Shmuel Gerber

Item 9.2 is obviously a matter of great importance that should be attended to immediately, if not sooner. 😀

Back in the day, there was a member of the Student Government Senate who would routinely "pass" on roll-call votes. When the other senators got tired of this, they all "passed" on their turn. There's no "double passing" mentioned in RONR, but I wonder what would have happened if she had tried that.

No, it isn't. For the language recommended in RONR, see https://robertsrules.com/authority.html

See also page 406, lines 1–10.

It's quite simple to see that this method is incorrect. Suppose 300 votes are cast. Two-thirds of 300 is 200, but 300 × .66 is only 198.

And see also page 406, lines 1–10.

I don't know how you figure that second part, but in any event Sarah is correct that that decision would "have to be up to the members rather than the board".

There is apparently a book from 1912 called "Common Sense Rules of Order", and maybe this member knows where to get copies for the organization; or maybe there is some newer publication with that title. (That doesn't mean it's a good idea to adopt it.)

If RONR consisted simply of common sense, it wouldn't be an 800-page book. The reason for having a parliamentary authority is so that the rules are spelled out beforehand and don't have to be worked out at each meeting based on what each member imagines is common sense.

Exactly. The people of Mount Royal, NJ, have a well deserved reputation around here for being punctilious regarding all things French.

I don't think the current edition says anything so specific about what constitutes violating the secrecy of an executive session. Or, as they say on the other side of the river, an aide-mémoire.

I can assure you that whatever rules are stated or implied in RONR regarding lists officers, the effect is that lists of officers should list the officers.

The answer seems so obvious that I have to wonder why the question was even asked. The general rule in RONR is clear: “If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons.” (11th ed., pp. 441-42) [Edited to add: I suppose the question is whether a proviso has the force of a bylaw provision, and, if not, whether the rule of the proviso can be suspended.] Is the election taking place at the annual meeting at which this bylaw revision goes into effect? Was the bylaw revision adopted already, or has it merely been proposed? Does the pre-revision version of the bylaws require a ballot vote at the annual meetings?

An example would probably be helpful. @Tomm, have you tried looking at the example in RONR (11th ed.), p. 144, line 15 to p. 145, line 26? Here's another example. Suppose the following main motion is moved and seconded (to make things scientific-like, we'll call this main motion M0) : M0: That we purchase a new stun gun for the doorkeeper. While this motion is pending, the following primary amendment is moved and seconded: P0: To amend by adding, ‘at a cost not to exceed $200’ And while this primary amendment is pending, the following secondary amendment is moved and seconded: S: To amend the amendment by striking out ‘$200’ and inserting ‘$500’ To dispose of these motions, three votes will be taken (after any further debate at each stage). First, a vote will be taken on the secondary amendment S. If S is adopted, the effect will be to change the wording of the primary amendment. At this point, no words have yet been added to the main motion. The primary amendment will remain pending in its amended form, i.e.: P1: To amend by adding, ‘at a cost not to exceed $500’ The second vote will be on this P1, the primary amendment as amended. The vote on S did not decide the question on the primary amendment, but caused it to become P1 (the amended wording) instead of P0 (the original wording). If P1 is adopted, the effect will be to change the wording of the main motion, but once again the main motion has not been adopted. Rather, it remains pending in its amended form, i.e.: M1: That we purchase a new stun gun for the doorkeeper at a cost not to exceed $500. At this point, the assembly has still not decided whether to purchase a stun gun. The only decisions that have been made are, first, that if the amount of the purchase is to be limited, the limit will be $500. And, second, that indeed the amount of the purchase will be limited to $500 — if any purchase of a stun gun for the doorkeeper will be made. The third vote — on M1, the main motion as amended — will make that decision of whether or not to make the purchase.

This loonie-toonie conversation is for the birds. Canadians aren't any dumber or smarter than U.S.ians, they're just generally better at ice hockey.

They voted to vote, or they simply voted? It seems to me that everything was probably done correctly. Whenever an amendment is adopted, it simply changes the wording of the motion that was being amended. That motion still has to be voted on (in its amended form). So if there is a main motion, a primary amendment, and a secondary amendment, then three votes should be taken. And, to some extent, each of those votes may involve the same words.

An assembly may find greater attendance desirable, or even necessary, for certain items of business. Perhaps adoption of a motion requires a majority of the entire membership, and they are only a few members short. Perhaps a particularly controversial motion is pending and the assembly wishes to ensure that as many members as possible have an opportunity to express their opinions on it. OK, but you are talking about motions to take measures to obtain a greater attendance, not motions to take measures to obtain a quorum.

It seems kind of obvious to me that motions to obtain a quorum would be dilatory when a quorum has already been obtained.

I agree with Mr. Brown. RONR does not actually set forth the rules governing a Call of the House, and it certainly doesn't apply them to ordinary societies in which attendance is voluntary.

This is correct. When the book says, "A motion to obtain a quorum may be moved … as a privileged motion that takes precedence over a motion to Recess", clearly it is saying that the motion ranks just above the privileged motion to Recess in the order of precedence of motions. That is, it ranks above the privileged motion to Recess and below the privileged motion to Adjourn.

See the answer here: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34997-non-meetings/?do=findComment&comment=207350

I agree that adopting only one of the amendments without the others would leave an incoherent set of bylaws, but that doesn't mean the whole is not the sum of its parts; it means one part is not the sum of the parts. 🙂 I'm curious as to why you think that. In any event, keep in mind that a motion to amend bylaws is a main motion. Therefore, a series of bylaw amendments on the same subject, even if it is possible to adopt some without adopting all, would not be divisible upon the demand of a single member but would be divisible by majority vote. Yes, and that motion would be indivisible, because adopting some without the others would leave the bylaws in an incoherent state. If a member wishes to distribute the duties of the eliminated office in some other way, the correct procedure would be to offer an amendment to the motion to amend the bylaws, probably in the form of a substitute proposing a different set of amendments.

But aren't these exceptions nothing other than "as may be necessary to cover motions arising out of" the report?

« USE OF A PREAMBLE. It is usually inadvisable to attempt to include reasons for a motion's adoption within the motion itself. To do so may encumber the motion and may weigh against its adoption—since some members who approve of the action it proposes may dislike voting for it if it states reasons with which they disagree. When special circumstances make it desirable to include a brief statement of background, the motion should be cast in the form of a resolution, with the background or reasons incorporated in a preamble that is placed before the resolving clauses. A preamble consists of one or more clauses beginning "Whereas, ...." It should be emphasized that neither rule nor custom requires a resolution to have a preamble, and one should not be used merely for the sake of form. In general, the use of a preamble should be limited to cases where it provides little-known information without which the point or the merits of a resolution are likely to be poorly understood, where unusual importance is attached to making certain reasons for an action a matter of record, or the like. » [RONR (11th ed., pp. 106–7); italic emphasis in original; emphasized further for further emphasis]

No, this has nothing to do with the rule against making a subsidiary motion to Amend that raises the same question as one decided earlier at the same session.