limiting debate

[kayceelou]

Recently the Executive Director of our church called a special meeting (2 weeks prior) in which there were 2 motions. The first was to limit debate by not allowing non-voting members to speak, and that all speakers were limited to 3 minutes at a time. The second motion had to do with approving a budget which included closing our school of over 85 years. On the night of the meeting he called to vote on the motion to limit debate and after a very small amount of explanation about the motion he called a vote by paper ballot. It came back a split vote. He then announced the results and claimed that since he was the Executive Director he got to break the tie and he voted to limit debate. School parents and others who weren't official voters were now forbidden to speak. The voters (including me) are not experts on RROO, and when researching what happened are now thinking that he ignored the 2/3 member vote. Is there an exception that could have made what he did legal? There was no motion at any time about changing the rule to a majority vote, although I don't even think that would be allowed. As a follow up comment, on the second motion the voters voted 42-27 to keep the school open, but within days the leaders (thinly veiled as "10 voting members") called for another special meeting to re-vote because they didn't feel that everyone understood what they were voting for. Meanwhile parents are taking their children out of the school as we aren't able to market it or post tuition rates.

[Josh Martin]

Is there an exception that could have made what he did legal? There was no motion at any time about changing the rule to a majority vote, although I don't even think that would be allowed.

What happened was improper for two reasons. Firstly, as you note, the motion does require a 2/3 vote. Secondly, if your Bylaws truly do provide for "non-voting members," a motion to Limit Debate cannot be used to strip them of their right to debate. A Point of Order on either of these issues would have had to be raised at the time, however. It's too late to complain now.

The only reason that what happened would have been proper would be due to a customized rule of the assembly.

As a follow up comment, on the second motion the voters voted 42-27 to keep the school open, but within days the leaders (thinly veiled as "10 voting members") called for another special meeting to re-vote because they didn't feel that everyone understood what they were voting for.

Well, you can't just "re-vote," but if the motion has not yet been carried out it may be rescinded. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a 2/3 vote with previous notice.

[kayceelou]

Thank you Josh,

Your reply is very helpful. I do realize that the water is under the bridge, but I am ready now to be prepared for the next meeting. I realize I misspoke when I said "re-vote" - the announcement of the meeting states that it will be to "address the viability of the budget" [which we passed at the meeting keeping the school open]. So now I know from you that "Well, you can't just "re-vote," but if the motion has not yet been carried out it may be rescinded. This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a 2/3 vote with previous notice." With the last vote in our favor at 42-27 that will be a big hill for them to climb I should think. Thanks again!

[hmtcastle]

This requires a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a 2/3 vote with previous notice."

I believe Mr. Martin misspoke. With previous notice, a majority vote will do.

[Gary Novosielski]

I believe Mr. Martin misspoke. With previous notice, a majority vote will do.

That's true. Even so, it is still a hard hill to climb since it passed by nearly 2/3 when adopted.

[Guest Nancy N.]

That's true. Even so, it is still a hard hill to climb since it passed by nearly 2/3 when adopted.

I think it's hard to tell from the description by Roberta, the original poster, what was adopted or not. The meeting was called to approve the budget, which included closing the school. Roberta's follow-up, Post #3, says, I think, that the budget was adopted, after being modified ("amended") to keep the school open.

I don't think, then, that keeping the school open is an action that can be rescinded to result in the school's being closed. At the coming follow-up special meeting called by the thinly-veiled leaders, I would guess that they (in their diaphanous gowns) will propose changing the adopted budget (through the motion To Amend Something Previously Adopted, which resembles the motion that Josh, Mr. Mt., and Gary collaborated on explaining) so as to close the school, perhaps among other things.

[Rob Elsman]

Recently the Executive Director of our church called a special meeting (2 weeks prior) in which there were 2 motions. The first was to limit debate by not allowing non-voting members to speak, and that all speakers were limited to 3 minutes at a time. The second motion had to do with approving a budget which included closing our school of over 85 years. On the night of the meeting he called to vote on the motion to limit debate and after a very small amount of explanation about the motion he called a vote by paper ballot. It came back a split vote. He then announced the results and claimed that since he was the Executive Director he got to break the tie and he voted to limit debate. School parents and others who weren't official voters were now forbidden to speak. The voters (including me) are not experts on RROO, and when researching what happened are now thinking that he ignored the 2/3 member vote. Is there an exception that could have made what he did legal? There was no motion at any time about changing the rule to a majority vote, although I don't even think that would be allowed. As a follow up comment, on the second motion the voters voted 42-27 to keep the school open, but within days the leaders (thinly veiled as "10 voting members") called for another special meeting to re-vote because they didn't feel that everyone understood what they were voting for. Meanwhile parents are taking their children out of the school as we aren't able to market it or post tuition rates.

My own sense is that the main motion to close the school and approve the budget was out of order, since it violated a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion on one topic can be pending at a time. See RONR (10th ed.), p. 56, ll. 20-25. The motion you describe seems to me to deal with two separate, independent questions that have been combined in a way that is indivisible.