Shmuel Gerber

In light of what Zev has said, I think the better phrasing by the chair would be "The chair believes it preferable that this question be formally put to a vote of the assembly." The chair should do this only if he or she thinks it is important that the vote be taken or that a debate be had on it. If it is simply a motion that the chair disagrees with even though the assembly understands the motion and no other member disagrees, then the chair is wasting the assembly's time by objecting, because the outcome will not be affected.

Since we're not answering why the rule is what it is, let me quibble on another point. I would think that: (1) Any amendment would have to apply to the motion "to paint the clubhouse yellow" — i.e., the motion to paint the clubhouse, as amended — rather than to the motion to change the color to yellow. (2) Therefore, if the desired effect is to reverse the decision of changing the new color from green to yellow, the proper motion would be to amend the underlying motion by striking out "yellow" and inserting "green" — and not by "rescinding" the motion to change the color. In other words, by the same principle that prevents rescinding a motion to rescind, I don't think you can "rescind" a motion to amend something previously adopted, although its effects can be undone by re-amending the motion that is currently in effect back to the way it was before it was amended the first time. [Citations omitted. 😃] Do you disagree?

I don't understand the two choices you're offering.

But at least the new forum software helpfully notes "10 years later …" 🙂

The mechanics: Unless this is in a committee or small board, A's motion needs to be seconded, or else the chair shouldn't state the question at all. Before the chair states the question, member B could quickly ask if member A is willing to withdraw the amendment so that B can move to Postpone Indefinitely, but A has no obligation to do so. Member B does *not* have the right to move Postpone Indefinitely in preference to an unstated motion to Amend that is not withdrawn and that another member has seconded or does then second.

If RONR is adopted as a "guide", then it's not really being adopted as a set of rules (an "authority"). Some more quotes, from RONR (12th ed.) itself: But since there has not always been complete agreement as to what constitutes parliamentary law, no society or assembly should attempt to transact business without having adopted some standard manual on the subject as its authority in all cases not covered by its own special rules. (p. xxx) A deliberative assembly that has not adopted any rules is commonly understood to hold itself bound by the rules and customs of the general parliamentary law—or common parliamentary law (as discussed in the Introduction)—to the extent that there is agreement in the meeting body as to what these rules and practices are. Most assemblies operate subject to one or more classes of written rules, however, that the particular body—or, sometimes, a higher authority under which it is constituted—has formally adopted. (1:5) The usual and preferable method by which an ordinary society now provides itself with suitable rules of order is therefore to place in its bylaws a provision prescribing that the current edition of a specified and generally accepted manual of parliamentary law shall be the organization’s parliamentary authority, and then to adopt only such special rules of order as it finds needed to supplement or modify rules contained in that manual. However, if the bylaws of a society do not designate a parliamentary authority, one may be adopted by the same vote as is required to adopt a special rule of order, although it is preferable to amend the bylaws. (2:15) When a society or an assembly has adopted a particular parliamentary manual—such as this book—as its authority, the rules contained in that manual are binding upon it in all cases where they are not inconsistent with the bylaws (or constitution) of the body, any of its special rules of order, or any provisions of local, state, or national law applying to the particular type of organization. What another manual may have to say in conflict with the adopted parliamentary authority then has no bearing on the case. In matters on which an organization’s adopted parliamentary authority is silent, provisions found in other works on parliamentary law may be persuasive—that is, they may carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the body. (2:18) Although it is unwise for an assembly or a society to attempt to function without formally adopted rules of order, a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive. Or, by being followed through long-established custom in an organization, a particular manual may acquire a status within the body similar to that of an adopted parliamentary authority. (2:19)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting that the rule doesn't make sense, but rather that that statement explaining the rule is not entirely cogent.

Well, that actually doesn't make too much sense, come to think of it. For example, the opposite is not true: Although an amendment to the main motion can be applied only to the main motion, it can still be made even while a motion to Postpone Indefinitely is immediately pending.

This begs the question — i.e., it assumes the conclusion. The motion was only validly adopted and in force until the end of the meeting if one assumes that such a motion can validly be adopted and in force until the end meeting, even when a quorum will not be present, simply because there were no absentees at the time of its adoption.

I don't agree with the assertion that "Rule X cannot be suspended when…" is the same thing as "a motion to Suspend the Rules for the purpose of suspending Rule X cannot be adopted when…" At any given time, either the quorum rule is in effect or it is suspended — and it cannot be suspended when any member is absent, because such member is protected by the rule and does not consent to its suspension (unless he has actually consented).

But as has been pointed out, "Rules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, even by unanimous consent or an actual unanimous vote, because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules requiring the presence of a quorum, restricting business transacted at a special meeting to that mentioned in the call of the meeting, and requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." Here, the members in question have not consented to the suspension of the rules. The rules require that no decision be taken by the assembly when less than 15 members are present, and members have the right not just to know whether or not this rule will be enforced, but that it actually will be enforced. Members have no obligation to attend a meeting simply to ensure that the quorum rule will not be violated in their absence, even if a motion to do so has been adopted. Of course, if the quorum rule is properly amended, then the original rule no longer affords anyone protection of any kind.

Suppose an organization has established a quorum of 15, and there are currently 20 members. At one of its regular meetings at which all 20 members are present, a main motion is made, at a time when nothing else is pending, "to suspend the rules for the remainder of the meeting and establish the quorum of a majority of the entire membership" (i.e., 11). A number of members make clear that they may have to leave the meeting if it goes for too long, and they are opposed to the motion. The vote on the motion to suspend the rules is 14 in favor, 6 opposed. The chair declares that there are two-thirds favor and the motion is adopted. At some point, the 6 members that were opposed to temporarily reducing the quorum leave the meeting. Don't they (or why don't they) have a valid claim that any business conducted after they've gone was taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees and is null and void?

That's a fair point. Obviously, in such a case the rules would have to first be suspended to allow the introduction of this motion. 🙂

I don't think it's clear as all that. Like the man said, "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is." 🙂

I think you meant "decrease de quorum". 🙂 J. J. raises an interesting question. I don't know the answer, but I don't think it would necessarily be absurd to decrease the quorum only when all members are present, because that would come in handy when the total membership of the assembly somehow becomes less than the quorum specified in the organization's rules.

There is not supposed to be a material difference between the statements. My "Goldsworthy" homage version was just a whimsical attempt to explicitly disavow the old argument.

No.

Or, as the late Kim Goldsworthy might want us to say in regard to this topic, a main motion is a motion whose introduction would bring business before the assembly if it took place and does bring business before the assembly if it does take place. 🙂

For your edification and delight:

But please keep reading the 12th edition. (I hope there aren't any more errors that we haven't found, but if there are I hope that you, or some other helpful members, find them.)

I don't follow. Was there some list of errors in the 11th edition that items 5 & 6 appeared on? I don't consider them to be errors.

I think the secretary might have something to say about that. 🙂

I don't understand why there are so many opinions being bandied about on this. Isn't the passage that Mr. Martin quoted explicit about what the procedure is according to RONR?

But we're not talking about abstentions. We're talking about (in my hypothetical scenario) members who didn't vote because they weren't in favor and the negative vote wasn't taken.

Yup. I didn't provide the citation, because George had already provided it in his earlier response. "If the motion to be reconsidered was adopted by unanimous consent, all the members present at the time of the adoption are in the same position as if they had voted on the prevailing side and qualify to move to reconsider. Similarly, if a motion was lost but the negative vote was not taken because it was intrinsically irrelevant (see 44:9(a)), the members present at the time who did not vote in favor qualify to move to reconsider."