Shmuel Gerber

For the sake of discussion, I will argue in favor of J. J. and Mr. Elsman's conclusion.

RONR (12th ed.) states:

"21:7 Effect of Adjournment on Pending Business or on an Uncompleted Order of Business. Except as the assembly may have adopted rules providing otherwise, the effect of an adjournment on a pending motion or an uncompleted order of business is as follows: ... 

"b) When the adjournment closes the session in an assembly having its next regular business session within a quarterly time interval (see 9:7), and having no members whose terms of membership expire before the next regular session (for example, in ordinary clubs and societies that hold frequent “regular meetings”): The complete order of business is followed at the next regular session. If a question was pending at the time of adjournment, it is taken up as the first item under unfinished business (or under special orders, if it was a special order)—resuming the question at exactly where it was previously interrupted. Any general or special order that was not reached is also taken up under unfinished business or under special orders, respectively (see 41)."

The rule that the pending question is taken up as the first item of unfinished business is thus given in the context of the fact that the complete order of business is followed at the next regular session and, within that session, the question that was pending at the time of adjournment will not be reached until Unfinished Business.

However, at a special session, there is no prescribed order of business, so there is no business that has a higher priority than the question that was pending at adjournment, so at that session there is no rule interfering with taking up the question. 

This is in contrast with a question that was postponed or otherwise made an order of the day for the next regular meeting, which the book explicitly states can't be taken up before the time for which it was set, except by reconsideration or a two-thirds vote. 

On 8/18/2023 at 11:52 AM, vfk48 said:

At a board meeting where members are invited to attend, can those general members (not the board members) speak if spoken to by a board member?

No. All discussion and questions must be directed to or through the chair, who may in appropriate circumstances ask a general member to provide factual information in response to a question from a board member.

On 8/18/2023 at 1:57 AM, Guest Robert Ford Dumas said:

Within a day or so, the proponents of the original, unamended motion pushed again for another special meeting to take up the main motion with hopes of "rescinding the amendment" adopted at the original regular meeting. They got their wish and another special meeting was called.

. . .

I would like to think that at that second special meeting, the amendment's proponents would raise another point of order that the motion to rescind something previously adopted was not in order because it could not be applied to an adopted amendment to a yet unadopted main motion.

It's true that an adopted amendment to a pending main motion cannot be "rescinded", but since each of these meetings is a separate session, the main motion can simply be amended again to put it back the way it was before the previous amendment was adopted. Being a subsidiary motion to Amend, a motion to do this requires only a majority vote -- that is, once the main motion becomes pending again, which it seems requires a two-thirds vote to happen. 

I have a vague recollection of this topic being discussed on the forum a while ago, but I'm not sure if or where it was. I'm curious what your answers are. Assume the assembly has regular meetings monthly.

1. A main motion is pending when a regular meeting adjourns. Then, in accordance with the bylaws provisions for calling special meetings, a special meeting is called for the purpose of resuming consideration of that motion. How is the motion brought up at the special meeting? Is a two-thirds vote required to bring it up?

2. Instead of a main motion being pending when a regular meeting adjourns, it is pending when a special meeting adjourns. Then another special meeting is called for the purpose of resuming consideration of the motion. Are your answers to the questions above the same as in #1? 

3. A main motion is pending when a special meeting adjourns, and no further adjourned or special meetings are held before the next regular meeting. How and when is the motion brought up at the next regular meeting? And what if there was also a different motion pending when the previous regular meeting adjourned?

Where are you quoting from? 

On 8/15/2023 at 11:13 PM, Bruce Lages said:

As an aside, a motion to adjourn was probably unnecessary in this case. If the funds appropriation was the only item of business listed in the call, once that resolution was passed then all the business that was in order at this meeting was completed, no other business could be legitimately introduced, and the chair should have simply declared the meeting adjourned. 

No motions on items of business unrelated to the purpose of the meeting could be made, but it's possible that other motions might have been in order. For example, a member might move to amend the adopted motion in some respect, or to instruct the secretary to publish the text of the motion by a certain date.

On 8/17/2023 at 3:37 AM, puzzling said:

Was puzzling with RONR 47:28.

If the president (at an angry or senior monent) says he is resigning. Is it possible for him to withdraw that resignation?  Or is there even a need for the assembly to accept it?

47:28 seems to say no, as soon as he resigns the vice president becomes president. 

That would mean that at that point there is a new president and there is nothing to withdraw or accept.

Am I right in this or am i missing something?

RONR 47:28 says:

In case of the president's resignation, death, or removal, the vice-president automatically becomes president for the remainder of the term, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise for filling a vacancy in the office of president (see also 56:32).

It doesn't say "in case of the president's submission of a resignation"; it says "in case of the president's resignation". The procedure for resignation is discussed in §32, which states:

"By submitting a resignation, the member is, in effect, requesting to be excused from a duty. The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion “that the resignation be accepted.”
"The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted." RONR (12th ed.) 32:5–6.

I suppose it might be helpful if 47:28 included a reference to §32.

On 8/13/2023 at 7:25 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't think it matters whether the mover is the committee chair or not.

No one said otherwise. But (for some reason) it matters whether the mover is a member of the committee. 

On 8/13/2023 at 6:50 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Suppose he is a non-voting member. On another thread, I was informed that when a member is kept out of a meeting, it is equivalent to being denied the right to vote. Of course, the denial of the right to vote only invalidates the result if the vote would have made a difference. But that is impossible here, as he has no vote. So why can't we say the meeting is not illegitimate, regardless?

If a meeting is called by notifying only some members and not others, then it's not a valid meeting regardless of whether the votes of the unnotified members could have changed the results of particular motions.

Likewise, if action is taken at a meeting without a quorum present, this is action taken in violation of the rights of absentees, and is null and void, regardless of whether or not the votes of the absentees could have changed the results. 

However, it's not clear in this thread whether the parliamentarian is actually a member of the board. I would guess not. 

On 8/9/2023 at 4:48 AM, Guest Anonymous said:

If a mandatory special meeting is called, abiding by the bylaws, and there is one objection due to that board member not being available, can we proceed? 

Please start a new topic in the General Discussion forum: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/forum/4-general-discussion/?do=add

On 8/8/2023 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Katz said:

The rule here is very clear, but why? I am puzzled why that is a good rule, particularly in light of the voting threshold for rescind/amend, and the impossibility of a member removed from a meeting moving to reconsider.

These are merely suggestions as to how the member can seek to change the outcome after the fact. I think the rationale for the rule is quite clear as well, in that the assembly does not nullify a vote after the fact (after time has passed) simply to vindicate an individual's right to have participated in the vote, where the outcome would not have been different.

You could say it is the flip side of the rule that a vote is not nullified after the fact if an inconsequential number of nonmembers were allowed to vote. 

On 8/8/2023 at 9:52 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Who will raise this point of order? Maybe someone else, but you've removed the person most likely to do so.

The person who was removed can raise a point of order at another meeting, but it will not affect the outcome of the motion(s) in question because the one vote would not have yielded a different result. But even while the member is improperly excluded, there may well be other members present who think the member must be given an opportunity to vote even though they didn't initially raise a point of order over the member's exclusion. 

On 8/7/2023 at 10:04 PM, J. J. said:

I would question the applicability of this, if they left voluntarily.  Unless they were physically escorted from the room, I would not say that the members were denied that right.  They could have said no. 

I was responding to this:

On 8/7/2023 at 8:23 PM, Joshua Katz said:

There's no rule for when a member is at a meeting and is forced to leave, so it seems we need to find a parallel. Mr. Martin suggested being prevented from voting. I suggested not receiving notice. 

"23:7 Remedy for Violation of the Right to Vote. If one or more members have been denied the right to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a regular or properly called meeting during which a vote was taken while a quorum was present, a point of order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights of the individual members can be raised so long as the decision arrived at as a result of the vote has continuing force and effect. If there is any possibility that the members’ vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained. If there is no such possibility, the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the outcome, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38), arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members could have led to a different result; but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to a point of order raised at a later time." (emphasis added)

On 8/7/2023 at 2:06 PM, J. J. said:

If it is a duty, can he be disciplined for not voting? 

No. Because: Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote.

On 8/7/2023 at 12:23 PM, Guest Elaine said:

Does a board member have a duty to vote on a topic if he/she does not have a direct conflict?

On 8/7/2023 at 12:45 PM, J. J. said:

Anyone has a right to abstain, unless the rules provide otherwise (45:3).

The question was whether a member has a duty to vote, and the answer is yes:

"Although it is the duty of every member who has an opinion on a question to express it by his vote, he can abstain, since he cannot be compelled to vote." (45:3)

On 8/6/2023 at 10:34 AM, Politicalbrit said:

Several Board members in succession speak attacking X, accusing X of having accused the member of staff of lying, and demand an apology.

There is no rule in RONR against accusing a staff member of lying, unless the staff member happens to be a member of the assembly (the board in this case).

On 8/2/2023 at 11:47 AM, Wright Stuff said:

A 2/3 negative vote to an Objection to the Consideration of a Question (§26) is required to sustain the objection. However, only a majority is required to Reconsider (§37) the Objection. It seems like the lower threshold for Reconsideration invites disruption. Can someone explain the logic behind the difference between a 2/3 vote to sustain and a majority vote to reconsider (understanding that a majority is all that is required for a Motion to Reconsider?)

This is explained in RONR (12th ed.) 26:6.

On 7/29/2023 at 9:35 AM, Josh Martin said:

"An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time (see 56:27). If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office." RONR (12th ed.) 46:47

And what you all seem to be saying is that if a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, neither failure to hold it nor holding it affects the time at which the new officers assume office. 🙂

On 7/29/2023 at 12:02 PM, Josh Martin said:

National Organization of Parliamentarians

I assume you meant National Association of Parliamentarians.

On 7/25/2023 at 6:19 PM, J. J. said:

Since non voters can be treated as having the effect of a no vote, when a MEM vote is required, your logic fails. 

Nonvoters are never treated as "having the effect of a no vote" under the rules in RONR. However, their failure to vote may have the same effect as a no vote would have on the outcome. 

They are simply not treated as having voted yes. When a vote of a majority of the entire membership is required, the failure to vote yes can have an effect on the outcome, even if a member is absent or abstains from voting. 

On 7/24/2023 at 6:17 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Do you doubt the intent of the rule or its efficacy?

I think that in order for such a rule (hypothetically, where it is not contrary to law) to be effective, it would have to be prefaced by something like "For purposes of determining whether the motion is adopted,…“.

Otherwise, votes are being ascribed to members, against those members' will, who did not actually cast them. 

On 7/24/2023 at 7:38 PM, J. J. said:

 

I have no doubt that a bylaw could be adopted that would say "A motion to ___________ shall be adopted provided that 25% or more of the membership do not vote against the motion."

That's a lot closer, in my opinion, to a legitimate parliamentary rule, but it ought to make clear that it applies only with respect to a motion that actually comes to a final vote (or passage by unanimous consent), in a meeting at which a quorum is present. 

On 7/24/2023 at 3:41 PM, Dan Honemann said:

But the intent of the motion appears to be clear.  The absence of a member shall be counted as a yes vote.

I'm a bit skeptical about that as well. The definition of voting is expressing a choice. It does not seem legitimate to me to adopt a rule that counts a member as having made a particular choice when the member in fact made no such choice. 

On 7/24/2023 at 2:58 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Nope, wrong again.  It's AD NAUSEAM.  NAUSEA is first declension, not second.

On 7/24/2023 at 2:59 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

No kidding, I gotta kick my spelling checker in the butt.  Apparently it has seen it both ways.  And it doesn't even try to blame it on the British.  

But you have to admit--nauseum v. nauseum is really splitting hares. 🫢

Already corrected. Just another instance of Muphry's Law in action. Well now it's my turn to complain about spell checking, because as soon as I typed in the wrong spelling (on purpose), autocorrect decided to update its previously correct suggestion to make it wrong the second time. 

On 7/24/2023 at 10:17 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Yes, but that would still be a meeting.  And it would provide no discernable advantage over simply waiting, as RONR recommends.

Since you're suing anyway, the correct spelling is "discernible".

Hey, I could do this all day. Or at least ad nauseum ad nauseam. (Which perhaps I already have.)