PBix

Our bylaws distinguish between full members and limited members. The bylaws specify that limited members have the right to attend meetings and have the privilege of debate, but cannot vote. Full members can attend meetings, have the privilege of debate, and can vote. Our bylaws do not state whether a limited member can move a motion, such as motion to amend. In the absence of any express provision on this point, can a person who has the privilege of debate, but who cannot vote, move a motion?

Thank you!

An organization holds a special meeting at which it considers a motion to hire someone. Under the organization's bylaws, a 2/3 vote is required for a hire of this kind. The proposed hire receives a majority vote, but not a 2/3 majority, so the motion to hire fails. Some members are interested in reconsidering the motion at the organization's next regular meeting, which is one week after the special meeting. The organization holds regular monthly meetings that go through an agenda in a single afternoon. Are the following statements correct? 1. Each meeting of the organization is a separate session. RONR 8:4. 2. Therefore, a motion to reconsider the failed motion to hire, if made at the next regular meeting, would not be in order, since a motion to reconsider a failed motion can be made only at the same session. RONR 37:10(b). 3. However, there is no obstacle in RONR to a new motion, made at the next regular meeting, to hire the same person, because the next regular meeting is a new session and is not bound by the failed motion to hire made at the previous session. RONR 8:12. Thanks in advance.

Thank you for these helpful answers, which bring out a nuance of the motion to postpone indefinitely that I had not appreciated.

RONR observes that the motion to "table" something is often misunderstood. RONR helpfully points out that if what is really desired is to kill a measure without voting on it, the correct motion is to "postpone indefinitely," and if what is desired is to kill a motion without voting on it and without further debate, the correct procedure is first to move to postpone the motion indefinitely and then to move the previous question on that motion (of course a 2/3 vote would be required). A member who wants to postpone consideration of a motion could also move to postpone it to a certain time, or to commit it to a committee. But what if what is really desired is, "Could we just make the pending main motion go away for the remainder of this meeting, and then it can come back or not at some later meeting, I don't care whether it comes back or not, as long as we can avoid further discussion of it any more today." That's what people at our meetings really seem to want when they move to "table" something. What is the proper motion for that? That's what "postpone indefinitely" sounds like it ought to mean, but of course, it doesn't.

Thank you for this reply; it is helpful even though it is not what I was hoping for. Any other ideas? I'm pretty sure the only person in the organization who truly cares about whether going forward is parliamentarily proper is me. If I give the go-ahead on this, no one will object. In fact, I suspect the rest of the membership is rolling its eyes at my insistence on finding some proper way to do this. So any other thoughts are welcome.

Yesterday, I asked for help with a problem facing my organization. We have adopted RONR as our parliamentary authority and our by-laws have no provision for electronic meetings. We have been meeting over Zoom anyway, with the understanding that we will ratify actions at a later meeting. But now we want to make someone a real job offer, for which the person will have to turn down other offers and relocate, and it may not be good enough for the person if we tell them that the we intend to, by cannot absolutely promise that we will, ratify the offer later. Two suggestions I received were: (1) hold a brief, outdoor meeting, which might take only a couple of minutes, to adopt a rule authorizing electronic meetings, and (2) check whether state law has anything that would override our usual rules. We looked into suggestion (1) and unfortunately it seems that gathering the necessary number of people (about 40), even for a short time, would violate local emergency limits on gatherings, even outdoor gatherings. And we can't do that because we're very law-abiding. We're still looking into (2), but it appears that the answer is no. Now what? As the parliamentarian, I am under some pressure to advise the Chair that RONR's definition of meeting, which requires gathering in one "room or area" is satisfied by a virtual room or area. I don't feel I can conscientiously do that, in light of RONR's specific guidance on electronic meetings, which seem to me to make clear that "room or area" means "physical room or area." At the same time, I do feel that virtual meetings, such as on Zoom, have advanced to the point where they satisfy all the policies that could be served by requiring a physical meeting, and that punctilious insistence on a short physical meeting just to adopt a rule approving virtual meeting serves no real purpose. Is there any text anywhere in RONR that I could point to for the purpose of supporting the argument that, "obviously RONR wasn't designed with the current emergency circumstances in mind, and it is ridiculous to let our organization be indefinitely unable to carry out vital business in order to satisfy perfect compliance with restrictions that are not serving any real purpose, and therefore it must be permissible, in these extraordinary circumstances, to make an exception"? Advice appreciated.

Thank you. The hire would require a vote of the membership, and a majority of the membership would have to show up to constitute a quorum either to make the job offer or to change the by-laws. It would be a pain, but they might be willing to do it to get the organization out of the jam it's been in for almost a year now.

Thank you for those suggestions. The outdoor meeting idea might be practical, if we can get a quorum to show up. I will also research the state code.

I am the Parliamentarian of our organization. Our by-laws adopt Robert's Rules as our parliamentary authority. Our by-laws make no provision for electronic meetings. Because of the pandemic, ever since last March, we have been meeting electronically over Zoom, with the understanding that we will have to ratify all actions we take when we are next able to hold a real, face-to-face meeting. Now we face a serious situation. We want to offer someone a job, which would require a vote of the organization. We can hold our usual Zoom meeting, vote to offer this person a job, and tell the person that the offer will be officially ratified when we are next able to hold a real meeting. But the person will have to turn down other job offers and relocate to accept our offer. So we will be asking the person to make a serious life decision in reliance on our word that we will ratify the offer at an unspecified later date. Although we can honestly say that such ratification is extremely likely, honesty demands that we not say it is 100% guaranteed. And we may not be able to recruit the person we want if we can't really guarantee the job. Is there any solution? If only we could hold one face-to-face meeting, we could adopt a by-law allowing electronic meetings. But a real, face-to-face meeting seems unlikely until late this year at the earliest. Is there anything we can do to change our by-laws without holding a meeting? Advice appreciated.

Thank you all for these helpful replies.

At the meetings of my organization, people have long turned to me when parliamentary issues arise, as I am one of the few members who takes an interest in parliamentary procedure and I actually have a copy of Robert's Rules. Recently I was officially named as our organization's Parliamentarian. But I feel that my knowledge is incomplete. It was good enough when people looked to me informally for advice, but now that I am officially the Parliamentarian, I feel a responsibility to know more. Is there an outlet that offers training in parliamentary procedure? Is any such outlet regarded as the best, most official source of such training? Can one get certified as a Parliamentarian? Any advice appreciated. Because of the pandemic, I would need a course that can be taken remotely. Thanks in advance.

Thanks for this reply. I afraid it would not be appropriate for me to reveal the particular details of what my organization is considering. All I can say is that several different members of the organization have each proposed an action that would respond to a situation that the organization is facing, and that the agenda for our upcoming meeting lists each of these proposals as a separate agenda item. The actions are all distinct, but any one of them, or any combination of them, might be considered the appropriate response to the situation we are facing. Based on discussions with some members, I anticipate that the situation suggested in my OP could occur. Although I am not a trained Parlimentarian, I have some knowledge of Robert's Rules and I am often asked for advice on Parliamentary questions at our meetings, so I was hoping to be prepared if this question came up. Your reply is helpful. Let me follow up with two more questions: 1. Going back to the original hypothetical: A moves the first agenda item, and B moves to refer A's motion to a committee. Could C then move to amend B's motion to instruct the committee to consider recommending one or more of the other agenda items as alternatives to the first agenda item? 2. You say that after the first agenda item is disposed of, C could make a main motion to refer the remaining items to a committee. Can C do this even though it interrupts the agenda? RONR 11th p. 373 says that it takes a 2/3 vote to change the agenda. (Of course, p. 372 says that the agenda is not binding unless formally adopted at the start of the session, and we never do that -- our leadership just circulates the agenda in advance. But we've always treated it as though it were the real agenda.) Thanks again for your advice -- it's been very helpful already.

Thank you for these responses. I also found this:

And if the form suggested in the OP would not work but some other form would accomplish the same goal, please indicate what that other form is. E.g., perhaps the member could include in the body of the proposed resolution the phrase "this resolution shall be inoperative unless adopted by vote of at least 3/4 of those members present and voting."