Shmuel Gerber

The question was: 

In our organization the Executive Board consists of the President, Immediate Past President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer, and three at-large members. If a newly elected president is elected in November of 2023, takes office in January 2024 but resigns in March of the same year, would he be considered the Immediate Past President when considering who should be considered the Immediate Past President on the Board? 

On 4/8/2024 at 5:10 PM, Dan Honemann said:

My assumption concerning the facts was that a motion is made and adopted (or rejected) on day one of a two-day session.  No motion to reconsider this vote is made on day one.  The question is, if reconsideration is desired, must the motion to reconsider be made on day two of the session or, if on day two a date and time is fixed for an adjourned meeting, may the motion to reconsider be made during this adjourned meeting.  The answer, of course, is that it must be made on day two.

Oh, I see. So the (incorrect) hypothesis of the question was that perhaps an adjourned meeting is treated as though it is being held on the same day as the original meeting whose business it is a continuation of. Thanks for explaining.

On 4/8/2024 at 3:52 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I think you know the assumption that I made as to the meaning of the facts as stated, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that my assumption was correct.

On 4/8/2024 at 4:08 PM, Henry Lawton said:

Dan, your assumption is correct.

Nope. I don't understand the question and I have no idea what assumption is being made.

On 4/8/2024 at 3:25 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The question is quite unclear (at least it is to me), because I would think the answer is the former.

Or actually the answer is that it is a false choice. The motion can be made on the next succeeding day within the session, which does not have to be the next day on the calendar, and the session itself can be extended by fixing the time for an adjourned meeting.

On 4/8/2024 at 2:12 PM, Henry Lawton said:

My question: Can the next succeeding day be extended by “fix the time to which to adjourn” to an adjourn meeting the following day? Or does this mean that the reconsideration must be called on only on the next succeeding day?

On 4/8/2024 at 2:41 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The latter.

The question is quite unclear (at least it is to me), because I would think the answer is the former.

"The next succeeding day within the same session on which a business meeting is held" is relative to the day on which the original vote was taken. As long as no meetings of the same session have been scheduled for other days, then it will only be possible to make a motion to Reconsider on the same day the original vote was taken.

But if the assembly then fixes an adjourned meeting of the same session to be held on another day, the time limit for making a motion to reconsider is "extended" to whenever that adjourned meeting (or the first day of it) is held, regardless of the number of calendar days involved.

It seems to me that publication of the minutes of the business transacted at a special meeting is certainly related to the business transacted at the special meeting. There is no requirement of previous notice of particular motions at a special meeting. 

I think the prior reasoning went something like this: My job is to vote, and if I'm in the room but not doing my job am I really present? 

On 3/28/2024 at 5:27 PM, Richard Brown said:

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

I think he is referring to the former practice wherein a member who did not respond to call of the roll was not counted as being present for purposes of determining a quorum. 

On 3/28/2024 at 5:30 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

if I were the person whose name was misspelled, I wood want it corrected

As wood I. 

On 3/20/2024 at 9:22 PM, Guest PastorSearchCommitteeChair said:

Article V. Church Meetings

Section 3. Regular Business Meetings

Order shall be settled by the customary rules as stated by Robert's Rules of Order, excepting when these may be used to contravene Holy Scripture.

I can't imagine why anyone thought the latter half of this sentence necessary or useful. 

On 3/20/2024 at 2:16 PM, Securis said:

As presiding officer, I can end debate in a meeting by stating the business is resolved were moving on.

If the debate is in the form of remarks not related to any pending motion, then yes you can rule such remarks out of order.

You do not have the right to end the debate on a pending motion, nor to refuse recognition to a member attempting to make a motion. 

On 3/13/2024 at 8:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But how does this mesh with the rule that the motion to limit debate must first be applied to the immediately pending motion?

It can be said to apply to all pending questions, because when the allotted time for consideration of the main motion expires, all pending questions will be put to a vote without further debate or amendment. (15:12)

Is there some other example of how the last sentence of 15:11 would apply that you think is more clearly in order? 

On 3/13/2024 at 7:50 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Is this in order?

I think so, although perhaps it could be worded more clearly. The intention is to limit debate on the main motion and all secondary motions (that are pending or may become pending) so that a vote will be taken after no more than 20 minutes of debate. 

On 3/12/2024 at 9:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

It sounds like "quorum" means the number of members who cast a vote in the online election.

Well it seems that in this organization everything from voting to quorum to ratification to conflict of interest is defined or handled differently than in RONR, so I'm not sure we can be of much help here. 

On 3/12/2024 at 7:46 PM, NateB said:

What I was referring to was, for example, a Director of "ABC" constituency, where only 9% of "ABC" members voted, and therefore the required quorum was not met, and the Director would not be elected. My concern is that members would bring forward a motion (which would be out of order) to ratify the Directors anyways.

A quorum is the number of members who must be present at a meeting in order to conduct business. It has nothing to do with the number of members who voted.

You seem to be dealing with some sort of online election system with its own rules, so I have no idea what a quorum means in this context. 

On 3/12/2024 at 7:05 PM, NateB said:

some Directors have expressed that next meeting, when the election results would be ratified, they may attempt to suspend quorum to allow candidates who did not meet it to be ratified.

This sentence does not make sense to me. There's no such thing as a candidate who did not meet quorum.

On 3/12/2024 at 6:40 PM, Henry Lawton said:

Here is the statement from Robert's "If motions to Commit or to Postpone were already part of a series that was pending when such an order was adopted, however, the remaining questions may be postponed or committed at the time those motions come to a vote."

What does this mean?

I agree with Mr. Martin's explanation.

In this sentence, "those motions" are the motions to Commit or to Postpone. So when the book says, "the remaining questions may be postponed or committed at the time those motions come to a vote," it simply means that the motions to Commit or Postpone are voted on as they normally would be — despite the adoption of the motion to Limit Debate — and, if they are adopted, they cause the remaining questions in the series (the main motion and the other pending motions adhering to the main motion) to be committed or postponed.

For example, suppose a main motion and an amendment are pending, and it is moved to postpone the pending questions to the next meeting. While all these motions are pending, it is moved and adopted to limit debate on the main motion to 20 minutes.

The same motion to Postpone could not have been moved after adoption of this motion to Limit Debate. However, it was moved beforehand and remains pending. The last sentence of 15:11 is telling us that, in this situation, the main motion and the amendment can still be postponed to the next meeting by the assembly's voting in favor of the pending motion to Postpone.

On 3/12/2024 at 5:27 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If the second ballot is explicitly to elect alternates, no ranking is necessary.

Then how will the alternates be ranked? 

On 3/12/2024 at 3:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I would favor one ballot for fifty delegate seats, and a second one for fifty alternate seats.  If a copying machine is available, take a blank first ballot, white-out the names that have already been elected, and copy off enough for the second ballot.  If there is no copier, use the same ballot for both votes, and after passing out ballots for the second round, instruct voters to line out the names of the elected delegates

But we've been told that there may be 75 candidates altogether. Under this system of taking two ballots, that would mean that on the second ballot, every member could vote for every candidate, which would be useless for purposes of ranking. 

On 3/11/2024 at 7:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people. 

But RONR does not discuss this particular situation, where the assembly is attempting to fill 50 delegate seats, and using the results of that election as a ranking mechanism for up to 50 additional alternates. 

I think the closest parallel that is discussed in RONR (46:34) is the election of directors with varying terms, in which those with more votes are given the longer terms. 

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

On 3/10/2024 at 11:24 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Then how are the alternates to be elected?

Speed-knitting contest. 

On 3/10/2024 at 1:18 AM, Howard Roark said:

RONR (12th ed.) 58:13 recommends electing an equal number of delegates and alternates, with the alternates being ranked in order of the number of votes received. 

I don't see where the book says that the alternates are ranked in order of the number of votes received — although that is one possibility for the method of ranking. 

It also does not say that the number of alternates should always equal the number of delegates; it says the numbers frequently are equal. 

To (legally) obtain the text of RONR, you need to buy (or borrow) the book, which is available in several print and electronic editions. 

https://robertsrules.com/purchase/

Regarding your question:

4:16 "In principle, the chair must state the question on a motion immediately after it has been made and seconded, unless he is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order or unless, in his opinion, the wording is not clear."

4:17 "Rules and explanations relating to the conditions under which various motions are not in order will be found particularly in 5, 6, and 7; in 10:26–27; and in the first three of the “Standard Descriptive Characteristics” given in the sections on each of the parliamentary motions (11–37). When a member who has legitimately obtained the floor offers a motion which is not in order, the chair may be able, in certain instances, to suggest an alternative motion which would be in order and would carry out the desired intent to the satisfaction of the maker. If the chair is obliged to rule that the motion is not in order, he says, “The chair rules that the motion is not in order [or “is out of order”] because… [briefly stating the reason].” (He must not say, “You are out of order,” nor, “Your motion is out of order.” To state that a member is out of order implies that the member is guilty of a breach of decorum or other misconduct in a meeting; and even in such a case, the chair does not normally address the member in the second person. See 3:13; also 61.) If the chair rules that a motion is not in order, his decision is subject to an appeal to the judgment of the assembly. (For procedure regarding Appeal, see 24.)"

On 3/6/2024 at 1:04 PM, Rob Elsman said:

the mover (who has the right to speak first after the question on the adoption of the main motion has been stated by the chair) can 1) make the subsidiary motion, Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate, to modify the usual rules for the number or length of speeches on all pending questions, and 2) before the adoption of the above subsidiary motion, make the higher-ranking subsidiary motion, Previous Question applied to all pending questions.  If the Previous Question is adopted by a two-thirds vote and Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate is likewise adopted by a two-thirds vote, the resulting unusual parliamentary situation will be that 1) amendments are shut off until the order for the Previous Question is exhausted, and 2) the main motion will be debatable within the limits adopted when the order to Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate was adopted and until this order is exhausted.  So says Mr. Honemann (one of the authors of the book, who uses the motto, "Fear the Wrath of Dan" for a good reason 😐)  I am less convinced than he is.  This unusual and bizarre parliamentary situation is like a boxing match with one of the contestants having one arm tied behind his back.

Why not just move to limit debate by forbidding the making of any amendments? 

On 3/6/2024 at 10:24 AM, Rob Elsman said:

My understanding of RONR (12th ed.) 15:5, Standard Descriptive Characteristic 7, is quite the opposite.

A motion to limit debate has the effect of suspending the regular rules relating to debate insofar as the adopted limits are incompatible with such regular rules, but it certainly does not suspend the rules relating to itself and to all the other rules in the book. Therefore I do not think it is helpful to generally think of adopting a subsidiary motion to limit debate as adopting a motion to suspend the rules.