Baofeng Ma

On 12/7/2022 at 2:55 PM, Josh Martin said:

In the alternative, if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, then I do not think anything in the facts presented suggests a continuing breach.

Our bylaws say "Election shall be by ballot". It is assumed that the vice president was elected by ballot in the meeting, but I am not very sure of that. The procedure:

1. One person sends a link (google doc, not editable by the others ) in our Zoon chat.

2. Everybody could check a favorite candidate after clicking the link. 

3. Submit when a candidate is chosen. 

4. The person (teller) calculates the results (votes for each candidate). 

Not sure:

5. Does the teller know who vote for the candidate? 

6. Does the teller report a wrong result ?

It looks it is hard to find a suitable software for ballot voting. 

In our unit Zoom meeting (Dec 2022), the officers were elected. There are two candidates for vice president position.  The names were put on goggle doc (ballot) without write-in option provided. 45:18 says " On a ballot vote in an election or other vote involving multiple possible choices, members are able to write in or  fill in a vote for any eligible person or choice and are not confined to voting for or against candidates that appear on the ballot."

It looks that our voting procedure was against this rule, but no body raised it, therefore would it be ok?  How does the write-in matter? 

On 10/7/2022 at 11:40 AM, Josh Martin said:

As previously noted, this is what RONR says concerning incidental motions.

"As a class, incidental motions deal with questions of procedure arising out of: (1) commonly, another pending motion; but also (2) sometimes, another motion or item of business

a) that it is desired to introduce,

b) that has been made but has not yet been stated by the chair, or

c) that has just been pending." RONR (12th ed.) 6:15

RONR itself gives several such examples. Generally, a motion to Suspend the Rules made in this manner will be an incidental motion relating to a motion "that it is desired to introduce," as described in 6:15, although conceivably the other cases could arise as well.

"A motion to “take up a question out of its proper order,” or to consider one before a time to which it has been postponed, is an application of the motion to Suspend the Rules (see 14, 41)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:3

"In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension. Such a motion, for instance, may be “to suspend the rules and take up the report of the Building Committee,” or “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” When the purpose of a motion to Suspend the Rules is to permit the making of another motion, and the adoption of the first motion would obviously be followed by adoption of the second, the two motions can be combined, as in “to suspend the rules and take from the table (34) the question relating to…” The foregoing is an exception to the general rule that no member can make two motions at the same time except with the consent of the assembly—unanimous consent being required if the two motions are unrelated (see also 10:25, 27:10–11)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:4

"If the assembly, by a two-thirds vote, adopts a motion “to dispense with the regular order of business and proceed to” a certain subject, it has in effect voted to suspend the rules and pass all classes in the order of business which normally would precede that subject (see 41:37–39)." RONR (12th ed.) 25:12

"A member who has obtained the floor can say, for example, “Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to offer the courtesy resolutions before we receive the report of the special committee.” The chair then asks if anyone objects and, if so, proceeds to take a vote on suspending the rules, just as if a formal motion had been made." RONR (12th ed.) 25:16

A very good clarification. I learned a lot. Many thanks.

On 10/6/2022 at 5:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

But it is also not necessarily correct that a motion to Suspend the Rules made when no motion is pending is an incidental main motion.

It is a good point. I have not been aware of this because 5:3-4 says secondary motions are built on a pending motion. Could you give some examples of a motion to suspend the rules, which is still an incidental motion when no question is pending. Probably the examples could be based on 25:17-18 or somewhere in RONR (12th ed.) Thanks.

On 10/6/2022 at 6:09 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

That's a rather large assumption, and one not supported by facts presented.

We are told that this alternate motion was made while the first was being debated.  It might have been offered as an amendment in the nature of a substitute, but as the chair ruiled it was not in order at the time, the chair, at least, did not consider it to be an amendment at all.  It's not for me to opine whether it was at all germain to the topic at hand, as I was not there.  The chair was.

Yeah, I agree. I should be more careful of claiming something. Thanks.

On 10/5/2022 at 9:57 PM, Guest Sally said:

A motion was improperly interjected

I am not very sure what is exactly "improperly interjected". Is it a scenario similar to the below?

When a member was debating, the maker interrupted the speaker and stated the intervening motion without recognition by Chair.    

On 10/6/2022 at 12:04 PM, Richard Brown said:

What makes you think it was an amendment to the main motion?  Nothing said by the OP indicates that.  In fact, she seems to be saying it was a different motion and the chair essentially ruled it out of order. 

I agree. That it is not proper to say "it is an amendment to the main motion." 

I would like to break down step by step for the question by the author.

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

During the board's discussion of a motion

1. Label "a motion" as Motion1. We don't know which category it is, maybe main motion, primary motion, any motion. 

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed.

2. Label "a new motion" as Motion2. It might be either an amendment, or a different motion including a change to Motion1.  I believe it is the "intervening motion" called by the author. From the facts presented, the maker did not seek recognition from chair. I tend to believe it was made improperly. I don't think there is no need of record in the minutes. 

On 10/6/2022 at 11:42 AM, Guest sally said:

During the board's discussion of a motion, a member presented a new motion that included a change to the motion being discussed. The chair stated that there was already a motion on the table. Then themaker of the original motion moved to rescind the original motion which was approved. A new motion was made, seconded and approved.

The intervening motion was ignored and never seconded. My question is: Should there be a record of the intervening motion in the minutes?

No.
It is an amendment to the main motion. 

On 10/6/2022 at 10:42 AM, Josh Martin said:

I agree with your analogy, but the citations in question appear to support the position that this is an incidental motion, not an incidental main motion.

I would like to emphasize that the incidental motion could be treated as an incidental main motion just like the motion to suspend the rules when no question is pending. 

Practically I don’t know it is meaningful to distinguish between these concepts. For example, in one case that occurred in our unit meeting, after the amendment to the bylaws was adopted, I found the notice is less than 30 days. I raised a point of order (no question was pending then) and the chair ruled the adoption was null and void. The amendment was taken up at the next meeting. 

On 10/6/2022 at 11:29 AM, Richard Brown said:

Shouldn't that be, "if the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made properly, rather than "not made improperly"?  It seems to me such a motion is not properly made.

Corrected. 

To me it is resemblance to motion to suspend the rules. 25:2(1) “Can be made at any time when no question is pending”, 25:4 “In making the incidental motion to suspend the rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned”

Similarly when no question is pending, a point of order is an incidental motion trying to bring a question (a violation of the bylaws here) before the assembly. 

It looks that the point of order fits what is described here, Incidental main motion, 10:4, 2).

On 10/6/2022 at 7:56 AM, Josh Martin said:

Still, I must admit that a Point of Order relating to a continuing breach arising from a previous meeting does not appear to neatly fit the description of an incidental motion, as described in 6:15. Notwithstanding this, it remains my understanding that a Point of Order, regardless of circumstances, is an incidental motion.

Yeah, the continuing breach is discussed in 23:6 saying “a continuing nature, whereby”, supporting your opinion. However I would rather say it is an incidental main motion based on 6:23 saying that “Counterparts of some of the incidental motions may occur as incidental main motion.” to keep conceptually consistent.

Incidental motions are all secondary motions, being made when a motion is pending. 5:2

On 10/6/2022 at 6:44 AM, Josh Martin said:

No, this is not correct. A Point of Order is an incidental motion, whether or not a motion is pending.

If it is an incidental motion, which relates to the pending business, it must be decided immediately before business can proceed. 6:15.

The point of order raised above does not have these characteristics.

If the member making a motion that needs recognition to be made is not recognized by the chair, the motion is not made improperly. 4:4.

Making a main motion is out of order during discussion of a motion made and seconded. 5:4. Don’t record it in the minute.

Only record certain secondary motions. 48:4,7)

On 10/6/2022 at 3:43 AM, puzzling said:

What do you mean by "Did the chair accept the motion?" 

 

I understand it is “state the question”. 

After a motion is made and seconded, the next step is to state the question. 4:15.

48:4,6) supports Gary’s opinion: record any main motion made, even not seconded.
It says “All main motions or motions to bring a main motion again before the assembly that was made or taken up”

On 10/4/2022 at 7:53 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The chair can raise a point of order at the next meeting, but cannot "rule" on anything outside of a meeting.  Rulings of the chair are subject to Appeal  (§24), and appeals can't happen outside of a meeting.

If the chair raises a point of order at the next meeting, it would be a main motion because there is no motion pending in the meeting. 

On 10/5/2022 at 3:25 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, now you're wandering further afield.

Conforming corrections should be simpler. Delegating its authority by adopting a resolution? 57:19

On 10/5/2022 at 2:15 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Much better.  🙂

Another way is “series of amendments” to previously adopted text by means of a single incidental main motion. 35:5. 

27:5.

On 10/5/2022 at 1:56 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, 12:15 relates to subsidiary motions to Amend, but the idea is the same.

 

Isolated changes. 57:3.

On 10/5/2022 at 1:18 PM, Bruce Lages said:

No, you don't have to vote on each instance separately. You can offer one amendment to replace the words 'initiate' or 'initiation' wherever they appear with 'welcome' or a similar word. Such an amendment can specify each instance where 'initiate' or initiation' appears in the bylaws, or it can state "wherever the words 'initiate' or 'initiation' appear in the bylaws". In the first case, though, you need to be certain that you have listed every instance the words you are replacing are found in the bylaws, and in both cases, you need to be certain that there is no place in the bylaws where the words you are replacing are used in some other context than referring to new members.

And, no - you cannot amend the wording in just one place in the bylaws and assume that allows the same change to be made anywhere else the same wording occurs.

Conforming amendments, RONR( 12th ed.) 12:15.

On 10/5/2022 at 12:46 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I think this conversation has reached a point where there is nothing further to discuss as far as RONR is concerned.

Thanks for reminding. I have been thinking whether I should reply to it.

On 10/4/2022 at 5:30 PM, puzzling said:

if you think there is gross misleading of the public, illegal activity informing wistleblowing to police or council officials is a correct way of action.

I reported to the parent organization (that probably most people know here) of another society to which it is related closely in some way. 

It seems that no one cares. The organization needs more members for collecting fees.

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

Do they realise they support  an autocratic unincorporated organisation?

No one knows where the money was from. 

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

Let me guess the education is provided by (cheap) unpaid members / volunteers

Yes, the education is provided by unpaid members. In contrast the trainees would get paid when they passed a certain test. 
 

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

Hopefully it is not an organisation that promotes democracy in any way or form.

Unfortunately it indeed promotes democracy. 

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

But I am wondering if it all is worth it. Maybe it is better to accept your losses and invest your energy in a more  organisation 

On 10/5/2022 at 1:25 AM, puzzling said:

Guess they don't put their constitution and bylaws on their website.

I totally agree that investing energy is not worthy. I just wonder if there is a way to correct it according to RONR. 

No, they did not put the bylaws on their website.