Phil D

How exactly was the second motion disposed of then? It should have remained the pending question until adopted, defeated, committed, postponed, or tabled--in other words until disposed of in some form or other, whether temporarily or permanently. Did the Chair proceed by unanimous consent? Gavel it through? Was a vote taken at a later meeting? (A minor point here, but the preferred abbreviation for citations to Robert's Rules of Order is "RONR.")

I sense this is going to be one of those uncomfortable situations where the Chair is going to try to gavel through things according to their ideas of what should be on the agenda. Ultimately, RONR only works if people actually follow it. Your procedural mechanisms would be a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal. I'd personally try to cover my bases though and get any business I really wanted raised in before this fictional deadline.

I suspect you are going to get many requests for clarification. If the following assumptions are true: Your meetings are subject to RONR; No overriding procedural authority contradicts RONR; By "process we're voting on" you mean an original main motion, i.e., a substantive proposal to do something (sounds like maybe adopt a process for your organization). Then the motion is debatable and amendable, as are all original main motions. The fact that you've had many Q&A sessions leading up to the vote sounds like good preparation for informed debate, amendment, and voting, but would not supplant the RONR requirement to allow debate. Generally under RONR, questions that are not debatable are specific procedural motions where bogging down into debate would defeat the point of the motion. For instance, the Motion to Call the Previous Question exists to shut down pointless debate--its purpose would be thwarted if raising the motion resulted in more debate, so debate is prohibited. Main motions are usually debatable.

Under 1:4, the right to make motions is one of the fundamental rights of membership. The standard order of business includes "new business," and the chair is prohibited from depriving members of the right to introduce legitimate business at that time. There should be at least a Bylaws provision restricting the order of business at these meetings if this kind of restriction is going to be enforced. The document that looks like an agenda that the Chair sends around before a meeting is merely a "proposed agenda." Absent some overriding procedural rule to the contrary, that text only becomes the agenda if the membership wants it to be. I once heard it articulated along the lines of--"if the Assembly wants to strike out the agenda and play bingo instead, that's the Assembly's prerogative."

As mentioned in some earlier posts, I'm a presiding officer for an assembly (a union chapter). I enjoy the sweeping mandate one enjoys by being the only person who volunteered for the position and spending the $20 for a copy of RONR. This is less a specific rules question and more of a general advice question--how do you get more comfortable with, better at, more fluid with running the meetings? I have a membership who is not tremendously well-versed in RONR, so I wind up having to do a lot of "smoothing" to turn members' ideas into a workable motion. But even without that, I feel like I have the damnedest time accurately reciting a member's motion back to them in the motion, compounded when we get into some of the more complicated practices like amending amendments and so forth. At our last meeting, I really felt like I was just trudging through the muck going through the litany of voting on a secondary amendment, primary amendment, and main motion.

On the assumption that there's no statute, charter, constitution, or bylaw to the contrary and your board is following RONR-- 49:21 covers the conduct of small boards, i.e., a dozen members or fewer. The usual rules restricting the presiding officer's participation are relaxed, and the president can raise motions, enter into debate, and vote in those small boards. Even under the greater formality of larger assemblies, the presiding officer can vote to break a tie in the affirmative or make a tie to defeat a motion (44:12).

RONR seems to presume that members can quietly leave at any time, just given that quorum is presumed to persist until a member raises a point of order that quorum has been lost. Where quorum is lost, and in your case in particular, you still have a motion to obtain quorum and/or a motion to recess to try to remedy your situation, i.e., figure out if a quorum can be reestablished or if the meeting needs to be adjourned to another time instead.

Yes, both adopt RONR.

I preside over a chapter of a larger organization. The chapter bylaws state that "Chapter meetings hall be held in accordance with [provision of the parent organization's constitution]." The relevant provision of that constitution, in pertinent part reads: "Chapters shall meet at least four times annually. [ . . . ] Such meetings shall be called and attended by the chapter president or his/her duly constituted representative. [ . . . ] Each chapter’s annual meeting shall be held in the month of April. [ . . . ] If the chapter president does not call the required meetings of the chapter before the month of April, a majority of the officers of the chapter may call a special meeting of the chapter to transact chapter business and to prepare for the annual meeting in April." (The omitted language has to do with reporting our minutes to the parent organization and getting rebates as an incentive for complying with the constitutional requirements). There is no other language about the circumstances for scheduling chapter meetings in the chapter bylaws or the parent organization's constitution. What authority do I have as president, and what authority does membership have to schedule meetings beyond the quarterly minimum? Can membership adopt standing rules that govern calling such meetings? Or would they have to go through a Bylaws change to call for more frequent meetings. I know that what I want does not exactly enter into consideration for RONR purposes, but I think the chapter would benefit from having some ability to call more frequent meetings if some acute situation comes up that membership wants to address.

(1) 45:25 "In elections, 'for' and 'against' spaces or boxes may not be used. They are applicable only with respect to votes on motions. In an election, a voter can vote against one candidate only by voting for another who has been nominated or by writing in the name of another candidate." Your Church's ballot with a single line to vote "yes" for a candidate is a bit of a chimera then. It's an election, and so it really should be a box for the candidate and a space for write-ins, under RONR. If it were a motion, you'd need to have a box for Aye and a box for No, which would avoid the ambiguity about whether failing to check the box amounted to a vote against the person or a mere abstention. "Present and voting" is used in Roberts 1:6 and refers generally to the people voting on the question. People who abstain are not voting on the question. (2) Not in your case. 46:34 describes a situation where you are electing people to terms of differing lengths, but the ballot does not list those positions separately. In that case, the people with greater majorities win the longer terms. It sounds like you had separate lines for the separate terms. (3) Sort of a deeper philosophical question, eh? At a certain level, it's the Assembly's meeting, the Assembly's election, and the Assembly's elected positions. You can be quoting RONR chapter and verse but if the meeting is overwhelmingly against you, a ghostly General Robert is not exactly going to ride to your aid. However, I could foresee it being an issue if some action gets taken that results in legal liability, such that an outside actor (i.e. lawyers, judge) are analyzing whether your organization properly decided to take some action or make some expenditure. (4) See 2:25 discussing "customs." A custom that conflicts with RONR or other superior procedural rules set by statute or bylaws "falls to the ground" when identified by a Point of Order. A custom that is otherwise consistent with procedural authorities can be suspended by a majority vote. (5) An amendment to the Bylaws could clarify this practice and 46:30 recommends that organizations adopt specific election procedures appropriate to their organizations. If the Church wants it to be possible to leave an office vacant, the Bylaws should then specify a "Leave vacant" option.