Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Content Count

    2,928
  • Joined

Posts posted by Shmuel Gerber


  1. 39 minutes ago, Guest Mike said:

    Does an amendment to change the dollar amount of a motion (a type of substitution) if passed then require a vote on the main motion for the content of the motion apart from the dollar amount?

    eg: motion to donate $500 to the Girl Guides, seconded. Then with amendment, seconded to donate $750 to the Girl Guides.

    A better way to think about the amendment is that it is changing what the dollar amount of the donation will be if the main motion is adopted. A proper amendment is not "to donate $750 to the Girl Guides", but rather "to strike out '$500' and insert '$750'".

    The chair puts the amendment to vote like this: "The question is on striking out '$500' and inserting '$750', so that if this amendment is adopted, the main motion will be 'to donate $750 to the Girl Guides'. Those in favor of striking out '$500' and inserting '$750', say aye. . . . Those opposed, say no."

    If the amendment is adopted, the chair then says, "The question is on the main motion as amended, 'to donate $750 to the Girl Guides'".

    Note that an amendment to change the dollar amount is a motion to strike out and insert, not a motion to substitute. The same thing could be accomplished by a motion to substitute, but a vote would still have to be taken on the main motion in its amended form (i.e., as worded in the substitute). A motion to substitute would be "I move to substitute the following for the pending motion: 'To donate $750 to the Girl Guides'". (This is not the same thing as a motion simply "to donate $750 to the Girl Guides", which is not in order when another motion is pending.)


  2. It depends on whether the sections parallel each other and could be taken just as well from the revision as from the substitute.

    Would the article as a whole make sense if only section 1 were substituted for section 1, and if only the other sections were substituted for the other sections?

    If the answers are "yes" and "yes", then the motion to substitute can be divided.

    Otherwise, the desired result will have to be achieved by some form of secondary amendment.


  3. 16 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

    i do have an issue with the term “poll”.   Is it not correct to interpret the word “poll, as “survey” or a “sampling of opinions.  For example,  an “exit poll”.

    I agree that the phrase "A two-thirds vote of the membership polled via mail/email" is highly ambiguous, but there is nothing about the word "poll" to suggest that it's not an actual vote. RONR has an entire section called "MOTIONS RELATING TO METHODS OF VOTING AND THE POLLS", and it describes motions to "close the polls" and "reopen the polls". It also refers to a "polling place" at a convention.

    16 hours ago, Guest Tommy said:

     To alter a organization operational procedure with a poll or sampling of opinion,  would this be against the the whole idea of Roberts rules.

    Well, any vote by mail is against the whole idea of Robert's Rules, in the sense that a decision is being made directly by a vote without any opportunity for formal deliberations and possible persuasion among the members. People might have no idea what the ramifications of the amendment are, or what the arguments for it and against it might be. And there is no opportunity for compromise or to improve the language of the amendment without starting the process over again. In a vote (or poll) by (e)mail, the voters can choose to adopt or reject, but not to amend.


  4. 21 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

    The Board will need to do something quickly or the motion that was laid on the table is going to die, if it's not dead already:

    The OP didn't say anything about a motion: "The recommendation was Tabled by the Board until one can be found."

    This motion hasn't died because it hasn't even been born.


  5. On 10/28/2019 at 10:34 PM, Bruce Lages said:

    You can't read that sentence on p. 648, l.17-21 without reference to the sentence immediately preceding it: "An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard -as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members - can be exercised by the chair acting alone." So the sentence you quoted does indeed refer specifically to disorderly nonmembers. Removing a nonmember in other circumstances would be a decision of the assembly, since it would be a decision of the assembly that allows them to attend.

    So the only remaining question is whether the chair can remove a nonmember who is annoying but not disorderly. :)


  6. 1 hour ago, Rob Elsman said:

    This committee is a "select committee" organized under U.S. House Rule X, clauses 10 and 11. It is the only committee in the House designated as a "permanent select" committee to emphasize its ongoing responsibilities in contrast to "select" committees. It is specifically named and has a listed jurisdiction.

    Oh, well that explains it. :)


  7. 1 minute ago, Guest mr. salerno said:

    Hello. If all the members present at a properly noticed meeting vote for a motion, but some members were absent, is that still a "unanimous" vote?

    Yes. But it probably doesn't matter, and it doesn't accomplish anything unless a quorum is present.


  8. 1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:
    1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

    But if the law allows the bylaws to take precedence,

    Sounds like a legal question to me.

     

    1 hour ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

    and RONR says you can't do it . . .

    Sounds like it could be both a legal issue and dependent on the rules in RONR to me. :)


  9. 5 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

    It also provides that applicable procedural law takes precedence over RONR, which would seem to me to govern in this case. 

    But if the law allows the bylaws to take precedence, and the bylaws prescribe RONR, and RONR says you can't do it . . . 


  10. 6 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

    Okay, that is discussing a statute applicable to corporations. We can't really help with that since we don't work with laws on this forum. If you have any questions about the statute, you'll need to consult an attorney, as Mr. Harrison said. Sorry for muddying the waters - often when people mention other websites, they are written by people trying to describe RONR and getting it wrong, or prior versions of Roberts Rules. Your question turns out to be mostly a legal issue, I think.

    It could be both a legal issue and dependent on the rules in RONR, as in this topic.


  11. 15 hours ago, ptc122 said:

    Good discussion. I think it is determined that previous notice and a 2/3 vote is needed to amend a by-law. And this amendment should have been done with a 2/3 vote.

    Continuing Breach is a question that may require lawyer's interpretations. We could correct something that was improper by Rescind or Amend. 

    I have gathered several page references to this if anyone would like them. Paul 

    Well, I'm glad we got that sorted out.


  12. 1 hour ago, Guest Zev said:

    Can the gentleman be ever so kind as to supply a reference? I'm having some difficulty finding one whereby the session must first conclude before the motion can be renewed.

    What about this, from page 336:

    "Renewal of motions is limited by the basic principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session—except through a motion to reconsider a vote (37) or a motion to rescind an action (35), or in connection with amending something already adopted (see also pp. 74–75)."


  13. 15 minutes ago, jstackpo said:

    STATE

    DEBATE

    TABULATE the vote

    ANNUNCIATE the result

    See RONR page 37 ff. for the details (using slightly different headings that don't rhyme as nicely).

    Rhyme, shmime. 🙂

    That's not an accurate summary of the process, for a couple of reasons. First, before there are any votes to tabulate, the members have to vote, which happens only when the chair puts the question, clearly indicating what is being voted on.

    Second, in a great many instances (nobody, AFAIK, has tabulated exactly what percentage), there is no tabulation involved in deciding which side has prevailed in the vote; the chair simply estimates which side is greater by looking at the members who have risen or listening to the members who have responded to a voice vote.


  14. 21 minutes ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

    In an organization with set monthly meetings beginning at a certain time, but no time set for each meeting to adjourn, if a motion is pending before the assembly and a motion to adjourn is made, seconded, and carried, then is this motion to adjourn considered a main or a privileged motion? Furthermore, when would the pending motion be taken up?

     

    19 minutes ago, Guest Bdw2003 said:

    Let me add the motion was to adjourn until the next stated meeting.

    A motion to adjourn to the next stated (regular) meeting sounds to me like an ordinary motion to adjourn, which in the circumstances you describe is a privileged motion.

    (However, once the motion is carried, it doesn't really matter whether it should have been a main motion or not.)

    The pending motion would be taken up as the first item of Unfinished Business at the next meeting (unless there is a "special order" set for the next meeting, and the pending motion is not also a special order).

×
×
  • Create New...