Shmuel Gerber

Yes, the main website is down for maintenance as it is being replaced with a brand-new site featuring the new editions.

None of these are correct statements of the rules. - It's true that Lay on the Table cannot be applied to Suspend the Rules, but there are other incidental motions to which Lay on the Table can be applied, such as a debatable Appeal that does not adhere to the pending question, or a Request to Be Excused from a Duty. (And it can also be applied to other non-main motions, such as a motion to Discharge a Committee or a motion to reconsider a main motion.) - "The incidental motion to Suspend the Rules … Can be made at any time that no question is pending …" The fact that it's made when no motion is pending does not make it into a main motion. A motion to "suspend the rules and agree to …" is specifically given as an example of a motion to Suspend the Rules. (And if it were an incidental main motion, then it would be debatable, which would defeat its purpose.)

It is quite typical to read the In Brief edition and use the full version mostly as a reference. Although it's good to start by reading through the whole In Brief book, you can buy both at the same time -- and you may be ready to dig into the big book a lot sooner than you think.

I think Mr. Martin makes quite a salient point here. And I would say that the logic is even more applicable to this situation, where the member "moved to suspend the rules interfering with reconsideration and reconsider the adopted motion". That sounds to me very much like a combined motion with the intention that, if adopted by a two-thirds vote, it should cause the original question to become pending as if a motion to Reconsider had already been adopted. This is quite different from merely trying to suspend the rules that interfere with the making of a motion to Reconsider (by a member who didn't vote with the prevailing side), which by itself suspends action on the original motion and effectively opens it to further debate before the assembly has even decided to reconsider the motion. But even in the latter case, the point remains that the motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable and therefore would not be as subject to abuse as a rule allowing any member to move to reconsider any motion regardless of how he voted originally.

This topic has taken quite a detour, but let me add that I was also not in the room when the motion to amend the bylaws was made and when the motion to suspend the rules was made. And I don't quite understand why a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes was felt necessary. Was it not possible to identify any member on the prevailing side who could be persuaded to make a motion to Reconsider at a meeting the next day?

That's the point. The assembly then faces a choice: allow both motions to Reconsider to be withdrawn, and the motion goes into effect as normal (but can be reconsidered if necessary); or suspend the action until another day.

I agree that this use of Reconsider should be ruled out of order. However, this tactic only affects the rights of those who voted on the prevailing side (in an assembly). If the chair does allow it, any such member who objects can move to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes. If the motion is seconded, this will not only prevent the assembly from forestalling a later reconsideration, but will prevent the main motion from going into effect at all.

Why are we assuming that it will be more than half? Won't it actually be exactly half?

You were able to post this.

And let's be additionally clear for the sake of the original poster: This stuff about a "majority of the quorum" is just a side discussion and should not have affected the chair's decision at the recent board meeting. As Mr. Lages noted:

We should not be speculating on public-health measures in the RONR Forum.

Reading the opinion in its entirety, It seems *relatively* clear to me that when the court says, "when a quorum is present, the act of a majority of the quorum is the act of the body," what it means is that the act of a majority of the members present, a quorum being present, is certainly the act of the body. However, because of some of the authorities cited to demonstrate this point, it's not clear to me whether this was meant to imply that a majority of the votes cast would be insufficient, or if the court was even thinking about that distinction, since it wouldn't have made a difference in the case.

It depends on what the vote requirements for the particular motion was, but the basic requirement for adopting a motion is a majority vote, meaning a majority of the votes cast. A quorum must be present, but there is no minimum number of votes required. However, since the chair declared the motion failed, it is too late at this point to question the result. A point of order about the chair's mistake must be made immediately after the announcement in order to change the outcome.

Your interpretation is incorrect because "A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting." Both of these alternative methods of giving notice are also mentioned in the quote I gave before, regarding the vote requirement for a motion to Rescind.

The vote requirement in RONR to rescind a previously adopted motion is as follows: “except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice" The "two-thirds vote" of part (a) is two-thirds of the votes cast. The "majority vote when notice …" of part (b) is a majority (more than half) of the votes cast. The "vote of a majority of the entire membership" of part (c) is a majority (more than half) of the number of members in the organization (i.e., the number of members eligible to vote at meetings of the assembly). So, if a special meeting is held for the purpose of rescinding the motion, the call of the meeting must state that purpose, and therefore only a majority vote (i.e., more than half the votes cast) will be required. If the motion to Rescind is made at a regular meeting with no previous notice of the motion having been given, then it will be adopted if it attains a two-thirds vote *or* if it attains a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Well, I've seen tables of contents in bylaws. However, I think those would probably be considered secretarial notations and not part of the actual bylaws. You may be interested to know that the New York City Traffic Rules contain the diagrams below to accompany the rule «Where parking is prohibited by signs, but not where stopping or standing is prohibited, a duly licensed physician or dentist may park his/her motor vehicle, identified by "MD," "OP" or "DDS" New York registration plates, on a roadway adjacent to hospitals or clinics for a period not to exceed three hours. For the purposes of this paragraph, only those portions of a roadway corresponding to the shaded areas on the diagrams below shall be considered adjacent to a hospital or clinic. At other locations where parking is prohibited by signs, but not where stopping or standing is prohibited, a duly licensed physician may park his/her motor vehicle, identified by "MD" or "OP" New York registration plates, for a period not to exceed one hour while actually attending to a patient in the immediate vicinity.» If you're an out-of-town doctor, or if you need more than an hour to treat a patient and are parked in a no-parking zone (or, heaven forfend, in a no-standing or no-stopping zone) around the corner from a hospital that doesn't extend all the way to the corner of the block, or if you haven't memorized the 135-page book of traffic rules (which, to be fair, includes a 12-page table of contents and an 8-page index and, to be fair, is in any event no more than one-sixth the size of RONR and, to be fair, also includes this nifty map of the Central Park transverse roads and "hack stand" areas as well as some other diagrams), I suppose you might be out of luck and find a citation on your windshield when you get back. (And your windshield might be in the tow pound, although it will probably still be attached to the car, so you're not totally out of luck.)

I disagree. RONR says that "it may be desirable" to add certain text. The reason it's desirable to add that text is to make as clear and definite as possible what the intended effect of the "Parliamentary Authority" provision is. Those words are desirable because otherwise people will tend to argue about the meaning of the provision, not because the provision definitely means the opposite without those words.

J. J., I think you've picked probably one of the most difficult examples, because the rule that "members cannot be assessed additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws" is not a procedural rule at all. The footnote on page 580 refers to procedural rules.

But Dr. Kapur said: "I think the answer to the reworded question is No, whether or not the p. 580 footnote wording is in the bylaws." It seems that you are not agreeing with him.

Statues have very tenuous abilities these days.

If the rules are ambiguous, your group will need to decide for itself what they mean, based on exactly what they say. As far as RONR is concerned, anyone is eligible for office, whether or not a member in good standing.

We all seem to be assuming that "out of 34" refers to 34 votes cast. If, in on the other hand, 34 is simply the number of members eligible to vote, then we don't know how many are required for a two-thirds vote, because that depends solely on the number of votes cast.

This is not a question of parliamentary procedure and is beyond the scope of the forum. While I'm sure the members here would have great fun trying to interpret it, that's not what this forum is for.

Actually I was mistaken. July 3rd is a paid holiday for certain federal employees, but July 4th is still the official observance of Independence Day.

Yes. July Fourth is scheduled for July 3rd this year. (Although who knows when it will take place in Arizona.)