Shmuel Gerber

I'm still saying what I said before: «My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them as filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored. There would not then be any need to vote on a pending motion relating to voting "as amended".» Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of how this is handled when an order for the Previous Question is in effect, do you agree that when multiple suggestions are made, and a majority vote is attained for one method of voting, this decides the question on how the vote on the main motion is to be taken, and no incidental motion on the method of voting remains pending after "filling blanks" in this situation? (I think the language on page 169 of PL somewhat more clearly implies this to be the case than does the language of RONR (30:4).) Maybe this is indeed some sort of unstated, modified version of filling blanks, but there is no universal procedure for the treatment of "filling blanks" to begin with. There are various procedures detailed at more length in RONR that are all called filling blanks, but they are not all treated the same way, including: • The prototypical case is that a blank can be created in a pending amendable motion by striking out something from the motion. For this type of blank, "the vote that fills a blank does not decide the main question or other pending question that contained the blank. When the blank is filled, the chair must immediately state the question on the adoption of the completed motion" (12:104). It is specifically with regard to the creation of such a blank that RONR (12:95(b)) states, "It is not in order to create a blank in a motion on which the Previous Question has been ordered," and I don't see this is necessarily applying to all other blank-filling procedures. • You've already noted that filling a blank in a motion that has already been adopted is treated differently, as described in the last sentence of 12:105. A blank that was created may be pending when the Previous Question is ordered on the motion that contains the blank, in which case a reasonable opportunity to make suggestions must always be given (12:101, 12:105). But if the blank is still unfilled and the motion is adopted, the assembly proceeds to fill the blank, and in this case obviously no further vote is taken after the blank is filled. • RONR says, "In completing a motion that simply refers “the main question to a committee”—either while the motion to Commit is pending or after it is adopted—the chair first asks, “To what committee shall the question be referred?” … But if different proposals are made, either in the form of primary and secondary amendments or simply as suggestions, the chair treats them as proposals to fill a blank (12:92–113) and puts them to vote in the following order until one receives a majority: (1) committee of the whole; … and (5) special (select, or ad hoc) committees, the one containing the largest number of members being voted on first" (13:12). When this happens after the motion to Commit is adopted without the essential details having been previously determined, then no further vote is taken on the motion to Commit. I think that your response to Dr. Kapur indicates that you agree that in such a case, members can make different suggestions even if an order for the Previous Question is in effect. Selecting a method of voting on a motion (30:4), or a method of nominating (31:3), or a method of voting in an election (46:30) may be different in some respects than these, and voting in an election ("A nomination is, in effect, a proposal to fill the blank in an assumed motion “that ______ be elected” to the specified position," 46:1) may be different still. They all may be described as "filling blanks," but they are not all the same thing or subjected to identical rules.

How does having a motion made and seconded prevent agenda items from moving forward? The making of a motion is only the first step in the process of debating a motion, not the last.

If there is a rule at a higher level than the bylaws that requires a ballot vote for elections, then it's possible that write-in votes cannot be prohibited in the bylaws. But if there is no higher-level rule that interferes, then the bylaws can allow or prohibit anything that enough members agree to (by a vote to adopt or amend bylaws).

This is what it says: “Various questions arise, in connection with voting, which are usually settled by general consent, but may require formal motions and votes. They are incidental to the pending question and therefore are in order while it is pending, sometimes even after a vote has been taken on that question. They cannot be debated or have any subsidiary motion, except to amend, applied to them. They require a majority vote for their adoption. One of the most common of these incidental motions is one prescribing the method by which the vote shall be taken when it is desired to have it taken in some other way than by the voice or by show of hands. In the chapter on Voting all the usual methods are described. If one form is suggested or moved, any one may suggest or move another form. Instead of treating the second as an amendment, it is usual to proceed as in filling blanks, putting the question on the various forms suggested in the order of the time and trouble required for taking the vote, as follows: (1) Ballot; (2) Roll-Call, or Yeas and Nays; (3) Division and Count; (4) Rising.” (emphasis added) This indicates to me that no priority is given to the form of voting first moved, and that other forms moved or suggested by members are not treated as ways of perfecting the pending incidental motion, but rather as equal alternatives that should be voted on in a logical sequence. So although the method of proceeding on the vote is as in filling blanks, I still don't see this as actually creating and filling a blank in a pending motion. I think it is more akin to the procedure when different members move different forms of the Previous Question when a series of questions is pending, which RONR describes as having "an effect similar to amendment" (16:5(6)) applied to a motion (i.e., Previous Question) that is not itself amendable.

And I was thinking to post that I hadn't changed my mind, so we were in agreement, but then I thought that would be superfluous, but now maybe it's not. If RONR said what General Robert wrote on page 169 of Parliamentary Law, would you still have the same opinion?

I don't think I would do any of that. If I could be persuaded that showing up at the original location was useful and necessary, I think I would probably take a look around, see that nobody else showed up, think "OK, it looks like everybody must have gotten the news of the new location," post the sign with the new time and location of the adjourned meeting, and then get out of there (hopefully without having to swim). Then I'd go to the new location and inform the president of what happened and then, after the meeting was called to order, report it to the assembly, maybe even in a form suitable to be approved as minutes of the first "meeting".

Who agrees with this post? 😀

It's been exactly four years (on the Hebrew calendar) since Gary left us for good, and I wanted to see what his final posting on the forum was. Well said, my friend.

But the whole point of it is that "A minority group, by coordinating its effort in voting for only one candidate who is a member of the group, may be able to secure the election of that candidate as a minority member of the board." So I don't think a majority vote carries much significance in this context. I'm slightly embarrassed to admit that I don't know for certain, but I thought that cumulative voting is generally determined by plurality.

In the question as originally posited by Mr. Merritt, a motion has been made to take the vote in a certain way. Are you suggesting that when this happens the chair then, on his own accord, can simply ask if anyone has any other ideas as to how the vote should be taken? No, I'm not suggesting that the chair on his own accord asks how the vote should be taken. Rather, I think that if another member indicates a desire to move a different method, the chair can arrange to take votes on both methods in a logical sequence as in filling blanks, instead of ruling that the first motion is not subject to amendment because the Previous Question is in effect. @Weldon Merritt wrote: "Now suppose that PQ has been ordered on the Main Motion (with or without other higher-ranking motions included in the order). Then before the vote is taken on the MM, someone moves to take the vote by a specified method (say, a counted vote), but another member wants the vote to be taken by another method (say, by ballot). Ordinarily, the motion to take the vote by a specified method would be amendable (RONR 30:3(6)), so the member who wanted to take the vote by ballot could move to substitute that method. " RONR (12th ed.) says 30:4 says, "when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time." So the scenario could go like this: Member A: Mr. President! Chair: For what purpose does the member rise? Member A: I move that the vote on the pending main motion be taken by a counted rising vote. (Second.) Chair: It is moved and seconded to vote on the main motion by a counted rising vote. Member B (interrupting): Mr. President, I would prefer that the vote be taken by ballot. Member C : I second that. Chair (not seeming to mind that Member B did not obtain the floor): Two methods of voting on the main motion have been offered. A majority vote in the affirmative is required for the assembly to order that either of these methods be used. The chair will put the questions on using these methods in the following sequence: Since a ballot vote would take longer than a counted rising vote, the chair will first put the question on whether to take the vote by ballot. If the affirmative has it, then the vote on the main will be taken by ballot, and there will not be any vote taken on whether to order a counted rising vote. But if the negative has it on the question of taking the vote by ballot, then the chair will put the question on whether to take a counted rising vote, and in that case you can vote for or against this method regardless of how you voted on ordering a ballot vote. Finally, if neither of these methods attains a majority in the affirmative, the chair will choose to call for a rising vote on the main motion, but will order a count only if he deems it necessary for judging the result. Those in favor of taking the vote on the main motion by ballot, say aye … Those opposed, say no. … , etc. ------------ [end of script] ------------ Now, if I'm wrong, and Member B's suggestion is not in order because of the Previous Question, then the only practical difference I see is that the chair would have to advise Member B to wait until after the vote is taken on ordering a counted rising vote before moving that the vote be taken by ballot, in effect relying on the order in which members can obtain the floor instead of the presumably more logical order prescribed by RONR.

30:4 states "Methods of Voting. In practice, the method of taking a vote usually can be agreed upon informally. But when different methods are suggested, they are usually treated not as amendments but as filling blanks, the vote normally being taken first on the one taking the most time." So if they are usually treated not as amendments, are they amendments? My understanding of 30:4 is that when different methods of voting are suggested and the chair treats them as filling blanks, this just means the chair takes the vote on the different methods in the prescribed sequence (beginning with the method that takes the most time), and the first one to receive a majority vote is considered as having been ordered by the assembly, while the rest are ignored. There would not then be any need to vote on a pending motion relating to voting "as amended". Therefore, I don't see the application of Previous Question having much bearing on the ability to "fill blanks" in this manner, because no blank is being created or filled in a pending motion. And even if it did have some bearing, the concern would largely be theoretical. As @Josh Martin has pointed out, a member could "indicate that, if the motion for a counted vote is defeated, he will move that the vote be taken by ballot." The only difference, then, between allowing different suggestions to be made and not allowing it would be that if allowed, they are voted on in decreasing order of the amount of time the voting would take; and if not allowed, they are voted on in the order in which they are made.

Theoretically, the member(s) could do so, but only for items where no absentee ballots have been cast. Since this is apparently based on a legal provision, competent legal counsel should be consulted. However, what seems most reasonable to me is that if the presence of a quorum is established by the number of absentee ballots, it would be only with respect to the items of business on the ballot. It doesn't make much sense to count voters in the quorum who cannot possibly vote.

Do you have a question about Robert's Rules of Order?

I agree that the distinction is a thin one, but by positing that the member of the assembly who makes the motion is also a member of the committee, you have (intentionally, I assume) somewhat obfuscated it even further. The rule is saying that when a member of the assembly makes a motion because that member is in favor of the committee's recommendation, this is not the same thing as a motion made on behalf of the committee itself. That is what the sentence immediately preceding your second quotation says: "No second is required in these cases, since the motion is made on behalf of the board or committee (see 4:11)." (51:11)

No problem. I'll just take this over to my copyediting discussion group.

I am a bit troubled by this opinion as well. The court does not seem to do a good job of articulating the underlying standard for distinguishing between a member participating within his rights and one who is causing a disturbance. It says that a disturbance is “[a]ny act causing annoyance, disquiet, agitation, or derangement to another, or interrupting his peace,” or “an interruption of peace and quiet; a violation of public order and decorum”. It then says: "Under this broad definition of disturbance, [the plaintiff] caused “annoyance” and “agitation” when he continued talking despite [the chair's] telling him he was out of order three separate times, as well as after [a police officer] informed [him] that [he] would be removed if he continued to speak out of turn. This conduct also “interrupt[ed the] peace and quiet” of the meeting, and “violat[ed the] public order and decorum.” … [the officials] arrested [him] because he “disturbed the ability of [the] public bod[y] to conduct their business in an orderly fashion,” … because he refused to let [the chairperson] move forward with the meeting…" This makes it seem as though the chair has unfettered discretion to "move forward with the meeting", as though a member speaking is not part of a meeting. Obviously the court understands that a member needs to obey the chair's directions to stop speaking, or that if the member had a right to object to such direction, he did not object in a proper manner. But it does not give much basis for these assertions; it states them as though self-evident. I would think that if a body has agreed to conduct its business according to Robert's Rules of Order, then what RONR has to say about how a meeting should be conducted would have at least some bearing on whether a member is interfering with the orderly conduct of business and whether the chair's orders were legitimate. Even if not, I think there should have been more focus on the power of the chair to rule that a member is being disorderly, at least quoting the exact rule granting such authority. I think the lower court decision in this case did a slightly better job of articulating why the police officers had reason to make the arrest: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15618715625663375215

I agree with this idea in general, and I agree that if an organization is under a court order to follow certain procedures at its meetings, those procedures can be enforced by the chair under the rules in RONR. However — and this is getting outside the scope of this forum, and I'm not a lawyer so take my musings for what they are worth — my understanding is that under the system presently in force in the U.S., rulings by a court are not actually laws and do not make or change laws. The courts, at least in theory, cannot make laws that apply outside the courts. In making rulings that bind the parties in a case, the court can definitively say what the law is, and that rationale will be used as precedent in future cases and will serve as guidance for those who must obey and enforce the law; but the law itself needs to (again, at least in theory) have come from some other (legislative) source.

But in 56:49n1, RONR does say, "Where a particular type of organization is subject to local, state, or national law containing provisions relating to its procedure—as for certain procedures in a labor organization, in condominium associations, or in an incorporated association—it may be desirable to add at this point a phrase such as, “and any statutes applicable to this organization that do not authorize the provisions of these bylaws to take precedence.” However, such statutes (those that do not authorize bylaws to take precedence) supersede all rules of the organization which conflict with them, even if no mention is made of it in the bylaws." Maybe this paragraph would read more consistent with itself if "law" was used throughout, but I think it is obvious that if there were some legal provision, such as a rule in a state constitution or a city charter, that in some sense might be distinguished from a "statute," the reasoning would apply just the same.

I think what you're pondering is that if the chair is not in the chair, what makes him the chair?

The latest edition of Robert's Rules is "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised", 12th edition. Although the printed edition has page numbers, the standard method for citing text is by paragraph number, as I did above for RONR (12th ed.) 9:25. The second quotation is from the same book, paragraph 9:28.

It seems that the rule already exists, and the motion is to change it — i.e., it is an incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Therefore, an Objection to Consideration of the Question would not be in order.

RONR (12th ed.) 9:25: "Attendance at an Executive Session or Other Closed Session. Whenever a meeting is being held in executive session, only members of the body that is meeting, special invitees, and such employees or staff members as the body or its rules may determine to be necessary are allowed to remain in the hall. Thus, in the case of a board or committee meeting being held in executive session, all persons—whether or not they are members of the organization—who are not members of the board or committee (and who are not otherwise specifically invited or entitled to attend) are excluded from the meeting. When it is desired to similarly restrict attendance at a particular meeting without imposing any obligation of secrecy (or to remove a previously imposed restriction on attendance), this may also be done by majority vote (see also 61:6–7)." 9:28: "A deliberative assembly or committee is normally entitled to determine whether nonmembers may attend or be excluded from its meetings (even when not in executive session). Many public and semipublic bodies, however, are governed by sunshine laws—that is, their meetings must be open to the public. Normally, such laws have no application to private, nongovernmental bodies."

👍

But if the agenda is simply provided in advance of a meeting for information, with no intention of adopting it, then it would make perfect sense to list any known items of new business under the category of New Business.

Please contact the tech support department at American Legal Publishing.