Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Shmuel Gerber

Administrators
  • Posts

    4,475
  • Joined

Posts posted by Shmuel Gerber

  1. On 12/17/2023 at 10:43 PM, Atul Kapur said:

    Yes, but I was showing the implications of taking the position that it is a FPPL and creates a continuing breach if violated.

    I don't see the problem with allowing a motion containing no rational proposition to be declared void at any time, since the motion contains no rational proposition. By definition, it makes no difference whether or not it remains in force.

  2. On 12/16/2023 at 11:23 AM, Josh Martin said:
    On 12/15/2023 at 2:48 PM, Atul Kapur said:

    Does it not create a special order?

    It does not seem to me that it does.

    I think we've discussed this recently in the forum. I don't like to disagree with Mr Honemann, but in this case I agree with Mr Martin's earlier response. 

    I think that recesses and adjournments should not be considered special orders. But that is an academic question and is confounded by what is said in 41:59.

    For purposes of this topic, however, I think it is sufficient to say that the most reasonable interpretation of the statement in 41:61 that "At a session that already has an order of business, an agenda can be adopted by a majority vote only if it does not create any special orders and does not conflict with the existing order of business; otherwise, a two-thirds vote is required.", the only possible special orders referred to are those that would otherwise require a 2/3 vote to create.

     

  3. On 12/17/2023 at 9:32 PM, Atul Kapur said:

    The way these this paragraph is written implies (or, at least, I infer) that you are suggesting that a point of order could be raised at the next meeting. If the motion was adopted without a rational proposition, are you suggesting that this is a continuing breach? I would have thought that a point of order would have had to be timely.

    Don't you think it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that a motion must contain a rational proposition? (If it's not, it should be.)

  4. On 12/16/2023 at 5:31 PM, GregNIL said:

    Are their requirements for a main motion to be considered valid, even if seconded, debated, and passed?

    i.e. if a main motion is passed, but hindsight realizes that it's wording would technically allow action for perpetuity (no date or action), or doesn't assign a specific requirement for signature but rather a vague sub-category of action is that grounds for invalidation or re-consideration at the next meeting?

    If yes, how would that be approached, as clearly to reconsider the majority passing side would not want to reconsider at all.

    You could move to amend the adopted motion by specifying language to clarify it, or you could move to rescind the motion altogether. Such motions are governed by the rules for the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted. Any member can move such a motion, regardless of how he voted on the original motion. 

    If the motion truly contains no rational proposition, you could try to raise a point of order to that effect. But, as you say, a majority thought the motion was good enough, so that does not seem like a successful route. 

  5. On 12/16/2023 at 5:43 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

    I suppose it depends on whether you consider a motion to reinstate the member as tantamount to rescinding the suspension.

    The premise was that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership".

    Under such a condition, I don't see how a motion to reinstate the membership can be viewed as rescinding the motion to suspend membership until it is reinstated. The previous decision is not being changed at all. 

  6. On 12/15/2023 at 11:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

     

    For the sake of clarity, however, I am inclined to think that the motion should specifically state that the member's rights are suspended "until reinstated by the membership" or some such, so that it is clear that this was intentional and not simply an oversight. 

    So then a motion to reinstate would not be amending something previously adopted.

     

  7. On 12/14/2023 at 3:22 PM, Eli Zupke said:

    I did see that, but I didn't think it answered my question. After looking over it more thoroughly, I suppose the answer is actually in the end of the first sentence. I probably overlooked that because I was searching for something that looked set of rules more definitively outlining what is or isn't allowed, and I didn't see something formatted like that.

    I was actually thinking about the sentence "The Question and Answer Forums are provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

    But if we can get some converts from other parliamentary authorities, no harm done. 

  8. On 12/13/2023 at 1:30 PM, Atul Kapur said:

     

    I agree that you want to be able to identify the particular individual, but however you do that, I'm not too fussed how that is done (eg: Jane, Ms. Doe, Owner of Unit 112, etc).

    The rule in RONR 48:5 is that "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes…"

    "Owner of Unit 112" is probably not anyone's name. But I will concede that nothing in RONR says you should be too fussed if the maker of a motion is not identified by name in the minutes. 

  9. On 12/14/2023 at 1:21 PM, Guest Kip said:

    A board member - the difficult one - who is also an amateur at Robert's Rules, says: "What is being suggested, it is not acceptable under Roberts Rules.  There are 15 pages of details. see 35:2   8.  a negative vote may be reconsidered, but not an affirmative vote." I've looked in my Robert's Rules, and 35:2 8 does say that a negative vote can be reconsidered, not an affirmative. Are we reading this right?

    The book is being misquoted. What is says is "8. A negative vote on these motions can be reconsidered, but not an affirmative vote."

    The words "these motions" refers to the head of the paragraph, which says, "The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted:" 

  10. On 12/12/2023 at 9:24 PM, Eli Zupke said:

    I expect that how suited the topic is for this forum drops off very quickly as the subject gets further away from Robert's Rules specifically, but I couldn't find any rules for this forum to verify that.

    See https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/38364-welcome-to-the-official-ronr-q-a-forums/

     

  11. "Custom

    2:25 In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it."

  12. On 12/5/2023 at 3:47 PM, Richard Brown said:

    Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I will also point out that you are already allowing discussion prior to a motion being made by permitting "the presenter" to provide information and make a recommendation. 

    This seems to me very similar, or maybe even identical, to reports of officers, boards, and committees. 

  13. On 12/4/2023 at 2:47 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

    Do you have a question? 

    I see now that you put a question in the title of the topic. The president can give a report that includes recommendations, although it is best practice for another member to move their implementation.

    As far as taking up a question before its appointed time, I would want to know how it came to appear under New Business to begin with.

    But in any case, once the question has been decided it is too late to raise a point of order about these irregularities. 

  14. On 12/4/2023 at 9:19 AM, Guest CraigP said:

    At a prior meeting our chair took it upon himself to propose a motion on an item listed under new business as part of his regular report.  It was done at the start of the meeting before everyone had arrived, although there was a quorum present.  It seems as if it was done to head off debate later, but that's my own thought.  The chair making the motion during his report and tackling business items out of the listed order both seem like improper actions. Requests to reconsider the topic were subsequently denied. 

    Do you have a question? 

  15. On 12/3/2023 at 9:31 AM, CaptTCB said:

    If a member of an HOA comes to the microphone during the public speaking part of the meeting and calls the Board of Directors "Puppeteers" is that improper language?

    Public speaking by non-board members is not governed by the ordinary rules of debate. Often the rules are stricter. Regardless, this is a judgement call for the chair and members of the board. 

  16. Although there is no specific rule in RONR against bringing the same charges twice, it does say this:

    "63:5 A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated."

    And "if the charges are not substantiated, the officer or member is exonerated and any authority, rights, duties, and privileges of office or membership that had been suspended are automatically restored." (63:30)

    I think it is reasonable to assume in most cases that it would be unfair, and a violation of due process, to prefer charges again and hold another trial at a later time for the same offense. 

    But if (very) good cause can be shown, then it's possible that another investigation and trial might be justified. For example, if criminal proceedings were brought and the member was found guilty in a court of law, I don't think the society would be required to keep him as a member simply because its own investigation and trial were insufficient to prove guilt. 

  17. On 12/1/2023 at 4:14 PM, Katy said:

    A member is objecting to the process, saying that Massachusetts law only allows votes outside a meeting if the votes are unanimous. In the committee’s opinion, this is spurious, since (1) a meeting was held and only the voting process is being delayed, and (3) RONR allows balloting by mail.

    It seems clear from your description that the debate that happened at the meeting is independent of the question being presented by ballot. I would not describe this at all as "only the voting process is being delayed."

    However, I don't think any of that is relevant. Your bylaws say that they can be amended by a mail vote by the membership. If one or more members think that this is not in accord with the law, let them show you the exact law that they think prevents it, or at least some reasonable evidence of the existence of such a law as it pertains to a vote of the membership in your particular type of organization, and then the organization can make some judgment as to whether it is applicable and means what they claim it means. 

  18. On 12/3/2023 at 10:25 AM, Drake Savory said:

    Here is a question related to this thread:

    Maker makes a motion.  It is seconded.

    Chair starts debate.  After a sentence or two (debate has started but timely objection).  Member makes a Point of Order that the Chair did not state the question.

    Chair rules the Point to be well taken.

    The maker immediately asks to withdraw the motion before the Chair can properly state the question.

    Is the motion withdrawn?

    What do you mean by "Chair starts debate"? 

  19. On 11/28/2023 at 9:01 AM, Josh Martin said:

    For example (assuming that there are no voters having fractions of a vote, as may occur in some conventions):

    • If 19 votes are cast, a majority (more than 9½) is 10.
    • If 20 votes are cast, a majority (more than 10) is 11.
    • If 21 votes are cast, a majority (more than 10½) is 11." RONR (12th ed.) 44:1

    I'm not particularly fond of this formulation, although it conveys the correct idea in practice.

    I think what it really means is something like "For example (assuming that there are no voters having fractions of a vote…) … If 19 votes are cast, 10 is a majority (more than 9½), as are 11 through 19, but 0 through 9 are not."

    But I'm not saying you should expect to see such wording in the 13th edition. 🙂

×
×
  • Create New...