Shmuel Gerber

Don't worry, folks; George is not imagining things. I split the most recent posts into a new topic.

I agree. Theoretically, he could do that, but I think it would be confusing and not likely to promote his desired outcome in most circumstances. Let's call the amendment in question "A". - If the member wants A to be adopted, he can just wait and see whether the whole series is adopted. If it is, then A is too. If it's not, then he can move the adoption of A separately afterward. - If the member wants A to be adopted and is opposed to some of the other provisions, he can make motions to strike out those provisions while the series is pending. - If the member wants A to be rejected, he can move to strike it out and not say anything about wanting to have a separate vote on it afterward. - If he just wants to see what the other members think of A, a vote on striking it while the series is pending will basically accomplish that (if no one confuses things by talking about wanting to move A afterward as a separate amendment regardless of what happens to the rest of the series). Striking out A and then moving it again afterward might be useful if one faction will vote against the whole series if A is included and another faction will vote against the whole series if A is not included, but in the end the people who were opposed to A might be sorely disappointed if it promptly gets adopted on a separate vote anyway. Alternatively, I think it would be in order to simply suspend the rules for the purpose of having a separate vote taken on amendment A. (And I'm pretty sure that at least Kim Goldsworthy would agree with me on that.)

I'm sure you understand what you're saying, but I sure don't.

How about just telling us how there is any loss of secrecy as compared to paper ballots -- unless, of course, records are kept of which gadget each member has and how each gadget's vote was cast.

During the consideration of the individual parts of the package, it would not be in order to strike out an entire part. (The purpose of considering the parts one at a time is to open them to debate and perfecting amendments, not to take a vote on whether that part should be included at all.) The appropriate time to move striking out an entire part is when the whole package is open to amendment after the individual parts have been considered, and at that time a motion can be made to amend by striking out that part along with the other parts that refer to it.

I think you meant the National Association of Parliamentarians. (Although NIP might be a snappier acronym that NAP.)

George was just being polite in phrasing his response as a question. What he should have stated was that inasmuch as RONR clearly states that the rule against motions to close or limit debate in committees is for the benefit of the assembly (and thus not for the benefit of the committee), you are absolutely wrong when making such statements as 'They (the parent assembly) are home, in bed. -- There is no one to protect -- at the moment the committee suspends the "debate" rule.' and 'The assembly is not debating. Therefore, there is no one left to protect by a two-thirds vote on "limiting debate" in a body separate from the parent assembly.' No, a committee cannot suspend a benefit, an advantage, or a nicety imposed on it by the assembly for the benefit of the assembly. But putting aside all this theoretical discussion, RONR states (p. 500), "In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate (15, 16) are not allowed in committees." And it also states (pp. 397-98), "Motions to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate (15) and for the Previous Question (16) are . . . in the nature of specialized motions to suspend the rules . . ." So it is illogical to think that a motion in a committee "to suspend the rules and close debate on the pending motion" violates the "non-interference" rule on page 500 any less than a motion "to order the previous question on the pending motion" does.

You think that the chair's interruption of a member who has the floor, and who repeatedly reminds the chair that she has the floor, in order to improperly state a motion to adjourn the meeting is a minor violation? In truth, we don't know in what capacity the member actually had the floor and whether there was a time limit, but let's put that point aside for the moment.

All those in favor of suspending this whole discussion, say ay-ay-ay.

The subsequent editions do indeed refer to both types of proposal. You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

What rule in RONR is violated if you commit forgery or fraud? And can the trained monkey commit forgery or fraud? (Regardless, I don't think the monkey could be convicted of a crime, for the lack of mens rhesus.)

A member can move to suspend the rules and agree to a certain motion without debate, but then a two-thirds vote is required to adopt the motion.

Robert's Rules of Order was never intended to be purely descriptive, nor purely prescriptive. As stated in the Introduction to RONR (11th ed., pp. xliii-xliv): "Writing such a manual as Robert envisioned would amount to weaving into a single whole a statement of existing parliamentary law and a set of proposed rules of order. His idea was that the book should be written in a form suitable for adoption by any society, without interfering with the organization's right to adopt any special rules it might require. In the manual, rules taken from the practice of the House should be used except in specific cases where analysis showed that some other rule was better for the conditions in an ordinary organization—which did not, for example, have the enormous volume of business to be handled, the sharp division along party lines, or the extended length of congressional sessions with daily meetings." The specific answers to your question about Lay on the Table can be found in the paragraphs of RONR that you alluded to, which I will reprint here for the reading pleasure of those who won't trouble themselves to pick up the book and take a look. p. 210, ll. 5-14: "By adopting the motion to Lay on the Table, a majority has the power to halt consideration of a question immediately without debate. Such action violates the rights of the minority and individual members if it is for any other purpose than the one stated in the first sentence of this section. In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. If a time for resuming consideration is specified in making the motion, it can be admitted only as a motion to Postpone, in which case it is debatable." p. 215, ll. 10-12 and footnote: "As stated at the beginning of this section, the motion to Lay on the Table is subject to a number of incorrect uses that should be avoided.*" "*Some misuses of the motion to Lay on the Table probably arise from a misunderstanding of the practice of the United States House of Representatives, where this motion has gradually become converted to a special purpose that is not applicable in ordinary assemblies. The press of legislation in the House is so great that only a fraction of the bills introduced each year can be considered. With this volume of work under the two-party system in such a large body, the majority must be given power to suppress a measure without debate, and the agenda must be tightly regulated. The House rules therefore do not allow a question to be taken from the table without first suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote. Consequently, when a matter is laid on the table in the House it is virtually killed." p. 216, ll. 3-10: "The motion to Lay on the Table is often incorrectly used and wrongly admitted as in order with the intention of either killing an embarrassing question without a direct vote, or of suppressing a question without debate. The first of these two uses is unsafe if there is any contest on the issue; the second is in violation of a basic principle of general parliamentary law that only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate." If the motion is used for its proper purpose, then no reforms are necessary. The assembly has decided, without debate, to set aside the matter and it is up to the assembly to decide, without debate, when it should be brought back. Of course there is nothing wrong with the chair or a member reminding the assembly that there is some motion still lying on the table, but I think it would be futile to try to prescribe when a particular motion that has specifically been laid on the table should automatically be brought back for consideration.

Because my brain must have been in AutoComplete mode when I typed that. Thanks for pointing out my mistake!

I think it's fairly plain that Dottie would like to move the adoption of a rule that no motion regarding the club's smoking policy shall be in order for the next two years. Whether such a rule is appropriate from a political/sociological perspective is open to debate, but why does anyone think it is inappropriate in terms of parliamentary procedure? Although such a rule is very narrow in scope, it would operate much the same way as any other rule of order. It wouldn't prevent the club from changing a substantive decision if it really wanted to, but it would provide greater stability than if there were no rule, in this case requiring some action to be taken by the assembly itself before the subject could even be introduced. That is, before a motion to rescind or amend the smoking policy could be made, a two-thirds vote on a motion to Suspend the Rules would be required. Or the rule of order itself would have to be rescinded, which would also require a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice require previous notice and a two-thirds vote, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. And Gary Tesser is correct about the debate on a motion to rescind the rule: But, going back to the political question, of course Gary Novosielski might also be right:

I can state without equivocation that, as far as the rules of RONR are concerned, "a majority of the members of the board" (or "committee") means a majority of the members of the board (or committee), no matter what Kiefer Sutherland / Tom Kirkman / Jack Bauer might say about it. (Although Jack has some unique methods of persuasion, so I wouldn't want to argue about it with him.)

Richard, Nobody said anything about drafting new minutes until you raised the point. Presumably, the secretary already drafted the minutes in time for the next board meeting, and Mr. M. simply stated that as an alternative to directly approving the minutes of the previously constituted board, which the OP seemed to think presents a problem, the new board can appoint a committee (which would most logically be composed of members who were present at the previous meeting) to approve them.

The index is quite large, I'm not sure it helps to supply it as if referring to a section in the book.

And see FAQ 12 and FAQ 13.

Other than what is mentioned in the topic that can be found here, does anyone know of typographical errors (misspelled entries, wrong page numbers, or the like) in the index of RONR?

Zev points out a typo on page 320. See here.

D.Llama, I suggest that you read your own words that I quoted, which my reply was in response to. You quoted a statement from RONR and then asked, "Is that statement correct- do you know - is that accurate ?" Now, instead of engaging with the specific question that I posed in response, you are talking about a bunch of other things, including the role of the parliamentarian, and whether the rule is "sound" or "should be eclipsed by a special" [rule of order, I assume]. So, I'll ask again: If the assembly adopted the motion "that we accept the report of the auditors and hereby relieve the treasurer of responsibility for the period covered by the report for fiscal year 2015, except in the case of fraud," would you start turning to financial experts to ask if it was really true that such a motion relieves the treasurer of responsibility for the stated period (except in the case of fraud)? If not, then why do you have difficulty accepting at face value the statement in RONR that the assembly's adoption of the auditors' report accomplishes the same thing, at the very least by virtue of the simple fact that RONR says that's what it does? And yes, I agree with potzbie: Nothing in RONR gives an organization the right to act on behalf of third parties to relieve an officer of that officer's responsibility with respect to those third parties.

I find this line of questioning a bit puzzling. RONR, which presumably has been adopted by the organization, explicitly states that adoption of the auditors' report has a particular effect. How could it not be true that the motion then has that effect? If the assembly adopted the motion "that we accept the report of the auditors and hereby relieve the treasurer of responsibility for the period covered by the report for fiscal year 2015, except in the case of fraud," would you start turning to financial experts to ask if it was really true that such a motion relieves the treasurer of responsibility for the stated period (except in the case of fraud)?

All of the rules in RONR are not only current but indeed timeless (at least until the next edition is published). RONR (11th ed.) says, "[In] a stock corporation, although the board of directors is elected by stockholders who hold an annual meeting, it constitutes the highest authority in the management of the corporation" (p. 9, ll.-14) and that "the board [in an organized society] has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it. . . . It should be noted, however, that exactly the opposite condition prevails in connection with boards of business corporations, in which the board has exclusive power and authority to operate the business" (pp. 482-483). It should therefore come as no surprise to hear an assertion from the chief financial officer of a major corporation that a motion at the annual meeting of stockholders to accept the auditors' report is unknown. I'm not saying that his statement is accurate, and I don't know what the actual practice is at most corporations, but it is in no way at odds with the rules in RONR to leave such matters to the board of the corporation, rather than the owners.