Who can make motions

[Guest Ernest Matthews]

Within a small board (12 or less)meeting with advisors, consultants and other general membership (not board members),can anyone not in board position as described in bylaws make motions or ever vote?

[Rob Elsman]

Within a small board (12 or less)meeting with advisors, consultants and other general membership (not board members),can anyone not in board position as described in bylaws make motions or ever vote?

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, non-members of an assembly are not entitled to make motions in the assembly's meetings; however, most parliamentarians would agree that the assembly can suspend the rules for this purpose by a two-thirds vote.

Non-members of an assembly are not entitled to vote, and this rule is unsuspendable, since it embodies a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

[Guest Sharon]

Okay.. I'm a guest who needs clarification, I've been told that IF the Board gives the floor to a non-Board member at a meeting of the Board, the member can make a motion from the floor but obviously, cannot vote on it. This is what I was told by a parlimentarian

>>You can make a motion, after you comment, but not before. That means, you would not make a motion before you made your comment. You would make your comment and end with I move from the floor....,

This would be allowed in all parliamentary procedures.

Before a subject is open to debate, it is necessary for a motion to be made by a member who has obtained the floor; next it is seconded (with certain exceptions); and then it is stated by the chair (presiding officer). The fact that a motion has been made and seconded does not place it before the assembly for consideration, as the chair alone can do that. He must either rule it out of order, or state the question on it so that the assembly may know what is before it for consideration and action. The procedure in small boards of not more than about a dozen members present is relaxed a bit. The formalities necessary in order to transact business in a large assembly would hinder business in so small a body.<<<

For additional information, refer to RONR 10th ed. pp. 31-54.

Was this wrong?

[Josh Martin]

I've been told that IF the Board gives the floor to a non-Board member at a meeting of the Board, the member can make a motion from the floor but obviously, cannot vote on it.

That's not entirely accurate. The board may permit a non-board member to make a motion, but it is not necessarily true that they are permitted to do so if they are given the floor. The board controls what privileges it grants to non-members. It could permit a non-member speak but not to make a motion. It is correct, of course, that non-board members may not be granted the right to vote. It should be noted that permitting a non-member to speak in debate or to make a motion requires a 2/3 vote, as this is a form of the motion to Suspend the Rules.

Before a subject is open to debate, it is necessary for a motion to be made by a member who has obtained the floor; next it is seconded (with certain exceptions); and then it is stated by the chair (presiding officer). The fact that a motion has been made and seconded does not place it before the assembly for consideration, as the chair alone can do that. He must either rule it out of order, or state the question on it so that the assembly may know what is before it for consideration and action. The procedure in small boards of not more than about a dozen members present is relaxed a bit. The formalities necessary in order to transact business in a large assembly would hinder business in so small a body.

For additional information, refer to RONR 10th ed. pp. 31-54.

Was this wrong?

That all sounds accurate, but I don't see how that is relevant to a non-member making a motion. When we (or RONR) use the term "member" we mean a member of the assembly which is meeting unless stated otherwise. For a board meeting, it means a board member.

[David A Foulkes]

That's not entirely accurate. The board may permit a non-board member to make a motion......

I actually find this troublesome. I don't want to say hard to believe, but troublesome. And I'm not being argumentative, but to allow a non-member to actually bring business before the assembly seems almost (I say almost) as improper as letting them vote. I'm thumbing through the book, but if you have any citation available, I'll get my yellow Sharpie highlighter out post-haste.

I'm guessing this leads into the area of Suspend the Rules. But why not then Suspend the Rules and allow a vote? Isn't the right to make motions as much of a fundamental parliamentary right as voting (along with attendance and debate)? Where is that line drawn?

[Chris Harrison]

I actually find this troublesome. I don't want to say hard to believe, but troublesome. And I'm not being argumentative, but to allow a non-member to actually bring business before the assembly seems almost (I say almost) as improper as letting them vote. I'm thumbing through the book, but if you have any citation available, I'll get my yellow Sharpie highlighter out post-haste.

I would say that it is permitted because nothing on pages 254-255 say it can't be done.

But why not then Suspend the Rules and allow a vote?

Because page 255 says they can't. <inserting the smiley just for George >

Isn't the right to make motions as much of a fundamental parliamentary right as voting (along with attendance and debate)?

Not according to page 255.

Where is that line drawn?

I guess by whatever line pages 252-258 draw.

[hmtcastle]

Isn't the right to make motions as much of a fundamental parliamentary right as voting (along with attendance and debate)?

I think you're asking the wrong question. No one is saying any right of membership is more or less important than another. What is being said is that non-members can be given some privileges up to but not including a vote. No one is giving them the right to attend or the right to speak or the right to make motions. They are being granted a privilege.

Where is that line drawn?

At voting.

[David A Foulkes]

I would say that it is permitted because nothing on pages 254-255 say it can't be done.

I know p. 255 ll. 3-12 cover not allowing non-members to vote through a suspension of the rules, a it is a rules that embodies fundamental principles of parliamentary law. But that sentence begins with "As a further example...", indicating there are other fundamentals that are not suspendable, not just the few in that one paragraph. I would have thought the right to make motions was another, although not explicitly referenced.

[added in edit]

The basic four that I have held in mind are attend meetings, make motions, debate and vote. If the rules can be suspended to allow three of the four, why stop there?

[Chris Harrison]

I know p. 255 ll. 3-12 cover not allowing non-members to vote through a suspension of the rules, a it is a rules that embodies fundamental principles of parliamentary law. But that sentence begins with "As a further example...", indicating there are other fundamentals that are not suspendable, not just the few in that one paragraph. I would have thought the right to make motions was another, although not explicitly referenced.

[added in edit]

The basic four that I have held in mind are attend meetings, make motions, debate and vote. If the rules can be suspended to allow three of the four, why stop there?

You have a good point. I don't believe that any of the basic four you have in mind except for voting is a FPPL but it would be helpful if there was somewhere in RONR that specifies all of the FPPLs (if there are any others than what is on p. 255).

[David A Foulkes]

You have a good point. I don't believe that any of the basic four you have in mind except for voting is a FPPL but it would be helpful if there was somewhere in RONR that specifies all of the FPPLs (if there are any others than what is on p. 255).

Page 3, lines 8-12 hint a bit at it, I'd say. Hint. A bit.

And the footnote on p. 255 does state that a non-member may be allowed to debate through suspension of the rules, but only that. I don't think I'd want to go so far as to infer from all of this that, while a non-member cannot be allowed to vote but can be allowed to debate, that the only restriction on non-members is on voting. I'd be more comfortably saying they can only debate, and that's it.

[hmtcastle]

I'd be more comfortable saying they can only debate, and that's it.

How about saying they can only attend?. Wouldn't that make you even more comfortable?

[David A Foulkes]

How about saying they can only attend?. Wouldn't that make you even more comfortable?

The 10th does all ready explicitly address attendance, debate and voting. I'm uncomfortable extrapolating from that the privilege of making motions with no clear definition of limits. Can a non-member move the Previous Question? Close nominations? Amend Something Previously Adopted? Postpone Indefinitely? When you grant that privilege, where is that line drawn?

[hmtcastle]

The 10th does all ready explicitly address attendance, debate and voting. I'm uncomfortable extrapolating from that the privilege of making motions with no clear definition of limits. Can a non-member move the Previous Question? Close nominations? Amend Something Previously Adopted? Postpone Indefinitely? When you grant that privilege, where is that line drawn?

RONR even permits a non-member to be the presiding officer.

I've never been a fan of suspending the rules but it's clear that RONR permits it. It's equally clear that RONR draws the line at voting. The assembly is free to draw the line before that and, if I were a member of the assembly, I'd be inclined to draw it at attendance (if there).

I suspect this may come down to a case of "because RONR says so". In other words, some rules, however grounded in long-standing tradition, are ultimately arbitrary.

[David A Foulkes]

RONR even permits a non-member to be the presiding officer.

I've never been a fan of suspending the rules but it's clear that RONR permits it. It's equally clear that RONR draws the line at voting. The assembly is free to draw the line before that and, if I were a member of the assembly, I'd be inclined to draw it at attendance (if there).

I suspect this may come down to a case of "because RONR says so". In other words, some rules, however grounded in long-standing tradition, are ultimately arbitrary.

Yes, and a non-member can be an ex officio Board member with full rights including voting. But again, it's addressed explicitly in RONR. "RONR says so." But I haven't yet found that clear reference to non-members making motions.

Heck, I'm not even sure about attendance. You want to be at the meeting? You want voice? With vote? Fill out the form, pay the dues, go through the initiation and commit. Otherwise, go bowling. <insert ranting emoticon here>

{breathe, David.... breathe}

[Gary Novosielski]

Okay.. I'm a guest who needs clarification, I've been told that IF the Board gives the floor to a non-Board member at a meeting of the Board, the member can make a motion from the floor but obviously, cannot vote on it. This is what I was told by a parlimentarian

>>You can make a motion, after you comment, but not before. That means, you would not make a motion before you made your comment. You would make your comment and end with I move from the floor....,

This would be allowed in all parliamentary procedures.

Before a subject is open to debate, it is necessary for a motion to be made by a member who has obtained the floor; next it is seconded (with certain exceptions); and then it is stated by the chair (presiding officer). The fact that a motion has been made and seconded does not place it before the assembly for consideration, as the chair alone can do that. He must either rule it out of order, or state the question on it so that the assembly may know what is before it for consideration and action. The procedure in small boards of not more than about a dozen members present is relaxed a bit. The formalities necessary in order to transact business in a large assembly would hinder business in so small a body.<<<

For additional information, refer to RONR 10th ed. pp. 31-54.

Was this wrong?

The material after the words "allowed in all parliamentary procedures" is correct, but it correctly states that the motion must be "made by a member", and you are presumably not a member of the voting body at this meeting. Nor does the fact the board permits you to speak mean that it "gives you the floor". Many bodies, such as town councils, routinely hold hearings, often at the beginning and end of each meeting, where members of the public are heard from on a wide variety of topics important to them. Committees frequently hold hearings at which interested parties are permitted, invited, or subpoenaed to speak.

Although these participants are allowed to speak, they have not obtained the floor, and cannot make motions or exercise any of the rights accorded to members of the body. They remain subject to such rules as may exist concerning hearing from guests, which may or may not protect them from interruption by members. Approving a motion to hear from a non-member (if not already in the order of business) would require no more than a majority vote, when no other business is pending.

But allowing someone to have the floor while a motion is pending is an additional privilege that goes well beyond those accorded to the speakers mentioned above. It requires a 2/3 vote, as it Suspends the Rules that normally prohibit non-members from speaking in debate.

Even then, I think it would be very questionable whether a person recognized for the purpose of speaking to the merits of the pending motion would be allowed to make even a subsidiary motion, as a non-member. And I'm quite sure that merely being allowed to speak, as in the earlier examples, would not allow one to make a motion.

It seems to me that the parliamentarian may have been unclear about the potentially confusing use of the term "member", or who was a member of what body. For example, we routinely get questions about board meetings at which members are allowed to attend--by which they mean board meetings at which non-members (of the board, but who are members of the society), are permitted to attend.

[hmtcastle]

Heck, I'm not even sure about attendance. You want to be at the meeting? You want voice? With vote? Fill out the form, pay the dues, go through the initiation and commit.

And nothing in RONR prevents the assembly from enforcing (i.e. choosing not to suspend) those rules.

But there are many organizations where membership is not as simple as filling out a form and paying the dues. And those organizations might have good reason to permit non-members to attend, speak, and, yes, even make the occasional (perhaps ceremonial) motion. Or not.

[Guest Gary]

Call a recorded vote or rollcall

[Rob Elsman]

That's not entirely accurate. The board may permit a non-board member to make a motion, but it is not necessarily true that they are permitted to do so if they are given the floor. The board controls what privileges it grants to non-members. It could permit a non-member speak but not to make a motion. It is correct, of course, that non-board members may not be granted the right to vote. It should be noted that permitting a non-member to speak in debate or to make a motion requires a 2/3 vote, as this is a form of the motion to Suspend the Rules.

That all sounds accurate, but I don't see how that is relevant to a non-member making a motion. When we (or RONR) use the term "member" we mean a member of the assembly which is meeting unless stated otherwise. For a board meeting, it means a board member.

Nice reply, Mr. Martin

[Rob Elsman]

I actually find this troublesome. I don't want to say hard to believe, but troublesome. And I'm not being argumentative, but to allow a non-member to actually bring business before the assembly seems almost (I say almost) as improper as letting them vote. I'm thumbing through the book, but if you have any citation available, I'll get my yellow Sharpie highlighter out post-haste.

I'm guessing this leads into the area of Suspend the Rules. But why not then Suspend the Rules and allow a vote? Isn't the right to make motions as much of a fundamental parliamentary right as voting (along with attendance and debate)? Where is that line drawn?

No, the parliamentary right of members to make motions is suspendable, since, as we know, the Previous Question and some forms of Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate have just this effect. On the other hand, there is no parliamentary maneuver to cut off members' voting on a question that is legitimately already before the assembly under the rules.

As far as highlighting a particular citation in RONR, the closest I can point you to is RONR (10th ed.), p. 255, footnote. For the same reasons that the rules can be suspended for the purpose of permitting a non-member to speak in debate, I opine that the rules can also be suspended for the purpose of permitting a non-member to make a motion. This might be appropriate in rare circumstances to allow a dignitary or grandee to make a motion for ceremonial reasons.

[David A Foulkes]

No, the parliamentary right of members to make motions is suspendable, since, as we know, the Previous Question and some forms of Limit or Extend the Limits of Debate have just this effect. On the other hand, there is no parliamentary maneuver to cut off members' voting on a question that is legitimately already before the assembly under the rules.

I would opine that Postpone Indefinitely has this effect.

As far as highlighting a particular citation in RONR, the closest I can point you to is RONR (10th ed.), p. 255, footnote. For the same reasons that the rules can be suspended for the purpose of permitting a non-member to speak in debate, I opine that the rules can also be suspended for the purpose of permitting a non-member to make a motion. This might be appropriate in rare circumstances to allow a dignitary or grandee to make a motion for ceremonial reasons.

I would be pleased to read in the 11th that the p.255 footnote is expanded to include this explicitly, as it has addressed the other privileges of attending meetings, speaking in debate, voting (not), and even holding office.

The sound you hear is the zebra's hoofbeats as I ride off into the sunset, (though not holding my breath).

[Rob Elsman]

I would opine that Postpone Indefinitely has this effect.

I would be pleased to read in the 11th that the p.255 footnote is expanded to include this explicitly, as it has addressed the other privileges of attending meetings, speaking in debate, voting (not), and even holding office.

The sound you hear is the zebra's hoofbeats as I ride off into the sunset, (though not holding my breath).

You might, but you'd be wrong. Postpone Indefinitely is adopted by majority vote, which is insufficient to suspend the parliamentary rights of members.