Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

David D.

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Ithaca, NY

David D.'s Achievements

  1. In my student assembly, it has been customary to schedule "presentations" during regular meetings. These presentations are usually reports from non-members on matters affecting the assembly's business. The President invites the presenters and places them in a "presentations" section of the agenda (the President has full authority to set the agenda items, but the assembly can make motions to alter the agenda or add items during the meeting). Conventionally, members have been given Q&A following a presentation, even if that presentation only presents information without actionable recommendations. However, this means the assembly engages in discussion on matters without a pending question, so there is no way to limit "Q&A" as long as people want to continue asking questions. Is there a more proper way to arrange a limited Q&A period following an oral report of this kind, or does RONR consider this type of discussion to be avoided entirely? The assembly officially follows Robert's Rules, but the bylaws don't even mention 'presentations,' so I sense that this entire agenda section is out of order. Thank you.
  2. In assembly B, the person is considered a member of the assembly but not an officer. Also, the bylaws of assembly B do not take precedence over assembly A. In a sense, the assemblies are supposed to have equal status. The bylaws of assembly B state that assembly A has the right to appoint a certain number of representatives by its own procedures. The bylaws of assembly A state that appointments are made by election (leaving the number of representatives to be determined by assembly B's bylaws). For this reason, I'm leaning toward Josh's interpretation of them as delegates in a convention, since they are supposed to represent the interests of assembly A in a voting bloc, just like a caucus. However, I agree that prior notice ought to be given when possible, given the significance of this position. Thank you.
  3. Assembly A (a student assembly) has the power to elect a certain number of representatives to assembly B (an assembly of assemblies at a university) with fixed terms. This position entails being a member of both assemblies A and B, each of which adopts Robert's Rules as their parliamentary authorities. While the bylaws of assembly A state that the position is elected by assembly A, it is silent on the method of filling vacancies. One of the representatives to assembly B has resigned, and the President of Assembly A must decide how to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term. Should this vacancy be filled according to the procedures for officer vacancies, despite not being named as such in the bylaws? If so, the assembly would choose to accept the resignation and elect a successor in the next regularly scheduled meeting. (RONR 47:57 refers to "any office or board," but these positions are called "representatives" and not 'officers.') Thank you in advance.
  4. My assembly is considering an amendment to its charter. The charter states that it can be amended by a two-thirds vote of the entire membership. Since two-thirds of the membership can rarely attend a given meeting, some members would like the opportunity to vote by email, just this once. RONR 45:57 states that 'vote by mail' must be authorized in the bylaws, which is not the case here. However, can this particular rule of order be suspended, allowing mail voting in one case, without formally amending the bylaws? My intuition is that it cannot, since the bylaws would need to specify the procedures for how mail voting would take place. Thank you.
  5. You're right, which is why I also oppose such a proposal. In fact, our bylaws already require main motions to have a majority of the entire membership for adoption, so the effect of abstention is to vote in the negative. However, some members still want to formally revoke the right of abstention for political reasons, since it would force certain neutral members to take a public stance on a controversial resolution. Neutral members (or anyone on the fence) would have to leave the room, and as long as a quorum remains, the resolution would likely be adopted. Supposedly, this has been done before in some small assemblies, but I don't see how it could be enforced without involving disciplinary proceedings.
  6. It seems I'm using incorrect terminology here. Our assembly only has a Charter and Bylaws. It does not have special rules of order as a distinct document. Instead, the Bylaws incorporate Robert's Rules but make exceptions to the rules in various places throughout the Bylaws (e.g., a requirement that newly introduced resolutions must be postponed at least one meeting before voting, and a requirement that adopted resolutions be sent to specific people). So, while other assemblies would likely introduce such rules as special rules of order, here they are all part of the Bylaws. In my reasoning: The basic rights of membership are the rights "to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote." (1:4) Since 45:3 places the right of abstention under the "rights and obligations in voting," I thought that the basic right to vote would entail these other basic rights and obligations in voting. However, if the Bylaws can introduce rules superseding the basic rights of membership, then this consideration of mine doesn't make a difference.
  7. A student assembly that incorporates Robert's Rules is considering a resolution amending the Bylaws (more specifically, the special rules of order written in the Bylaws) to deprive members of the right of abstention, forcing all present members to vote yes or no on every motion decided by vote. If this were a motion to suspend the rules, it would not be in order. The right of abstention is a basic right of voting (45:3), and voting rights are a basic right of membership (1:4), and basic rights of membership cannot be suspended (25:11). However, why isn't there any explicit requirement that Bylaws incorporating Robert's Rules cannot override such basic rights? On the one hand, the freedom to "act within the assembly according to their own judgment" is a basic requirement of a deliberative assembly. If the assembly were to reject one or more of these rights, it seems improper to call themselves an 'assembly' subject to parliamentary rules, despite being subject to all other Robert's Rules that they incorporate into their governing documents. In short, if a rule cannot be suspended, should the chair also rule out of order any Bylaw amendment that deprives members of their rights as outlined in 25:7-13? Thank you in advance.
  8. In this case, the Bylaws have a provision that a section can be suspended with a two-thirds vote.
  9. Yes, you're correct. In this meeting, 15/25 members were present, and 13 would be required to pass a resolution. The rationale for the decision was that suspending the rule would change the effect of a member's absence, since the current effect is to vote no. In suspending this rule, the effect of absence would be abstention on any resolution votes. However, this consideration is not mentioned in 25:10, so I can see why the chair's ruling would be incorrect. It seems that everyone involved simply voted according to their stance on the resolution, not the question of the interpretation of the rules. The chair could have clarified to members how they should vote on the appeal question, but I can see why no rule was violated here. Thank you.
  10. When a vote is held following a motion to appeal the decision of the chair, is the chair required to vote in a manner consistent with their own ruling (i.e. make a tie)? The case: An assembly has Bylaws that incorporate Robert's Rules but additionally require a majority of all members for votes on resolutions. In one meeting, a member moved to suspend this particular part of the Bylaws, the effect of which would implement a simple majority standard for just that meeting, allowing his resolution to be adopted more easily. The chair ruled the motion out of order on the grounds that it would violate the rights of absentees. However, the chair was also critical of the absolute majority standard and invited members to appeal his decision in the hopes that it would be overturned. The appeal was made, seconded, discussed, and the vote returned 6-7 against the ruling. According to 24:4(7), the chair could have tied the vote and sustained the decision, but he declined to do so. Then, a member raised an objection that, in refusing to tie the vote, the chair was acting in bad faith in failing to defend his interpretation of Robert's Rules. What, if any, rules were violated in the chair's decision? Thank you in advance.
  11. Thank you both for your responses. For clarification, this is a university grad student assembly. The member is a committee chair who is considering an action entitled to that position, and which does not require the approval of the whole assembly. However, the action is potentially controversial because it has complex implications over the assembly's relationship to another university assembly. Therefore, the member wants to consider the opinion of our assembly before committing to an action, which would be a straw poll. Since straw polls are not permitted, I suppose we could format the discussion as a 'presentation' informing members of the issue, which under our Bylaws would allow for Q&A.
  12. A member of our assembly would like to pose a question to members of the form "Should we perform X action?" with yes, no, and abstention as valid responses. This question could be formulated as a resolution of the form "Resolved, that we should perform X action," but the sponsor of the motion only wants an answer to the question, not a commitment to perform the action if the yes side prevails. Otherwise, the question would be subject to all the procedures of main motions. Under Robert's Rules, can a main motion pose a question in this way? Thank you in advance, and my apologies if this is answered elsewhere.
  13. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My assembly has a history of tracking the results of every vote, but upon reflection I do not see why that should be necessary. Only the affirmative votes matter for the outcome of this kind of vote.
  14. In my assembly, all resolutions require an absolute majority of members to pass, regardless of whether they are present. In a recent meeting, 17/25 voting members were present, and a resolution failed with 10 votes in favor and none against, all others abstaining. Later in the meeting, one of the abstentions moved to reconsider on the grounds that they understand the resolution better and would vote in favor. However, this motion was ruled out of order because the member was not on the prevailing side. Is this judgment correct? Thank You.
  15. Agree with Josh. Also, by the wording of your first sentence, it seems that the minutes might be incomplete. Why would a motion to table (or more accurately, to postpone) be made and seconded but nothing else? If the minutes reflect that no vote was held, then it's possible that the presiding officer ruled by general consent: Supposing that everyone was in favor and hearing no objections, s/he tabled the resolution. If this is the case, the minutes would need to be amended to reflect this adoption. Then, the vote on the resolution would have been out of order because the motion was not taken from the table. In either case, the resolution was still adopted because a point of order was not made promptly.
×
×
  • Create New...