councillor 1 declared they had a "change of heart" and stated they wanted to be considered for the Chair (and had mustered the supporting votes necessary beforehand).  Relevant documents:

1.  The Procedural By-Law for the Council says that the Chair of Standing Committees is appointed by Council.  It is mum on advisory/sub-committees.  Defaults to RONR if not otherwise specified.

2.  The Terms of Reference for the Advisory Committee states that Council may replace members or appoints them as it desires, but does not comment on election/selection of the Chair.

The advisory committee minutes were lifted from the standing committee minutes by Council and a motion put forward that amended the resolution in the advisory committee's minutes to say that Councillor 1 is elected as the new Chair (where it previously stated Councillor 2).

So my question is really in two parts:

1.  Did Council overstep it's authority in doing this (I am guessing no), given the absence of any guidance in the Terms of Reference or Procedural By-Law (which defaults to RONR if not specifically addressed)?

2.  If it was within the authority of the Council to do this, did they follow the correct procedure?  If the advisory committee minutes are to reflect what was done and not what was said at the time of their meeting, it seems improper that a resolution contained therein can be amended by Council almost one month later with something that did not actually occur at the meeting.  I would think that Council should have used a direct motion to appoint Councillor 1 as the new Chair.

Any insight into this one is really appreciated.

Thanks for the prompt reply  Yes, I think this goes more to internal procedure than RONR.

Will wait and see what comes out of the admin side.

I am hoping to get some clarification and direction on a particular situation I have in regards to a Board of Adjustment (aka Committee of Adjustment).

The Agenda for a recent meeting was published 3 days in advance and on the day of the meeting, both a Town report and a piece of correspondence from a local business in regards to an application were received.  These items were considered as part of the application which was voted on and summarized such as "Town Planning Report - No Objection" in the minutes, while the report itself actually goes into great detail.

As these documents formed part of the material considered in deciding on the application and should be part of the public record (the agendas and minutes are posted publicly on the Town website), where should they go?  They should have been put in an updated Agenda prior to the meeting, but were not... so in terms of ease of public accessibility, accountability and transparency, although not common practice, am I correct in stating the best place would be to have them attached to the minutes of that meeting?

I raised this at the meeting and the administrative staff said this was not normal practice, but would look into it.  The meeting minutes were passed without any attachments, but if this would be an appropriate place, I am gathering I can bring a motion to "Amend Something Previously Adopted".  

Any insight is greatly appreciated.