Koz Posted February 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 12:37 PM Is it allowable under Roberts Rules to have four (4) votes under one motion - as an example, there was a motion to take action on A, B, C & D reuiring 4 y/n votes - ie. y,n,n,y. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David A Foulkes Posted February 7, 2012 at 01:42 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 01:42 PM Sure doesn't seem likely. How are A, B, C and D related? A few specifics would be helpful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 7, 2012 at 01:55 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 01:55 PM Is it allowable under Roberts Rules to have four (4) votes under one motion - as an example, there was a motion to take action on A, B, C & D reuiring 4 y/n votes - ie. y,n,n,y.If you want four independent votes, you need to divide the motion into four motions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koz Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:25 PM Author Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:25 PM Sure doesn't seem likely. How are A, B, C and D related? A few specifics would be helpful.The motion was to endorse for four different elected offices. This did not include the actual endorsement of candidates, only whether or not we were going to endorse for each office.If you want four independent votes, you need to divide the motion into four motions.Actually, a member approached the chair and asked if our rules allowed for dividing the question and the chair told him we did not need to do that because we were going to vote 4 times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:59 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 06:59 PM Move to buy the chair a copy of RONR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM Report Share Posted February 7, 2012 at 10:30 PM Move to buy the chair a copy of RONR.Yes... I agree that the chair needs a better understanding of the rules.But, haven't they actually divided the question anyway, by voting separately on whether to endorse for office A, whether to endorse for office B, etc.?Mr. Kozlovsky, was debate allowed prior to each vote? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 8, 2012 at 04:18 AM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 04:18 AM But, haven't they actually divided the question anyway, by voting separately on whether to endorse for office A, whether to endorse for office B, etc.?This depends on the answer to your second question. Of course, it's not appropriate for the chair to divide the question on his own authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Novosielski Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:15 PM Report Share Posted February 8, 2012 at 02:15 PM But, haven't they actually divided the question anyway, by voting separately on whether to endorse for office A, whether to endorse for office B, etc.?Mr. Kozlovsky, was debate allowed prior to each vote?Therein lies the problem. If separate debate on each question preceded the vote, then the question was effectively divided. But if not, then a potentially chaotic situation is created where nobody knows quite what is being discussed at any one time. Presuming the decisions are independent, they are best debated and then decided individually.But If there were, as there conceivably could be, a situation where one particular combination of endorsements would be "better" than others, say, for example if endorsement included a campaign contribution from limited funds, then it might be appropriate to handle this as one motion, and amend it to perfect the combination of offices to be endorsed. In that case, the question would be ultimately be decided by a single vote on the motion, as amended. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koz Posted February 11, 2012 at 04:28 PM Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 at 04:28 PM Therein lies the problem.If separate debate on each question preceded the vote, then the question was effectively divided. But if not, then a potentially chaotic situation is created where nobody knows quite what is being discussed at any one time. Presuming the decisions are independent, they are best debated and then decided individually.But If there were, as there conceivably could be, a situation where one particular combination of endorsements would be "better" than others, say, for example if endorsement included a campaign contribution from limited funds, then it might be appropriate to handle this as one motion, and amend it to perfect the combination of offices to be endorsed. In that case, the question would be ultimately be decided by a single vote on the motion, as amended.There was no debate prior to each vote. A single motion was made to endorse for offices A,B,C,D and there was debate after that motion. The members when called (roll call vote) had to stand and vote on endorsement for all four offices at once (ie. y-n-n-y). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trina Posted February 11, 2012 at 05:29 PM Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 at 05:29 PM There was no debate prior to each vote. A single motion was made to endorse for offices A,B,C,D and there was debate after that motion. The members when called (roll call vote) had to stand and vote on endorsement for all four offices at once (ie. y-n-n-y).Interesting... so each member was allowed to vote any combination of yes, no, and also had the option to abstain on any/all of the candidates, I assume? And then, after the roll call, the 'yes' and 'no' votes for endorsing each candidate were added up?This was not proper according to RONR, as it violated a fundamental principle of parliamentary law -- that 'only one question can be considered at a time; once a motion is before the assembly, it must be adopted or rejected by a vote, or the assembly must take action disposing of the question in some other way, before any other business (except certain matters called "privileged questions") can be introduced.' (RONR 11th ed. p. 59 ll. 18-23)Violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law leads to what is called a 'continuing breach' (see p. 251). In that case, the action is null and void, and 'a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach.' (p. 251 ll. 5-7). However, since the breach is no longer continuing (in other words, the assembly is no longer considering multiple questions at the same time) it's too late now to raise a point of order. Just do better next time.Do you think the members clearly understood what they were voting on with this unusual voting method? If everything was clearly understood, and the members participated with their eyes open, then at least the outcome is likely to correctly reflect the views of the assembly... However, if there was confusion and dissatisfaction with the outcome, it's a bit harder to figure out how to proceed. If there is a desire to rescind or amend anything, should one consider what was adopted to be one motion (as the chair apparently insisted on describing it to the assembly), or four separate motions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koz Posted February 11, 2012 at 05:50 PM Author Report Share Posted February 11, 2012 at 05:50 PM Thank you all for your help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.