Alicia Percell, PRP

There's no particular magic formula for how to write one. What do you want the rule to do?

It sounds like it was done correctly. Think of the first vote as being whether or not the original motion would be better with the amendment or without it. If the amendment was approved in the first vote, then the second vote is on the original motion now WITH the amendment incorporated into it. If the amendment was not approved in the first vote, the second vote is on the original motion WITHOUT the amendment incorporated into it.

To abstain means to not vote at all, which is why abstentions do not count as votes. See RONR, 12th ed., 4:35 and 44:3.

Joshua, yes, I agree. This forum is aimed at answering questions about what RONR says, but the practical reality is that the people posing questions here are going to take the answers and apply them in their own real-world circumstances...which could include some (unknown to us) bylaw that changes the answer. If they have a bylaw which clearly says something directly contrary to the default in RONR, then that's on them to know their bylaws and to disclose that sort of thing to us when posing the question. But for some subjects like this, I think it is less obvious to non-parliamentarians that the details of the description of powers of the board could impact the answer. Even when pointing to official interpretations, WE know to carefully watch the details in the posed question, but the general public is just less experienced and thus less likely to notice the fine nuances of the questions there and make sure it parallels their circumstance.

The official interpretation in 2006-13 is predicated on a situation in which the board has, "full power and authority over the affairs of the Society between meetings of the membership." So only rely on that opinion if that's true in your organization. This is a very common organizational design, but if the organizational design were to be different, the answer could potentially be different. Knowing how to answer this question really requires a careful look at the precise language of the bylaws which define the powers of the board and describe membership meetings. It COULD be that the board has even more organizational control, and the membership meetings only have limited and enumerated powers such as electing board members.

This rule is very messy, indeed. In (2) it says the notice of motion "...SHALL form part of the Agenda for the subsequent meeting." And it says the agenda, not just the proposed agenda, which could be read to say that it can't be removed from the agenda... But then in (4) you have that the motion, "MAY be considered at that time." How do you consider the motion at that meeting if it's only the "notice of motion" which is on the agenda? You need the motion to be on an agenda. And like Joshua, I don't know what consideration one gives to a notice of a motion, or how one would debate someone else's notice of intent to make a motion. It seems the vocabulary choices are very inconsistent, with perhaps the rule author not carefully distinguishing between "notice of motion" as opposed to the actual motion itself. There is certainly ambiguity here that could leave the council to interpret its own rule until such time as it can be rewritten in a coherent way.

If you're looking for a Robert's Rules citation to share with others, here's RONR (12th ed) 45:2: "One Person, One Vote. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one -- and only one -- vote on a question. This is true even if a person is elected or appointed to more than one position, each of which would entitle the holder to a vote. For example, in a convention, a person selected as delegate by more than one constituent body may cast only one vote. An individual member's right to vote may not be transferred to another person (for example, by the use of proxies)." Also in 45:56: "Absentee Voting. It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members or an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting, although it should be noted that a member need not be present when the question is put. Exceptions to this rule must be expressly stated in the bylaws. Such possible exceptions include: (a) voting by postal mail, e-mail, or fax, and (b) proxy voting. An organization should never adopt a bylaw permitting a question to be decided by a voting procedure in which the votes of persons who attend a meeting are counted together with ballots mailed in by absentees. The votes of those present could be affected by debate, by amendments, and perhaps by the need for repeated balloting, while those absent would be unable to adjust their votes to reflect these factors. Consequently, the absentee ballots would in most cases be on a somewhat different question than that on which those present were voting, leading to confusion, unfairness, and inaccuracy in determining the result..." As mentioned above, it is possible that an applicable statute authorizes it, and if there were such a statute it would override the above-quoted provisions to the contrary, but that's a question for an attorney to help you with, noting all of the statutory nuances and identifying whether it applies to your type of organization.

I think Robert's Rules is being overly polite when it says in a footnote at the bottom of page ONE (after saying that a "deliberative assembly" is the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply): "A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing -- such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax) -- does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also 9:30-36)." Some groups insist on authorizing it in their bylaws anyway, and they forge ahead in spite of this warning, and it's just terrible! The entire asynchronous nature of it is a disaster because timing matters a lot in parliamentary procedure. All the timing issues with points of order go out the window. Some people are already voting while other people are still debating by email, and then someone else finds a serious flaw and wants to offer an amendment though voting is underway. If you're thinking of amending your bylaws to allow email voting...just don't. If you're a Monty Python fan, just think, "Email voting is RIGHT OUT!" If you go to the 9:30-36 reference in the above quote, you will find that it begins (emphasis exists in the original): "Extension of Parliamentary Law to Electronic Meetings. Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting -- that is, as defined in 8:2(1), a single official gathering in one room or area -- of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present..." It goes on to explain that SIMULTANEOUS aural communication is a minimum condition for an electronic meeting if those are properly authorized in the bylaws, but the key thing to note from this as it relates to your question is that doing business in some way other than the basic in-person meeting must be authorized in the bylaws.

Re: "But as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, if candidate A receives a majority of the votes cast the chair should declare that A has been elected, and no vote should be taken on candidate B. RONR, 12th ed., 46:38" That's a good point, presuming that there are only 5 members in attendance, such that 3 would be a majority regardless of how the other two voted. If there had been, say, 7 members, and 2 chose to abstain, then Candidate A's 3 votes wouldn't have been enough information to have declared it a majority just yet. They'd have to go through all the candidates before they knew conclusively that the other 2 members were abstaining and thus 3 was a majority of those present and voting.

Looks like the meeting was last night, so this isn't timely enough to have helped you yesterday. But if you're in this situation again, here's a generic script. The next order of business is election of a mayor. The floor is open for nominations, and as a reminder, you may nominate yourself. (recognize members to make nominations) Are there any further nominations? (pause in case you missed someone) Seeing no further nominations, nominations are now closed, and we'll proceed to a vote on election of a mayor. The nominated candidates are (list them). All those voting for Candidate A please raise your hands. (count) All those voting for Candidate B please raise your hands. (count - repeat as needed until you get through all nominated candidates) The vote totals are 3 votes for Candidate A and 2 votes for Candidate B. Candidate A received a majority vote and has been elected as mayor.

As a practical matter, if a majority was so opposed to the topic that they were not willing to give it agenda time, it seems very unlikely that a majority would have voted to adopt whatever motion would have been offered by the person who gave previous notice.

I will echo all the cautions above that if the question is about whether the second event violated applicable law, ask an attorney. Some open meeting laws do make specific provisions for "adjourned meetings" of properly noticed meetings to accommodate a need to continue on a different date in the near future. But suppose that the attorney says the applicable law says nothing contrary, and that the body operates under Robert's Rules on that topic. IF THAT WERE to be the case, then RONR (12th ed.) 22:7 says (in the context of describing the motion Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn) that: "Whether introduced as a privileged or a main motion, the effect of this motion is to establish an adjourned meeting -- that is, another meeting that will be a continuation of the session at which the motion is adopted. Unlike a special meeting, an adjourned meeting does not require notice, although it is desirable to give such notice if feasible." I'm not sure that we have enough information to know what exactly happened when the meeting didn't have quorum. The OP said, "Due to lack of a quorum the meeting was rescheduled for 24 hours later by a city official." That doesn't sound to me like the public body called to order, found that a quorum was not present, adopted a motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn, and then adjourned...which would be the process to take advantage of the above notice-preserving feature. Instead it sounds to me like they either just didn't call the meeting to order at all, or they called to order and immediately adjourned without scheduling an adjourned meeting, and afterwards maybe someone on staff (it says city official) just decided? That does not clear the hurdles under RONR to qualify as the inquorate body having properly set an adjourned meeting such that no additional notice would be required. But again, this is only relevant if there are no laws in play which override Robert's Rules on this point. Even if it's not technically in order for a non-member of the public body to interrupt and raise a point of order, the public body may be opening themselves to a problem if the speaker is factually correct about improper notice, and the body ignores them and proceeds anyway...but that depends on the provisions of your open meeting laws.

I agree with Mr. Elsman that there is nothing in Robert's Rules which provides that, "the full budget takes precedence over a motion to spend a few line items without a budget." I think there are several problems here, though. The treasurer's motion looks to me to have been out of order for more than one reason. First, it is not germane to the motion to merely authorize expenditures for the website committee. It goes well beyond that. The general rule on whether an amendment is germane can be found in RONR (12th ed.) 12:6 which says: "An amendment must always be germane -- that is, closely related to or having bearing on the subject of the motion to be amended. This means that no new subject can be introduced under pretext of being an amendment (see 12:16-21)." The spending plan would contain a lot of other new subjects which were not contained within the motion limited to the website committee expenditures. IF this amendment came up under an agenda item that was specifically for a report from the website committee, it would not be germane to the topic of the agenda item, either. It is likely too late to raise such a point of order, but not enough information was given for me to know for certain. Did the chair state the amendment before time ran out? If so, then a point of order should have been raised right then to question whether it was germane. See 23:5-6 for the timeliness requirement of a point of order and that, unless it falls into particular exceptions (which don't seem to apply here), that "The general rule is that if a question of order is to be raised, it must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. For example, if the chair is stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded, or on a motion that is not in order in the existing parliamentary situation, the time to raise these points of order is when the chair states the motion. After debate on such a motion has begun -- no matter how clear it is that the chair should not have stated the question on the motion -- a point of order is too late." If you got to the point of debating the amendment, it's too late to raise a point of order about it when you reconvene. If not, though, this point of order could be raised when the issue comes back. But you also called it a "friendly" amendment and mentioned that time expired before it could be either accepted or rejected. Please note that there are no special advantages given by Robert's Rules to an amendment perceived to be "friendly." See 12:91 which says: "The term 'friendly amendment' is often used to describe an amendment offered by someone who is in sympathy with the purposes of the main motion, in the belief that the amendment will either improve the statement or effect of the main motion, presumably to the satisfaction of its maker, or will increase the chances of the main motion's adoption. Regardless of whether or not the maker of the main motion 'accepts' the amendment, it must be opened to debate and voted on formally (unless adopted by unanimous consent) and is handled under the same rules as amendments generally (see 33:11-19)." So maybe if there was a perception that friendly amendments were different, maybe the chair didn't state the amendment formally, and maybe you didn't get far enough to preclude a future point of order about whether the amendment is germane. The next issue I would point out is that you said, "Due to the stack of motions on the docket, the Spending Plan motion was moved to June or July..." Once the group has voted to postpone an item to a future meeting, it is out of order for the Treasurer to then try to introduce that motion during the current meeting, whether or not it is couched as an amendment to another motion. See 39:5 that "motions are not in order if they conflict with one or more motions previously adopted at any time and still in force," and the Treasurer's motion would conflict with the prior decision to postpone it to a future meeting. I do not know how frequently your group meets, but there are hints that perhaps you meet monthly, since you referenced "June or July?" If so, please note that it is improper to postpone anything beyond the next session, so if you met monthly, an April meeting cannot postpone something to a date later than the May regular meeting, thus postponing to "June or July" would not be allowed. 8:12 provides that, "It is improper, for example, to postpone anything beyond the next regular session -- which would be an attempt to prevent that session from considering the question." But of course, this means that at the next meeting, the spending plan could be brought up, so the postponement from April would no longer be the reason that the treasurer's motion would be out of order as an amendment to the website committee's motion. Then you're back to the question of whether it is germane to the website committee's motion, and whether the amendment progressed so far in the April meeting that it is too late to raise a point of order about it.

Under RONR, meeting guests who are not members of the body which is meeting are not necessarily entitled to speak at all, and if they decide to allow non-members to speak, RONR doesn't set time limits or rules about responses to such comments. As Mr. Martin noted, though, the answer might instead be found in applicable law or a town council policy. Many governmental bodies operate under laws which give the public certain rights to make public comments at the meetings, and these laws MIGHT set some limits on their options to respond particularly if the topic is not on the agenda, etc. Such legal questions are for attorneys to address rather than for parliamentarians. If you don't know any attorneys you could ask, maybe just ask the city attorney. He's not your personal attorney, so don't expect to get legal advice, but since this topic is part of his job, he should be able to off the top of his head answer the basic question of where you can find the applicable rules so that you can read them for yourself. If it's not easy to ask him informally before or after a town council meeting begins, maybe ask the question during public comments at the next meeting, and maybe they'll answer it for you. Another option might be to put in a public records request with your town clerk for a copy of the rules which govern public comment at the meetings.

To help with this particular tactic, before the meeting you should read up on: 1) a motion to Limit Debate (starting at RONR 15:1) so that business moves along at a reasonably efficient rate 2) If you adopt a formal agenda rather than following a generic order of business, then review agenda amendments so that you can vote to place important topics relatively early on the agenda. If done before the agenda is adopted, it requires only a simple majority vote. (RONR 41:60-63) 3) creating special orders to take up a particular topic at a fixed time before the opposition leaves (starting at RONR 41:41) 4) If you want to get to a particular topic next, study suspending the rules to take an item up out of order, though this requires winning a 2/3 vote (RONR 41:37-39) 5) Depending on the size of his opposition, before they depart, while they can still vote to help obtain a majority, perhaps just make a motion to adjourn so that business cannot continue for the day. The longer the meeting seems to drag on, the more likely that others will be ready to do this. Your comment that the chair will not provide a copy of the bylaws is particularly concerning. Given that RONR 2:13 emphasizes that it's a good policy to give new members a copy of the bylaws (and any corporate charter) when they join the organization, and that being familiar with the bylaws and other rules is crucial to being able to participate fully in the organization's business, I think hiding the bylaws from the membership is a pretty good cause for removal of a chair from office since it may serve to deprive the membership of their rights of participation.

The second response to this post used this argument: "He is not permitted, however, to speak against the Main Motion, as amended. RONR (11th ed.), p. 393." The phrase "as amended" is underlined for emphasis, but I don't really see that angle addressed in the referenced passage, which says: "REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97)." It says he can't speak against "his own motion" and if he changes his mind "while the motion he made is pending," then he should ask to withdraw. However, if an amendment has been adopted in the meantime, particularly one which makes the result objectionable, is the pending motion still "the motion he made" or is the amended version now a different motion which would allow him to speak against it as it is no longer "his own motion?"

Couldn't a clever member, after seeing his own motion amended in a way that makes it no longer acceptable to him, move to suspend the rules so as to permit himself to speak against it? If the suspension motion is adopted, then he can speak against it. If the suspension motion fails, he has at least signaled to his colleagues that he no longer supports it without actually having spoken against it. If the goal is to document in the minutes that he opposed the motion as amended, perhaps he should move to take a roll call vote on the question. RONR (11th ed.) p. 283, or RONR (12th ed.) 30:1.

We don't have information about the way in which the proposed motion was previously ruled to have been in violation of the charter, nor do I think we need to know that. Even presuming that the previous ruling was correct, during the new agenda item someone could offer a modified version of the prior motion that does not violate the charter and thus is not out of order. So I don't believe that a motion to add the general subject to the agenda would be out of order. Ruling it to be out of order could prevent the assembly from finding a different solution to the issue.

It is completely meaningless to list an abstention option on a ballot, and it makes no difference in the outcome of the vote. RONR (12th ed.) 4:35: "To 'abstain' means not to vote at all..." Marking "abstention" on a ballot is still not voting, just the same as turning in a blank ballot, or not turning in a ballot at all. RONR (12th ed.) 45:32, when the votes are counted, only ballots that indicate a preference are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. Someone who abstains has not expressed a preference, so even a ballot which is marked "abstention" is to be ignored. It doesn't count toward the number of ballots cast. RONR (12th ed.) 1:6, a majority vote is only a majority of those "present and voting," so those not voting (abstaining) do not factor into the calculation at all. Only the yes and no votes matter to the calculation.

Is someone alleging to you that the quoted text is in Robert's Rules? It's hard to PROVE a negative, but no, there is not such a sentence in Robert's Rules. All I can offer you as proof is actual quotes from Robert's Rules which contradict that alleged quote. I would suggest starting in 12th edition, 47:7 which is a section titled, "Duties of the presiding officer of the assembly." A list of duties is given including: "4) To state and put to vote all questions that legitimately come before the assembly as motions or that otherwise arise in the course of proceedings (except questions that relate to the presiding officer himself in the manner noted below), and to announce the result of each vote (4); or if a motion that is not in order is made, to rule that it is not in order (although this may be avoided if the chair can suggest an alternative that is in order which the maker agrees to offer instead; see 4:16-18)." There are circumstances in which a chair can refuse to recognize a motion, if you keep reading that same list to numbered item 5 to see the chair is to protect the assembly from dilatory motions, but the chair needs a valid reason to refuse a motion. Either it's dilatory, or it violates some other rule, etc. But the chair is not free to refuse a motion "for any reason or none at all." If a chair is simply refusing to recognize valid motions, see section 62 of 12th edition Robert's Rules, which includes remedies for dereliction of duty in office, specifically starting in 62:3 which states (underline added for emphasis): "For example, some important rules of parliamentary procedure are (a) that the chair must recognize any member who seeks the floor while entitled to it (see 42); (b) that after a member has properly made a motion that is not dilatory (see 39), the chair must either state the question on it, or else rule it out of order for a specified valid reason, require that the wording be clarified or be submitted in writing, or declare that it is not before the assembly for lack of a required second (see 4); and (c) that the chair cannot hurry through the proceedings so quickly as to deprive the members of their rights to debate and to introduce secondary motions (see 43:7)." The same section goes on to describe what to do if a chair fails in these duties.

@Richard Brown thanks for the very nice welcome!

I also disagree that there is no such thing. Perhaps the reason that you are getting the no-such-thing answers is that by default in Robert's Rules (see 11th edition p. 3 lines 1-15, or see 12th edition 1:4) members do have all of those rights, including the right to vote: "A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. Some organized societies define additional classes of "membership" that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as "voting members" when it is necessary to make a distinction." Unless your bylaws say otherwise, anyone who is a "member" automatically has those rights. Even within this passage, though, is a nod to the fact that the group can create other classes of membership "that do not entail all of these rights." Since the non-voting members are a construct of your organization's specific rules, it is up to your rules to also spell out which of these rights they do or do not have. If all your rules say is that they are non-voting, I think there's a good argument to be made that voting is the only of those membership rights they have been denied. To say only "non-voting" does not inherently also imply "non-attending" or "non-making-motions" or "non-debating."