Wright Stuff

Rules of a convention passed at the convention in connection with amending the credentials report are as (in part) below. It is possible to discover an honest error in the credentials report later in the convention. While a motion to amend the Final Report is not in order, isn't it possible to suspend the rules and then make the motion? The rules seem to anticipate such an occurrence: It seems to me that the last line of the first quote above should be removed from future rules.

Even though nominations were previously closed?

Does anyone here have a cheat sheet she or he is willing to share that breaks out the motions that require majority vote with notice, 2/3 vote without notice, or majority vote of the entire body? While I have a number of cheat sheets, some of them are not current. Others are hard to follow. I have the ones at the end of RONR. I attended a meeting last month in which the parliamentarian had one that seemed helpful, but he was gone before I could find him after the meeting.

The person to be censured is not a member of the organization. He is actually a politician. I learned later today that the organization is planning to amend its bylaws before the censure motion is moved to prevent anyone from moving a motion to censure unless that motion has been approved by 10 members of the Executive Board. That sad part is that a censure is of little to no value. Nothing changes.

Is a motion to censure without formal disciplinary procedures a regular main motion? (61:2 popup: "It is also possible to adopt a motion of censure without formal disciplinary procedures.") When a member makes a motion to censure a person after properly obtaining the floor, what basis would the chair have for ruling the motion out of order (with their being no procedure or prohibition for moving a motion to censure in the bylaws?) It seems that the "simple" censure is treated as a resolution. Our crowd seems to really like eating its own. I'm studying the censure procedure.

That's it. Thanks for all of the responses. It's very helpful.

Out of curiosity, while the work is probably done by a committee, why is a committee recommended procedurally? Also, does the motion require a 2/3 majority for passage? Where is this procedure in RONR? I had actually wondered about this question myself as our organization would like to to do the same, but passage would be tough.

A non-profit organization with RONR a its parliamentary authority is going to rewrite most of its bylaws, including not only substantive changes in numerous sections, but also in section numbers, order of sections, and formatting. What is the proper motion to wholesale substitute a new set of bylaws for an old set?

So it is the standard Motion to Rescind?

With certain exceptions, Standing Rules are adopted by majority votes. When they are in effect, they can be suspended for one meeting by majority votes. If they are to be rescinded, is a 2/3 vote/majority vote with notice/majority vote of the entire membership required? The cross reference in 2:23 to 35:2(7) is confusing. "For the vote required for rescinding or amending such a rule, see 35:2(7)." It seems that "such a rule" applies to a Standing Rule that conflicts with or amends "any existing rule or act of the society."

"The question is, "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?" (24:10) "A majority or a tie vote sustains the decision of the chair on the principle that the chair's decision stands until reversed by a majority." (24:3(7)) It's clear that the decision is sustained if there is a majority in favor. However, if the vote is tied, how is the decision sustained? Is it by definition ("the chair's decision stands until reversed by a majority?)"

I understand both responses (and had read 26:6), but I'm wondering how these motions play out in the real world. It seems that these rules are ripe for dilatory use.

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?)

Assume that the adopted agenda lists Adjournment as the last item. If you were parliamentarian for such a meeting, and this issue arose, what would your recommended ruling be?

Great information. Thanks. The reason for the question is a motion was made to sponsor eight people for an event. Two of the people were not part of the sponsoring organization. A member made a motion to divide the question and vote on the six as one motion and the remaining two as separate motion. The chair called for a second. Another member objected that a second was not required as a single member had the right to call for a division of the question. In any case, all eight were supported, so at least it wasn't a contentious matter.

The provisions of §27 seem clear except for the exceptions or special cases in 27:10-11. The dividing line between the two in my mind is that the main portion of the rule applies to divisible elements within a single motion whereas the exception in 27:10 (and 27:11 for amendments) applies to multiple motions combined into a single motion. Please set me straight. If anyone knows the reason for the exception, that may help me understand its application.

They are not the minutes of the Executive Committee until they are approved by the Executive Committee.

Can the Executive Committee require the Secretary to distribute her draft minutes within two weeks following the quarterly meeting? Since 41:12 states that the Secretary's draft does not become the (official) minutes unless it is approved by the members, can the Executive Committee require the Secretary to distribute her notes, which is all they are? There is no provision in the bylaws requiring distribution of the (draft) minutes prior to the next meeting.

I never doubt Mr. Martin's observations. As I learn more about RONR, I'm discovering that our organization is, for some reason, experiencing an abnormally high number of "rarely encountered" circumstances. We're aggressively working to learn the rules so that we can get the train back on the track.

There was a comment in a (recent?) post here by @Josh Martin that, as I recall, suggested that agendas should be avoided or are unnecessary, at least in some cases. (Apologies for any mischaracterization.) I can't find the exact comment. RONR 41:23 says in relevant part: 41:23 The heading of Unfinished Business and General Orders includes items of business in the four categories that are listed below in the order in which they are taken up. Of these, the first three constitute “Unfinished Business,” while the fourth consists of “General Orders”: b) Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting but were not reached before it adjourned—taken in the order in which they were due to come up at that meeting as indicated under (a) and (c). Wouldn't there have to have been an agenda for this provision to kick in? Would an "informal" agenda (in the chair's head) be sufficient?

I saw this post in another forum and thought I knew the answer. Since I've actually encountered a similar issue previously, maybe it's a good idea to get the correct answer. How long is a previously passed motion in effect? My first thoughts are that there is NOT a problem with the board's actions above. Doesn't a passed motion remain in effect unless it includes some terminating event, such as an expiration date, natural termination, amendment, or rescission? What's the correct answer? I ask for a second reason, as well. If passed motions do remain in effect until some terminating event occurs, there needs to be a way for new leadership to be abundantly aware of those motions. A readily available, indexed version of all previous minutes seems advisable. Suggestions?

Super helpful! Thanks for taking the time.

It's extremely unfortunate. It is acceptable to them, not to us. What steps should we take to prevent this? We're wide open to suggestions.

Is this what you're referring to (from my first post)?

And that is the plan since there is no interest in completing the previous election or simply holding the election at the next convention in one year. As I said to Mr. Martin, I agree with the decision; I disagree with the path they chose to reach it. Oh, well.