Alex Meed

I'll add: this organization has been functioning under a very strange amalgamation of customs and practices for as long as I've been in it. As "Parliamentarian" (see above for why it's in air quotes), if I threw a fit every time we violated some paragraph of RONR, I'd lose all my legitimacy. I've focused on speaking up when people's rights are clearly being violated or when there's a clear potential to improve the efficiency of business.

But "because RONR says so" and "because the bylaws say so" are not persuasive arguments in this society, and never have been except when something written in the bylaws comports with someone's agenda. Still, the society manages to function, and I've mostly succeeded at protecting what I see as the core accountability elements of RONR and our bylaws. But that makes it even harder to argue solely from the vantage point that some rule is written in a 669-page book that nobody but me and the Parliamentarian-elect owns a copy of, even though that book happens to be the adopted parliamentary authority of our society. If I'm going to succeed in having vote totals announced at officer elections, I need a more persuasive argument than "RONR says so", even though I wish that were all I needed.

Oh dear, this is a lot! I'll pick out a few things:

32 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

We are told that in this instance, the President (who presumably is also the chairman of the assembly) and the chairman of tellers are the same person, so it seems that the chairman of the assembly did have the information needed to declare the result. I still agree that it is highly problematic not to announce the full results for many other reasons, as Dr. Stackpole has noted.

29 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

But we are also told that the President was not presiding at the time this occurred (though we are not told why not).

11 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Oh, that is interesting.

Well, one hopes that the results were shared at least with the chairman, although if this was not the case, I quite agree that it was extremely improper for the chairman to declare the result of the election when even the chairman himself was not aware of the count.

The bylaws give me the title of Parliamentarian, though in truth that's a misnomer for my actual job. Among my duties is to preside at officer elections. In past elections (before I entered office), the chairman of tellers would quietly tell the presiding officer the vote tally, and the presiding officer would announce the result without repeating the vote tally. In this election, the President/chairman of tellers took it upon himself to announce the winners. That was another one of those moments where I decided it wasn't worth it to get in a rules fight right then and there, though I'll probably review the procedures with the President before our endorsement meeting next week, which is done by ballot as well.

I also happen to have been elected President (taking office in a couple of weeks, as the bylaws prescribe), so the election of my successor will likely proceed differently than this one.

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

In my opinion (and just generally speaking), whenever the bylaws require that a vote be taken by ballot it is not in order to move to suspend the rule that the vote totals be announced. This is because announcement of the vote totals is an essential element of a ballot vote.

This general principle may or may not be applicable in this particular instance.

What circumstances would make it inapplicable?

37 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

So I suppose my new response is “No if the bylaws require a ballot vote for the election. Otherwise, yes, but it is a very bad idea.”

The bylaws do require a ballot in all contested races (of which there were several).

12 hours ago, jstackpo said:

1)  The winner got nearly all the votes and the loser has had a long history of fruitlessly running for office.  Reading the vote count might send him a message, that it is time to quit making a fool of himself.

2)  The vote is "reasonably" close.  [...]

3)  The vote is "extremely" close - one or two votes different.  [...]

There seems to be one case missing: that of a member who is well-respected within the organization, but goes up against another well-respected candidate and loses decisively. That happened in the first contested race of the evening (it was about a 90%–10% split), and I think that was why the chairman of tellers refused to read out the ballot tally. It was probably to avoid humiliating the losing candidate, out of what RONR describes as "mistaken deference", but if I'm going to convince people (especially last night's tellers) that the deference was mistaken, I need to fully understand why it was mistaken.

As the bylaws chairman (another facet of my strange role in this organization), I discussed that the rules require ballot tallies to be read aloud. There was no opposition to that within the committee or during floor consideration (which I also presided over, as the bylaws require... just go with it), but I suspect that the tellers' hearts changed upon seeing an actual example of a lopsided tally.

Thanks, everyone.

Our organization had officer elections tonight. I seem to recall RONR stating explicitly that under no circumstances should the reading of the tellers' report, including vote totals, be omitted in presenting the results of an election. Nevertheless, the chairman of tellers (who is also the President) refused to announce the vote totals, fearing that this could be upsetting to members who lost resoundingly (it's also not our custom to announce the totals). I was presiding and decided this was not a battle I wanted to fight tonight, so I asked if there was unanimous consent to suspend the requirement that vote totals be announced, and there was no objection. (Our bylaws do require the vote totals to be retained and made available to any member who asks.)

Why does RONR insist that it is a good idea to announce vote totals? If there's no good argument for why it should be done, I'm inclined to agree with the chairman of tellers—but I can't imagine the A-team putting in their admonition without a good reason for doing so. Separately, is it in order to suspend the rule requiring vote totals to be announced, as we did tonight?

9 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In the scenario presented, the problem I have is that an attempt is being made to deal with committee reports before the reports of officers, boards, and standing committees have been dealt with. It seems to me that tinkering with the order of business in this fashion would require some kind of suspension of the rules.

Fair enough. To be clear, though, am I correct that your objection isn't to the simultaneous postponements, but to the fact that they're being done before special committees are arrived at in the order of business? Or would you be okay with a main motion to postpone one special committee report before officer/etc. reports are handled? Just want to make sure you're not disputing Mr. Honemann's or my arguments on my original question before we start on a new topic.

As for the point you raise, you're probably right, but I'm curious enough to crack open my copy of RONR tomorrow...once I get some sleep.

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

No.  It is implied on p. 87, ll. 14-19 that a committee can be used as method for considering a motion beyond thee next session.

9 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

While it is certainly true that a committee can report at a session later than the one at which the referral was made, nothing on p. 87—or anywhere else—implies that a motion to refer a main motion to a committee is in order when it's sole purpose is to postpone consideration.

Oh dear, not this argument again...

I should also note that another thread (also linked above) is disagreeing over the question I raised in the third paragraph of my original post.

16 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think I would want to see exactly how your motion is worded. 

A tedious way of doing it would be "I move to postpone the report of the special committee appointed to consider Foo, and of the committee appointed to consider Bar, and of the committee [proceeding to identify each special committee] until after the consideration of unfinished business." But perhaps such tedium of expression can be avoided?

Starting arguments on the forum, my favorite pastime. 😈

My initial opinion was in line with Mr. Honemann's (though it should be noted that I'm a complete novice to this field). I interpret the rule on p. 184 to mean that if someone makes the motion I give in my example, it's in order only if treated as multiple main motions made simultaneously under the rule on p. 274. Thus, any member may demand a separate vote on postponing any individual item. If the rule on p. 184 were inverted to explicitly allow postponement of a class of business, the motion in my example would then be considered as a single main motion divisible only by majority vote.

So, the rule on p. 184 doesn't mean you can't make the motion in my example—it just means such a motion is treated as multiple simultaneous motions that may be considered jointly only by unanimous consent. Similar rules are treated similarly; generally speaking, there's no limit to what the assembly can do by a single vote except for the limits of reason and unanimous consent.

But I'm curious to hear thoughts from people who actually know what they're talking about.

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Nothing much, other than practicalities and common sense.

 I suppose I should add that there are no circumstances that I can think of off hand in which main motions "must" be offered individually and put to individual votes. The point is that there is no sense at all in offering a group of main motions under one enacting motion when there is no chance at all that one or more members will not call for separate consideration of one or some or all of them.

Hopefully this example doesn't transgress any rules except possibly the one it is meant to illuminate:

A meeting of the Widget Society has just begun, and you are its president. There's expected to be a controversial debate in unfinished business, but there are also a panoply of special committees set to give reports.

After the minutes are approved, I rise, get recognized, and move to postpone each of the special committees' reports to after unfinished business. My intent is that my proposal be treated as a set of multiple main motions, one per report, divisible on demand by any member.

A member rises on a point of order, arguing that my motion is not in order because it would violate the rule against postponement of a class of subjects.

You are in the chair. How do you rule?

8 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

One example is found on page 619.

What distinguishes this example from other cases where the main motions/resolutions must be offered individually and put to individual votes? Or do such cases exist?

1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

2. A series of main motions would, in my opinion, be in order; but, each would be handled in the regular way, one after the other. Parliamentary law has a prima regula: one main motion at a time. Each main motion would be separately debatable and amendable.

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Each subsidiary motion is moved as each specific item is brought up. You're not doing them all at once.

This is closely related to a question I've had ever since I got about halfway through my first reading of RONR, so I've factored it out to this thread.

Quote

3. An assembly can add an instruction to either a main motion or a subsidiary motion, Commit, for a committee to report at a particular meeting in the future or at a time no later than a particular meeting in the future. If the assembly wishes to take back control of the main motion before the committee has made its final report, Discharge a Committee is the proper motion.

And I suppose that, while the matter is in the hands of the committee, it is not in order to consider it in the assembly? It seems decidedly odd to allow a matter that will come up as pending later in the meeting to be sent off to committee before that time.

It strikes me as even more odd that a majority cannot postpone a class of business or lay it on the table by a single vote, but can refer it to committee by a single vote when no business is pending, and then reconsider the referral (if the committee has yet to meet and it is within the time limit) whenever it is desired to take up the matter after the time originally fixed for its consideration. (And, perhaps, the majority could be sure that the committee will not interfere with its plan by instructing it not to meet before when they anticipate wanting to take up the matter again, or simply by ensuring that nobody is appointed to the committee who would call an early meeting.) Aside from the time limit on reconsideration, and the fact that this is a main motion instead of a subsidiary one, how is the effect of that not different from laying the class of business on the table by a single vote?

I'm confused by the interaction between the fundamental principle articulated in RONR (11th ed.), p. 59, ll. 18–23, that "only one question can be considered at a time", and the section in p. 274, l. 31, to p. 275, l. 14. The latter section states that "sometimes a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects is offered in one motion", and gives the specific example of multiple amendments to the same question being adopted by a single vote unless a member calls for a separate vote. I interpret pp. 274–75 to mean that multiple questions that could each stand alone can also be considered and voted on as a unit, unless any member requests that they be divided.

However, this seems to conflict with the  principle on p. 59. It also seems hostile to statements such as the one on p. 184, ll. 23–27, that it is not in order—even by main motion—to postpone an entire class of business by one motion, and that each item must be postponed by a separate motion. The prevailing sense in this thread seems to be that if a member wishes to postpone multiple items at once by main motion, the member must make a separate motion to postpone each item, and may not offer the multiple postponements as one motion (subject to division at the request of any member) as pp. 274–75 seem to imply is acceptable.

Under what circumstances, if any, may multiple main motions be put before the body to be decided by a single vote (subject to division at the request of any member)?

16 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Not according to p. 184, lines 23-25: "It is not in order, either through a subsidiary motion or a main motion, to postpone a class of business composed of several items or subjects, ..."

Doing it through a series of main motions is effectively the same.

RONR does suggest that the appropriate way to do this would be to Suspend the Rules (p. 184, l. 23 - p. 185, l. 1).

But RONR specifically allows each in a class to be postponed by subsidiary motion (p. 184, ll. 26–27). Why do lines 23–25 prevent the use of a series of main motions but not multiple subsidiary motions?

9 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

While it is not proper to postpone a class of business with a main motion, it is proper to postpone individual items of business. In my opinion, a series of main motions to postpone individual items of business does not violate the rule on page 184.

And in your view could the series of main motions be moved as a single motion, subject to division at any member's request? Or must a member make a separate motion, which is then separately seconded and voted on, to postpone each item in the class?

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Observe the fact that the prohibition of postponing an entire class of business is also extended to the prohibition of laying an entire class of business on the table as specifically mentioned on page 211, lines 21-27. However, I cannot find an identical prohibition on referring an entire class of business to a committee. Perhaps I missed it somehow.

3 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think you can take it for granted that a main motion to refer all general orders, or some such thing, to committee would not be in order, either. RONR doesn't explicitly deal with such a suggestion.

Is a main motion to refer to committee in the same nature as a postponement or laying on the table? In other words, when a future item of business is postponed or laid on the table, it is prevented from coming before the assembly at its original time. Can a future item of business similarly be committed and prevented from coming before the assembly until the committee reports (or is discharged or otherwise)?

Just now, Richard Brown said:

Neither can a rule requiring officers to be elected by majority vote, but a rule requiring a majority vote for other non-officer elections can be suspended.

On what basis do you draw that conclusion?

Strictly speaking, is it in order to make a main motion "that the meeting recess for ten minutes and thereafter go into closed session"? Or must the meeting declare a closed session and then take a recess at the beginning of closed session, or conversely take a recess in open session and then declare a closed session after the recess concludes?

RONR (11th ed.), p. 184, l. 17, to p. 185, l. 5, set forth the general rule that a class of business cannot be postponed by one motion, but each item may be postponed as it is arrived at. It also provides that it is not in order to make the subsidiary motion to Postpone on a question that is not pending, but that such a postponement may be accomplished, "when appropriate", by a main motion.

When is a postponement by main motion "appropriate" in the sense in which the term is used on p. 184?

As a specific example, is it in order to postpone each item in a given class of business by separate main motions adopted one after the other? If so, can that series of postponement motions be adopted by a single vote, as "a series of independent resolutions or main motions dealing with different subjects ... offered in one motion" (p. 274, ll. 32–34), with any individual postponement subject to a separate vote on request of any member?

RONR (11th ed.), p. 183, ll. 7–14, provide in relevant part:

Quote

In a case where more than a quarterly time interval ... will elapse between meetings..., a question cannot be postponed beyond the end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval ... will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not beyond, the next regular business session.

Should the first "meetings" be "sessions"? Or is the first sentence intended not to apply to two meetings in the same session being held within a quarterly time interval, even if the next session will not be within a quarterly time interval?

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Are you planning on giving us that page number?  

I suppose determining the proper page number will be the first task for the committee. 

A society has an executive board that refers a matter to a special committee of the board. May members of the society who are not board members be appointed to the committee? Does the answer change based on how the committee members are appointed?

A society's bylaws provide that its officers-elect take office at a defined time after the election. They also require that regular officer elections be done at a particular regular meeting, and that nominations be taken at both that meeting and the preceding regular meeting. They have this to say about special elections: "A vacancy in office is filled by special election. The first nomination period is at the first regular meeting no earlier than the day after the vacancy is created. At the following regular meeting, the special election is held under the same procedures as the regular election. The election takes effect at the close of the meeting."

At a regular election, a candidate is nominated and elected, is present for the election, and does not decline. However, in the ensuing days before taking office, the officer-elect informs the Secretary that he no longer wishes to take office. There are no more regular meetings before the beginning of the term, but there is enough time to call a special meeting before then.

Since the officer-elect has yet to assume office, and thus his belated declination has not created a vacancy, may a new officer-elect be chosen at a special meeting without a separate nomination period, as RONR would allow for an absent officer who immediately declines (RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 23–25)? Or must the society wait until the next regular meeting and comply with its bylaws provisions relating to filling vacancies in office?

Also, if there were another regular meeting before the beginning of the term, could the new officer-elect be chosen at that meeting?

Robert's Rules allows a motion to suspend the rules, which is described in Section 25.

This does not include suspending the bylaws, unless the bylaws provision to be suspended is "in the nature of [a] rule[] of order" (RONR (11th ed.), p. 17, l. 23). A rule of order is a rule that relates "to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that capacity." (RONR (11th ed.), p. 15, ll. 9–11)

As Mr. Huynh implies, it might be more useful to know what effect is desired by suspending the rules (and I'll probably allow the more experienced contributors to this forum to comment on your response).

I have two questions on roll call voting:

1. RONR states that the chairman's name is only called if their vote will affect the result. Does this apply to assemblies using the small board rules, where the chair generally votes on all questions?

2. If the secretary is a voting member of the assembly, what procedure should the secretary use to cast a vote, since it is also their job to call the roll? (My idea: the secretary simply announces their vote when their name is reached, then carries on to the next member.)

In accordance with its bylaws, an organization takes nominees for office at the regular meeting before the one at which it elects officers. At the nomination meeting, a candidate is nominated and consents to her candidacy. In the interim, the candidate informs the Secretary that she no longer wishes to be considered for the position. At the election meeting, she is absent, and the Secretary informs the membership of the candidate's wishes. Nevertheless, she is elected.

In light of the provisions of RONR (11th ed.), p. 444, ll. 18–25, does the election take effect immediately, or is the officer-elect notified of her election and allowed to immediately decline? If the former, what is the officer-elect's recourse if she does not wish to perform the duties of the office, if the bylaws provide that the officer-elect takes office immediately? What about if the bylaws prescribe some future date (which has not yet passed) for the officer-elect to take office?

Inspired by true events, though this exact fact pattern has yet to arise in our society (and hopefully won't).

I am an officer of a political organization that makes endorsements in elections by vote of the general membership. In a few weeks we'll have a special meeting to endorse candidates in the upcoming primary. Under our bylaws, a new member cannot vote on the day of becoming a member, unless the person was a member in the preceding semester.

Recently, I became concerned that a political consultant was planning to send a large number of new members to one of our regular meetings. The intent, I feared, was that they return to vote in our endorsement meeting and shift the outcome in favor of the candidates who employ the consultant.

I read this thread, and I want to be clear: we welcome new members. But other clubs in this city have dealt with this sort of "packing" by paid political consultants—in fact, our very club has faced packing attempts before, which is why we have the one-day waiting period. In the experience of other clubs, packers are not interested in long-term membership, only in voting for their candidate and landing them a coveted endorsement by the club.

Luckily, yesterday we considered and adopted a full constitutional revision reported by the bylaws committee. With the support of the executive board, we amended one of its provisos to provide a special, much longer waiting period for the upcoming endorsement meeting, specifically as a Band-Aid to keep it from being packed.

But there's agreement in our organization that we need to strengthen our anti-packing rules for future endorsement meetings. What methods have you run across to prevent meeting packing while not discouraging new members from joining the organization?

3 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

I suspect they're confusing this with the rule that two members of a committee may call a meeting if the chair fails to do so.

Yep, except the "they" would be me, the bylaws chairman who skimmed that part of RONR a bit too lightly when I read it for the first time...

6 hours ago, Atul Kapur said:

Good luck tonight. Let us know how it goes, procedurally.

I should inform you that it went quite well. I had a member propose the amendment that I laid out in my previous post, which was met with initial confusion, followed by confused approval once its provenance and purpose were explained. Eh, better than having an ambiguity. Much better than the fireworks I expected.

We also addressed another interesting situation that I'll post about separately shortly; I would have mentioned it earlier had it not been protected by the secrecy of an executive session of our board.

Thanks again for all of your assistance.