Dan Honemann Posted July 9, 2011 at 03:41 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 at 03:41 PM Didn't we already discuss this situation and not really come to a conclusion about it?Well, it is first necessary to be much more specific about the situation and the question being asked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Mervosh Posted July 9, 2011 at 03:43 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 at 03:43 PM Didn't we already discuss this situation and not really come to a conclusion about it?The exact situation and facts at the time might affect the ruling. So, yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted July 9, 2011 at 04:23 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 at 04:23 PM I assume J.J. is asking this question in relation to Shmuel's scenario, and based upon what Shmuel posted (post #9), he (Shmuel) apparently believes that the answer is "no" (we will need to wait until this evening or tomorrow for a fuller response from him). However, I am inclined to agree with scshunt that, if a majority of the entire membership is not present when a question requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption is put to a vote, the assembly is not being called upon to make a decision, and it is making no decision. It lacks the capacity to do so.I almost agree. However, I would say, instead, that a question requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption cannot, and should not, be put to a vote when a majority of the entire membership is not present, since the parliamentary situation is such that there is not a true question about which the assembly can either agree to do what the motion proposes or agree not to do what the motion proposes, per RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-34. In other words, it is in the very nature of a parliamentary question of the ordinary "yes/no" kind that the assembly must be able to decide the question either in the affirmative or in the negative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 9, 2011 at 07:07 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 at 07:07 PM I almost agree. However, I would say, instead, that a question requiring the vote of a majority of the entire membership for its adoption cannot, and should not, be put to a vote when a majority of the entire membership is not present, since the parliamentary situation is such that there is not a true question about which the assembly can either agree to do what the motion proposes or agree not to do what the motion proposes, per RONR (10th ed.), p. 31, ll. 31-34. In other words, it is in the very nature of a parliamentary question of the ordinary "yes/no" kind that the assembly must be able to decide the question either in the affirmative or in the negative.I think we are saying the same thing. I did not mean to imply that it is in order to put a question to a vote under such circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob Elsman Posted July 9, 2011 at 07:14 PM Report Share Posted July 9, 2011 at 07:14 PM I think we are saying the same thing. I did not mean to imply that it is in order to put a question to a vote under such circumstances.Yeah, I agree. I pretty much thought I understood you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 10, 2011 at 02:40 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 02:40 AM All of this is fine in theory, and it makes perfect sense, but my point is that nothing in RONR says that the motion is not in order under the given circumstances, which is why I say the rejection of it could be put to tactical use under a strict interpretation of the rules, to prevent renewal later at the same session.Of course, if the chairman does rule the motion out of order, and that ruling is not overturned on appeal, then I think the motion could be renewed at a time when it would be in order, even at the same session.If I recall correctly, the last time this topic came up, I pointed out that if the assembly does not wish the motion to be rejected, it can take such action as postponing it, referring it to a committee, or laying it on the table, so it's not as though the choice is between rejecting it and rejecting it.But let's not just repeat ourselves. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted July 10, 2011 at 07:34 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 07:34 AM ...the premise contained in the first paragraph, which is that “you cannot bring them ...up at a meeting unless a majority of the membership is present, since the assembly would be wasting its time due to its inability to actually decide affirmatively on the question.” When a member moved to rescind a previously adopted special rule of order, ......the chair’s ruling; it was considered to be correct based primarily upon the rationale perceived to be behind the rule found in RONR (10th ed.), on page 297, lines 13-22, and page 576, lines 23-27. Page 297 will not apply to the scenario of scshunt, and will not apply to the scenario of DHH.Page 297 says:"It will also be the case, as a practical matter, whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or a special rule of order."The two scenarios explicitly set the criteria of(a.) making of the motion;and not, as page 297 specifies,(b.) the time the vote is taken.Since page 297 makes no motion of a restriction of "the making of the motion", then the motion could very well be in order, up to the time of the vote, if page 297 were the sole justification.A rule which applies at the time of voting is not a rule which applies at the time of the making of a motion.If a majority of the membership is attending a moment later after the original maker of motion gets his second, then no violation of page 297 will have occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 10, 2011 at 09:32 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 09:32 AM Page 297 will not apply to the scenario of scshunt, and will not apply to the scenario of DHH.Page 297 says:"It will also be the case, as a practical matter, whenever a majority of the entire membership is not in attendance at the time the vote is taken on a motion to rescind or amend a provision of the constitution or bylaws, or a special rule of order."The two scenarios explicitly set the criteria of(a.) making of the motion;and not, as page 297 specifies,(b.) the time the vote is taken.Since page 297 makes no motion of a restriction of "the making of the motion", then the motion could very well be in order, up to the time of the vote, if page 297 were the sole justification.A rule which applies at the time of voting is not a rule which applies at the time of the making of a motion.If a majority of the membership is attending a moment later after the original maker of motion gets his second, then no violation of page 297 will have occurred.The paragraph which begins on line 4 of page 297, when read in its entirety and in conjunction with what is said on page 576, lines 22-27, tells us that motions of the kind described are out of order when made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Honemann Posted July 10, 2011 at 09:50 AM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 09:50 AM All of this is fine in theory, and it makes perfect sense, but my point is that nothing in RONR says that the motion is not in order under the given circumstances, which is why I say the rejection of it could be put to tactical use under a strict interpretation of the rules, to prevent renewal later at the same session.Well, I think that RONR, properly understood, does say that the motion is not in order under the given circumstances, but in any event, the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session can hardly be said to prevent renewal of a question which the assembly has not previously decided, having lacked the capacity to make a decision at the time the question was previously put to a vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted July 10, 2011 at 01:07 PM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 01:07 PM Well, I think that RONR, properly understood, does say that the motion is not in order under the given circumstances, but in any event, the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session can hardly be said to prevent renewal of a question which the assembly has not previously decided, having lacked the capacity to make a decision at the time the question was previously put to a vote.I think this basically answers my question. It was really the only one I had about this issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 10, 2011 at 05:02 PM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 05:02 PM Well, I think that RONR, properly understood, does say that the motion is not in order under the given circumstances, but in any event, the principle that an assembly cannot be asked to decide the same, or substantially the same, question twice during one session can hardly be said to prevent renewal of a question which the assembly has not previously decided, having lacked the capacity to make a decision at the time the question was previously put to a vote.Ah, the old "properly understood" method of interpretation. :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shmuel Gerber Posted July 10, 2011 at 05:10 PM Report Share Posted July 10, 2011 at 05:10 PM Ah, the old "properly understood" method of interpretation. :-)... which, I should hasten to add, is one of my favorites, and the main reason we like to hang around the Forum (especially the Advanced Discussion section). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kim Goldsworthy Posted July 11, 2011 at 12:59 AM Report Share Posted July 11, 2011 at 12:59 AM The paragraph which begins on line 4 of page 297, when read in its entirety and in conjunction with what is said on page 576, lines 22-27, tells us that motions of the kind described are out of order when made.Yes."The kind" is the key word.In both cases, page 297 and 576, a subsidiary amendment is out of order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.