Gregory Carlson

I respectfully disagree. There is a substantive difference between the member resigning and the resignation being accepted before the vote was declared by the chair, and resigning and the resignation being accepted after the vote was declared by the chair, as the former has not been made official. I believe the following would be in order: Polls are opened. Members vote. Member resigns. Privileged motion to raise a question of privilege affecting the assembly that a resigning member can no longer affect the vote. Incidental motion to accept the resignation is adopted. Resigning member (now nonmember) vote declared illegal. Polls are closed. Chair declares the result. If the resignation of the member was accepted after the vote was closed and the Chair stated the result, then the vote of the resigning member would count.

I very much prefer this idea to the idea of combining/including/merging a main motion with a secondary motion. I would add that a motion that included a phrase such as "this motion shall require a vote of ___ for adoption" would be susceptible to a division of the question anyway, and it is better to consider the questions separately for all practical purposes.

I would offer an argument that the society has the ability to void the vote but that it should be done formally during a meeting. The society has the ability to accept the resignation of the member. We need more details to understand how a multi-day vote is occurring, and if a meeting of the society is going to be occurring when the result is announced. A member could raise a point of order that a vote was cast by a nonmember, or the Chair could make an appealable ruling on the vote by citing 25:9 : "Thus, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right vote is limited to members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is take in a regular or properly called meeting (45:56), the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember..." The question is then, if the resignation formally accepted, was the vote valid since it was cast when they were a member? To answer that question, I think it helps to look at 45:8: "Except when the vote has been taken by ballot (or some other method that provides secrecy), a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced but afterward can make the change only but he unanimous consent of the assembly requested and granted, without debate, immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote." In reading that rule, I would argue that a member, knowing that if they became a nonmember that their vote would no longer count, has thus changed their vote under this rule by resigning before the result was announced. This process might be more complicated if the society is somehow accepting the vote result outside of a meeting. If the vote was by secret ballot, and if 1 vote would make the difference, I think it would require a revote.

A society wishes to adopt the following rule: “If the text of a main motion or proposed meeting standing rules was included with the call of the meeting, then the motion shall not be read at the meeting. This rule may not be suspended.” In my opinion, even though this is in the nature of a rule of order (2:14), the only way practical way to accomplish this is with a Bylaws Amendment and not as a Special Rule of Order for two reasons: 1) Because 33:21 states: “When any paper is laid before the assembly or action, it is a right of every member that it be read once…” 2) 25:2(7) states: “No rules protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule.” Would it require a unanimous vote to make this a special rule of order, given what is said in 33:21 and 25:2(7)? It is possible I am mixing up the rules of "Suspend the rules" with the rules for "Creating a special rule of order." I am always cautious when a rule is being considered that affects the rights of a minority of one member. Thanks.

Does the rule in 4:29 apply to Officer or Committee Reports: "Without permission of the assembly, no one can speak longer than permitted by the rules of the body - or, in a non-legislative assembly that has no rule of its own relating to the length of speeches, longer than ten minutes." I ask the question because the paragraph is under the subheading on "Debate on the Question," of the main heading "The Consideration of a Main motion: Basic Steps." The paragraphs preceding and following 4:29 are clearly referencing debate on a question. If an Officer or Committee Chair is giving a report, there need not be a motion/question necessarily. In thinking of the remedy of an Officer or Committee Chair who is deliberately filibustering with their report: A motion to limit debate is not in order because the standard descriptive characteristics 15:5(2) states that it can only be applied to debatable motions (also it is not an interrupting motion). Perhaps the incidental version of this motion could be expanded to also apply to Officer/Committee Reports. A motion to suspend the rules is not in order since it is not an interrupting motion. A motion to call for the orders of the day is likely ineffective if the report is the current order of business. Is the only remedy a point of order or the Chair intervening stating the report is dilatory, subject to appeal? That seems sloppy but I can't think of another remedy.

RONR 61:9-17 discusses the process for naming a member and imposing a penalty for an infraction during a meeting. I notice that the examples of disorder that are listed focus exclusively on inappropriate words used by a member in debate. I would assume that the rules would also apply to illegal actions taking by a member? For example, imagine a society which uses voting cards and unwisely uses the same voting cards from meeting to meeting. The society allows proxies, so some members may have multiple cards. It is discovered that a member is holding up more voting cards than the member is allowed to carry (perhaps the member kept some from the past meeting). Surely this infraction could warrant being named and potentially expelled under the rules in 61:9-17?

RONR does not have any specific rules about clapping or cheering, etc. except to state that members may not disturb the assembly (43:28). If it is becoming a problem, I'd recommend the society adopt a standing rule on the subject because this can make it easier for the presiding officer to apply the rule fairly. I think it would be a standing rule because it is a question of privilege. One idea I have seen implemented is to allow members to wave their hands when they agree, so that people can see the agreement without the sound disrupting the speaker. Other times, groups have to be more strict and forbid all forms of demonstration to prevent meetings from escalating.

I'm leaning (tentatively) towards this being a valid bylaws amendment. Although the concept of an absent member voting yes is anathema to parliamentarians (I've heard it compared to a rule that the Soviets would adopt in the USSR) we must agree that a Bylaws Amendment overrides RONR. It is clear that the State Law is designed to disenfranchise the organization and set an almost impossibly high bar to accomplish X. Thus the organization could adopt a Bylaws Amendment by a 2/3 vote to try to help it accomplish the 3/4 vote it would need. I would be very interested to hear others' opinions.

The state law requires a vote of 75% of the entire membership of the organization to do X. The fairly large organization, understandably, even with proxies, typically gets about 80% attendance at meetings give or take. Bylaw amendment proposal: "At a meeting, for a vote that requires 70% or more of the entire membership, an absent member's vote counts as a yes." Question: Does this violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law? Or is it a valid bylaw amendment?

I can't seem to find an answer to this question in RONR. Imagine that a motion is put on the floor. Member A gives a speech. Member B then makes the motion to limit debate to one speech per member and the order is adopted. Has Member A exhausted their right to speak or are they permitted one more speech under the new order that was adopted? I think Member A can speak again and that to make an order limiting debate retroactive, a member would have to explicitly state that as part of the motion to limit debate. Robert gives an example of this on page 75 of Parliamentary Law: "That debate on the pending resolution and its amendments be limited to one speech of three minutes from each member who has not already spoken on the question."

In my opinion, even if a body refers the adoption of a special rule of order to a committee and gives that committee power to act by the vote required to adopt a special rule of order, if that committee amends the special rule of order in any way, then it should have to go back to the assembly with the appropriate new notice or vote requirement. To me, the assembly should only be able to pass on the ability to adopt a proposed special rule of order (which it should do so by the vote required to adopt a special rule of order) and at that point, the committee could then adopt the referred rule by majority vote. The main reason I come to this conclusion is that it seems that a committee could have too much power to expand upon a potential special rule of order (which would negate the effect of notice had it been given to the assembly). The way around that notice requirement is by way of a vote of the majority of the membership of the assembly - not a vote of the committee. The committee could certainly propose amendments or substitutes to the rule and report back, but special rules of order affect the assembly, and they should be determined by the assembly.

Got it. Thank you.

Oh okay thanks, so should it say: "But whenever any member requests that a document that is not before the assembly be read"?

33:21 states in part: "When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it." This implies that it is a right of every member that a motion be read twice assuming it was at least debated. This rule sounds like it may not be suspended except by unanimous consent since the right belongs to a minority of every member - and "no rule may be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." (25:2(7)) Later, 33:21 states: "But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read - obviously for information and not for delay - and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read." Now I'm confused. The prior sentence said that it is a right of every member that a motion be read up to two times, but now it says that it is decided by majority vote. Which is it? Or does the majority vote only apply to the readings after the two required readings? Thanks.

Thank you for the replies. I figure the special rule of order could apply to a single motion or even a class of motions, but that the organization should tread carefully because if it becomes divided, they could really lose their flexibility. Although amending the special rule of order would only take a two-thirds vote to change with notice (or majority of the entire membership).

To amend a standing rule or motion that has been adopted previously and is in force requires one of the following: Previous notice and a majority vote A two-thirds vote A majority vote of the entire membership Would it be out of order to adopt a motion that contains: "This motion may only be amended or rescinded by a 75% vote."? Would the motion to adopt that motion be a two-thirds vote since it is suspending the rules, or should it be a 75% vote since that is the vote requirement to amend it in the future? Robert's tends to frown on a society tying the hands of its future assemblies - and I am not sure where to find a specific guiding principle here. One could imagine the problem where a society adopts a motion that requires a unanimous vote to amend, for example. I am also curious if the principle or rules and adoption vote requirement would change based on if the rule was put in the standing rules, special rules of order, or Bylaws, but that may be too much for one question.

Oh, I was assuming that not all the members were present. That is interesting if the Chair ruled the motion out of order either because "all of the members were present" or scarily if in the Chair's opinion "the members present at the meeting were representative of the society" followed by the likely appeal. I could get on board, maybe, of the Chair ruling the motion out of order if all members were present - the Chair could just treat it as the regular motion to reconsider or maybe it would take the two-thirds vote. However, if even one member was absent, I think the argument could be made that the temporary attendance was not representative (think for example of a 5 person Board with 1 absence). In this case, I stand by my previous two posts. I'd add that the minority being protected, as far as Suspend the Rules (25:2#7) is concerned, is not the absentee(s) but rather the minority of two people making the motion to REM on behalf of the absentee(s). Finally, because RONR explicitly states ways to prevent REM's abuse, it represents a true acknowledgement that two people really can hold up action by the assembly. If REM is used repeatedly to improperly delay action, perhaps it is time to ban that motion in the Special Rules of Order, or to require a larger required minority vote to make the motion to REM.

What rule would you be trying to suspend? We might be confusing the making of the motion to REM and its taking up. I am referring only to the making of the motion, not when it is taken up and treated like the regular motion to reconsider which requires a majority vote. To make the motion to REM has very special characteristics as pointed out in 37:51 which "give any two members power to hold up action taken by a meeting." As mentioned in my original post, in my opinion a vote to suspend the specific rule about making the motion to REM would fail if two or more people voted against it, regardless of how many people voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules, and ignoring abstentions.

I don't think rules regarding absentees apply in the making of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (REM) assuming the Bylaws were followed and the necessary information was in the call of a Special Meeting. The standard characteristic number 7 of Suspend the Rules states "In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule." (25:2) 37:51 points out that Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes can be carried out by a defined minority of any two members, (motion made and seconded). Thus in my opinion, any vote to suspend the rules to disallow REM would fail if 2 or more people voted against the motion to suspend the rules, absentee votes being ignored.

Agreed that the case law/past precedents would contain the answer re: the open meetings law. I take it by your reply that you agree that it is open to interpretation if the language were to be in the bylaws? If so I agree. I think it is poorly written. I would interpret it to mean two-thirds of the "members present" but feel that this is a debatable interpretation as mentioned in the original post.

Imagine an organization’s bylaws state the following: "The members of the board may go into executive session by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the quorum present." I am curious if everyone would interpret the phrase "quorum present" the same way. Imagine a board of 10 people, 9 present, quorum is 4. One interpretation might be that the quorum, being defined as the “minimum numbers of members who must be present at the meetings of a deliberative assembly for business to be validly transacted” (RONR 12th ed. 3:3) does not change regardless of how many members are present. Thus, whether there are 4 or 9 people, the quorum is 4, and therefore the quorum present is still 4. Thus, you need two-thirds of 4, which is 3. This interpretation takes the word quorum on its face and says you need two-thirds vote of the quorum (being present). This strict interpretation sets a lower necessary bar to go into executive session and argues that the words "quorum present" and "members present" do not mean the same thing. The other interpretation would be: If the vote was meant to be of just the quorum, the word "present" would not have been needed. Clearly, the inclusion of the word "present" was to increase the barrier to entering executive session. Thus, the vote required if 9 people were present would be 6. This interpretation reads the phrase "quorum present" as "members present, assuming you have a quorum." What is the vote required to go into executive session and do you think this should be clarified or do you believe that there is only one clear interpretation? Disclaimer: This question is inspired by the Colorado Revised Statutes (State Law) Open Meetings Law which requires local public bodies to take a vote to go into executive session as follows: "The members of a local public body...(upon proper posting of the meeting)...and the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the quorum present, after such announcement, may hold an executive session only at a regular or special meeting...." - CRS 24-6-402(4) (Edited for clarity and brevity). I know we don’t like to interpret laws which is why I posed the question as a bylaws question.

I guess it is the equivalent of an organization having a special rule of order / standing rule that meetings will take place at the organization headquarters. Then one day they send out the call to meet at a restaurant. At the restaurant, they suspend the special rule of order / standing rule. In this situation, if actions taken after the restaurant meeting need to be ratified and motions need to be made as-if-new at the next meeting at headquarters, then the same is the case in the electronic example.

Imagine an organization's bylaws allow for electronic meetings. The organization's Special Rules of Order state that electronic meetings shall be conducted via Zoom and that the call must include log-in information. One day, the Chairman sends out a call that the meeting will be handled electronically by another service and includes proper log-in information for that service. The meeting is called to order under that other service. A motion is made to suspend the Special Rule of Order that the meeting has to be held by zoom. The motion is adopted. Is all of this proper - can the Special Rules of Order be suspended like this? Or is the motion to suspend the rules not in order because the entire meeting was void from the start?

Thank you everyone. I really appreciate everyone's discussion on this. Indeed the table on tinted pages 52 confirms this.

One way for the chair to quickly handle this would be to use unanimous consent and ask: "is there any objection to letting a non-member speak?"