Who can make a motion

[Guest David Durant]

We have 15 elected people who are allowed to vote on matters - however there may be as many as 100 members present at the meetings. The 85 non-voting members are allowed discussion on any motion. The question is can any of the 85 non-voting members make and/or second a motion - or do all motions have to be made by one of the 15 elected?

[Tim Wynn]

We have 15 elected people who are allowed to vote on matters - however there may be as many as 100 members present at the meetings. The 85 non-voting members are allowed discussion on any motion. The question is can any of the 85 non-voting members make and/or second a motion - or do all motions have to be made by one of the 15 elected?

Is this a board meeting with the members of the association who are not members of the board being allowed to attend and speak? Do the bylaws say these nonmembers can speak, or is it the voting members who allow them to speak?

[Guest Dave Durant]

Yes, this is a meeting with members of the association being allowed to attend and speak. For the 20 years I have been involved, non-board members have been allowed to make and second motions and speak to motions - but only the elected board vote on the motions. At the last meeting it was questioned if non-voting members have that right. Our bylaws simply state under "Rules of Procedure", that "Except as otherwise specifically provided in this constitution and bylaws, or in the Rules of Procedure adopted for a meeting, all questions of order and procedure adopted for a meeting ... shall be determined by Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised." There is nothing else in the bylaws or constitution re motions.

[Tim Wynn]

Yes, this is a meeting with members of the association being allowed to attend and speak. For the 20 years I have been involved, non-board members have been allowed to make and second motions and speak to motions - but only the elected board vote on the motions. At the last meeting it was questioned if non-voting members have that right. Our bylaws simply state under "Rules of Procedure", that "Except as otherwise specifically provided in this constitution and bylaws, or in the Rules of Procedure adopted for a meeting, all questions of order and procedure adopted for a meeting ... shall be determined by Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised." There is nothing else in the bylaws or constitution re motions.

Then, according to Robert's Rules, only board members have any rights in the board meeting. Others do not even have the right to attend, though they may be allowed, at the pleasure of the board.

[Trina]

Yes, this is a meeting with members of the association being allowed to attend and speak. For the 20 years I have been involved, non-board members have been allowed to make and second motions and speak to motions - but only the elected board vote on the motions. At the last meeting it was questioned if non-voting members have that right. Our bylaws simply state under "Rules of Procedure", that "Except as otherwise specifically provided in this constitution and bylaws, or in the Rules of Procedure adopted for a meeting, all questions of order and procedure adopted for a meeting ... shall be determined by Roberts Rules of Order, Newly Revised." There is nothing else in the bylaws or constitution re motions.

Non-members (of the board) can indeed be allowed to make motions and to speak in debate. Technically, this would be done via a motion to suspend the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. For example, someone on the board could say, "I move that we suspend the rules which prevent association members from making motions, seconding motions, and participating in debate at this board meeting." If the general members have been allowed this participation over the years, but without the formal motion, one could say that amounted to unanimous consent to suspend the rules.

The board could formalize this practice, if desired. Or, the board could choose to allow less participation from the non-board-members. As Mr. Wynn said, even simple permission to attend the meeting (never mind speaking and making motions) is in the hands of the board.

One thing that non-members cannot be allowed to do, even with unanimous consent, is to vote.

[Tim Wynn]

Non-members (of the board) can indeed be allowed to make motions and to speak in debate. Technically, this would be done via a motion to suspend the rules, which requires a two-thirds vote to pass. For example, someone on the board could say, "I move that we suspend the rules which prevent association members from making motions, seconding motions, and participating in debate at this board meeting." If the general members have been allowed this participation over the years, but without the formal motion, one could say that amounted to unanimous consent to suspend the rules.

The board could formalize this practice, if desired. Or, the board could choose to allow less participation from the non-board-members. As Mr. Wynn said, even simple permission to attend the meeting (never mind speaking and making motions) is in the hands of the board.

One thing that non-members cannot be allowed to do, even with unanimous consent, is to vote.

Trina, see p. 262, ll. 1-4.

[David A Foulkes]

"I move that we suspend the rules which prevent association members from making motions, seconding motions, and participating in debate at this board meeting."

I think in light of the first sentence on p. 262, it would be better framed "I move to suspend the rules and allow non-board association members to make and second motions, and speak in debate." But maybe I'm just being picky.

[Trina]

Trina, see p. 262, ll. 1-4.

Yes, I suppose it would be more correctly phrased by stating the positive result to be achieved:

"I move that we suspend the rules, so as to allow association members to make motions, second motions, and participate in debate at this board meeting."

I believe the main point of the p. 262 citation is that the person making the motion does not need to show detailed knowledge of the rules which need to be suspended -- the motion maker states the goal of the suspension, without having to know the exact names or details of the rules that need to get out of the way to achieve the goal.

[Tim Wynn]

I believe the main point of the p. 262 citation is that the person making the motion does not need to show detailed knowledge of the rules which need to be suspended -- the motion maker states the goal of the suspension, without having to know the exact names or details of the rules that need to get out of the way to achieve the goal.

I disagree. I believe the importantance of the sentence is that the applicable rules are not suspended entirely but only for a specific purpose.

[Trina]

I disagree. I believe the importantance of the sentence is that the applicable rules are not suspended entirely but only for a specific purpose.

Thanks. I'll go and read it again with your comment in mind.

For the novice user of RONR, I think it is important to realize that one doesn't need an intimate knowledge of the rules in order to suspend them. However, as you point out, that is not actually the main message of the sentence on p. 262.

[Tim Wynn]

For the novice user of RONR, I think it is important to realize that one doesn't need an intimate knowledge of the rules in order to suspend them.

I agree.

[David A Foulkes]

For the novice user of RONR, I think it is important to realize that one doesn't need an intimate knowledge of the rules in order to suspend them.

Though it might be well to also point them to p. 263ff for a listing of rules that are not suspendable.

[Guest Edgar]

We have 15 elected people who are allowed to vote on matters - however there may be as many as 100 members present at the meetings. The 85 non-voting members are allowed discussion on any motion. The question is can any of the 85 non-voting members make and/or second a motion - or do all motions have to be made by one of the 15 elected?

As you can see by the previous replies, it's important to determine just which body is meeting. So you don't "85 non-voting members", you have 85 (or more) members of the organization (the "general membership"). These members can vote at meetings of the general membership. But they're not members of the board and so, as noted, they can't vote at meetings of the board. And, generally speaking, they shouldn't be making or seconding motions at meetings of the board. Even though they're members of the organization, they're guests at the board meeting and have no more status there than I would.

[by the way, a rare CAPTCHA code with five (5) numerals and a clearly lowercase "m"!]

[Noelgroup]

Guest Edgar - if you signed in as a member instead of a guest - wouldn't that eliminate the annoyingly difficult CAPTCHAs?

[Trina]

Guest Edgar - if you signed in as a member instead of a guest - wouldn't that eliminate the annoyingly difficult CAPTCHAs?

Although I don't know the full story, I believe Guest Edgar is remaining in self-imposed CAPTCHA purgatory

[Gary c Tesser]

[snip]

How do we figure Trina's first proposal significantly different from the example on p. 266, lines 21 - 23?

[Gary c Tesser]

(Having thought about this for a while, I suspect I'm about to be caught up in the daylight-savings time-shift, so that I'm following up on thoughts I'm going to have about an hour from now. Feels weird, even without zombies eating my leg. Also this seems to touch on the matter as Tim and I were discussion it a few years ago, so that should my thoughts crystallize, I might be ready to write back.)

I have been wondering for a while (since, perhaps the early 1990's, when I picked up my hardcover RONR 9th, although Gen. Robert almost certainly came up with it some time earlier) about the flat statement that the rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned. I suppose if it is explained in Parliamentary Law, or in one of the Parliamentary Opinions volumes, or in any of the issues of The Dashing Parliamentarian or The Saturday Evening Parliamentarian or The Wall Street Parliamentarian or the Rocky Mountain Spotted Parliamentarian or the St. Louis Post-Parliamentarian or the New Orleans Times-PickaParliamentarian, or in any of the other scholarly journals, and I had seen it, I would get it by now.

But alas, it is not to be. At least it hasn't been. Perforce, I soldier on. Avaunt, mes amis! Tout dejours!

Now then, let's all settle down please. Kindly extend a soupc',on of restraint on your otherwise irrepressible whimsy and mirth. You and you, enough with the party hats, how do you expect them to sit still?

Is it to be as emphatic a rule as it appears? If a member should impressively leap to his feat (if it weren't impressive, he would only leap to his feet) and proclaim, "Mr. Chairman, if that's really your name, I move to suspend the rule that says we can't indefinitely postpone the main motion right now, while the motion to limit debate is pending, and I so move because I've decided I really hate it and want to kill it dead dead dead and I think two-thirds will agree with me," do we suppose that another member should at once leap to his (etc.) and proclaim, "Point of Order! That recreant necromancer has named the rule he proposes to suspend!"? (Nitpickers please disregard the similarity between "recreant necromancer" and "fraud," "liar," "scoundrel," or "dastard," p. 392, line 26.)

For that argument to cohere, it should stand as, "'the applicable rules are not suspended entirely but only for a specific purpose [Wynn, RONR MB #13490, #9]'; therefore, 'the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned.... [RONR, 10th Ed, p. 262, lines 1 - 4]'" I don't think that follows; I don't think the two statements are causally linked, and I think they would have to be.

(Let's also note for the benefit of Guest Durant that this thread has diverged from the subject of his concern, but I think we can agree that the Original Poster's question was answered satisfactorily before the digression occurred.)

[Trina]

How do we figure Trina's first proposal significantly different from the example on p. 266, lines 21 - 23?

Ah... thank you for digging up that example -- it seems quite clear that the member can properly show his/her ignorance (of the names and details) of the rules in a negative, as well as in a positive form. The negative description comes more easily to me, so I'm glad to see it is just as 'blessed' by the book as the positively phrased version .

Suspending the rules was one of the first things I learned about on first visiting this forum a few years ago. I still remember my pleasure at the idea of immobilizing interfering rules without having to speak their exact and magical names -- quite contrary to the standard rules of sorcery in fiction, where spells won't work if you get even a single syllable wrong. This was such a pleasingly common-sense alternative -- "I want to do thus-and-such; unnamed rules that may interfere, get out of the way!"

Of course, one still needs to learn details, such as the fact that some rules cannot be suspended, but that's another story.

[Trina]

snip...

For that argument to cohere, it should stand as, "'the applicable rules are not suspended entirely but only for a specific purpose [Wynn, RONR MB #13490, #9]'; therefore, 'the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned.... [RONR, 10th Ed, p. 262, lines 1 - 4]'" I don't think that follows; I don't think the two statements are causally linked, and I think they would have to be.

...snip

Interesting post (the whole thing, not just the part I've quoted). I've lost track of how many times I've read that sentence on p. 262 now . It's hard to imagine that the intent is to make exact naming of the rules improper in its own right, so long as the specific purpose of the suspension is adequately described. I take it as advice that a ) you don't have to name the rules in order to suspend them; b ) it is improper to ask for a suspension without stating the specific purpose of the suspension, as that could give the erroneous impression that a named rule is suspended for all purposes; c ) if you do start naming them specifically, you're going to risk missing something, and the unnamed one(s) may come back to haunt the assembly (this last one isn't stated, but it seems a logical reason to avoid listing rules by name).

(emoticon requested by my son, looking over my shoulder)

[Tim Wynn]

Mr. Tesser (and Trina, looking over his shoulder -- and son, looking over hers)

The cited text on p. 266, ll. 21-23, uses the word "interfere" where Trina's post uses "prevent." I know some will dismiss this as a minor technical point, it seems to me that the use of "interfere" clearly refers to an objective for which the rules will be suspended, while "prevent" could refer to the rules themselves.

To be possibly more clear, if rules 7-9 prevent nonmembers from making motions and speaking in debate, it is proper to move to suspend the rules that interfere with Jane Nonmember making a motion and speaking in debate, but it is not proper to simply move to suspend rules 7-9, since no specific purpose is stated.