Special Meeting - Special Rule

[J. J.]

The bylaws of the society permit special meetings (as per p. 586, ll. 12-18). A special meeting is properly called to handle items A and B. Notice is given properly, and a majority of the entire membership (more that the quorum) attends. There are absentees, however.

At the meeting, a member moves the following motion:

"I move the adoption of the following special rule:

Amendments of the third degree to main motions shall be in order."

The motion is made when there is no other motions pending. The motion is seconded. This motion is neither item A nor B.

Another member immediately raise a point order that the motion is out of order on the ground that it is not mentioned in the notice and that there are absentees. How should the chair rule and why?

[Chris Harrison]

Interesting question. I think the answer would hinge on whether the Special Rule would be continuing in force (which by the language you gave would appear to be the case). If the Special Rule would be in force only for that Special Meeting then I would rule the Point Not Well Taken as being "in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting" (RONR p. 93 ll. 7-8) being no different than ordering the Previous Question or limiting or extending debate. However, if the Special Rule would be continuing in force I would rule the Point Well Taken because it would affect future sessions and the absentees very well might take issue with having to deal with tertiary amendments.

[Dan Honemann]

The bylaws of the society permit special meetings (as per p. 586, ll. 12-18). A special meeting is properly called to handle items A and B. Notice is given properly, and a majority of the entire membership (more that the quorum) attends. There are absentees, however.

At the meeting, a member moves the following motion:

"I move the adoption of the following special rule:

Amendments of the third degree to main motions shall be in order."

The motion is made when there is no other motions pending. The motion is seconded. This motion is neither item A nor B.

Another member immediately raise a point order that the motion is out of order on the ground that it is not mentioned in the notice and that there are absentees. How should the chair rule and why?

The chair should rule that the point of order is well taken, citing page 93, lines 3-8.

[George Mervosh]

The chair should rule that the point of order is well taken, citing page 93, lines 3-8.

Do you feel the same about Sean Hunt's proposed special rule of order in the other thread - made at the outset of the meeting?

[Dan Honemann]

Do you feel the same about Sean Hunt's proposed special rule of order in the other thread - made at the outset of the meeting?

Nothing in Sean's scenario indicated that the meeting was a special meeting.

[George Mervosh]

Do you feel the same about Sean Hunt's proposed special rule of order in the other thread - made at the outset of the meeting?

Nothing in Sean's scenario indicated that the meeting was a special meeting.

Yes, but my question is, would such a special rule be in order at a special meeting if made at the outset and not included in the call?

And I know blanket questions are a pain, but what kind of special rule of order (if any) not included in the call, would be in order?

[Bruce Lages]

Under the scenario given, would it be in order to suspend the rules to allow tertiary amendments?

[Sean Hunt]

Under the scenario given, would it be in order to suspend the rules to allow tertiary amendments?

I don't see why not.

[J. J.]

The chair should rule that the point of order is well taken, citing page 93, lines 3-8.

Concur.

[J. J.]

Yes, but my question is, would such a special rule be in order at a special meeting if made at the outset and not included in the call?

And I know blanket questions are a pain, but what kind of special rule of order (if any) not included in the call, would be in order?

My answer would be to rule this out of order on the same grounds as cited.

If this was an incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session, I would think it acceptable.

I also think that this is a question, in part, about tying the hands of a future session.

[George Mervosh]

My answer would be to rule this out of order on the same grounds as cited.

If this was an incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session, I would think it acceptable.

I also think that this is a question, in part, about tying the hands of a future session.

Yes, my question was poorly worded. I agree tying the hands of a future session by the adoption of a special rule of order is improper when done at a special meeting if it was not included in the call. I'm guessing that's what you meant.

[J. J.]

Yes, this is what I meant.

[Dan Honemann]

My answer would be to rule this out of order on the same grounds as cited.

If this was an incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the duration of the session, I would think it acceptable.

I also think that this is a question, in part, about tying the hands of a future session.

Well, I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it would require a very unusual set of circumstances for it to be in order, at the outset of a special meeting, to move the adoption of an incidental main motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the making of tertiary amendments to all main motions for the duration of the session.

[J. J.]

Well, I don't want to belabor the point, but I think it would require a very unusual set of circumstances for it to be in order, at the outset of a special meeting, to move the adoption of an incidental main motion to suspend the rules in order to allow the making of tertiary amendments to all main motions for the duration of the session.

Dan, that was exactly the type of situation I was thinking of. I would, however, agree that it would be an unusual circumstance to suspend the rules in this manner. A more realistic one might be to suspend the rules to prohibit amendments to main motions.

[Sean Hunt]

The natural extension to the question would be whether the special meeting could, nonetheless, adopt a special rule of order for the duration of the meeting (such as adopting the special rule of order and, simultaneously, a motion to rescind it effective at the end of the meeting), so as to accomplish the objective of suspending the rules by vote of a majority of the members rather than two thirds.

[Bruce Lages]

Without previous notice, adoption of a special rule of order requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership. In this case, that might end up being a nearly unanimous vote, depending on how many more members than a majority of the entire membership are present.

[Sean Hunt]

Without previous notice, adoption of a special rule of order requires an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership. In this case, that might end up being a nearly unanimous vote, depending on how many more members than a majority of the entire membership are present.

Yes, but it's a boring question if everyone wants it done.

[J. J.]

The natural extension to the question would be whether the special meeting could, nonetheless, adopt a special rule of order for the duration of the meeting (such as adopting the special rule of order and, simultaneously, a motion to rescind it effective at the end of the meeting), so as to accomplish the objective of suspending the rules by vote of a majority of the members rather than two thirds.

I would find it in order. It certainly does not tie the hands of a future session.

[Dan Honemann]

The natural extension to the question would be whether the special meeting could, nonetheless, adopt a special rule of order for the duration of the meeting (such as adopting the special rule of order and, simultaneously, a motion to rescind it effective at the end of the meeting), so as to accomplish the objective of suspending the rules by vote of a majority of the members rather than two thirds.

There's nothing natural about this as far as I can see.

In any event, adoption of a rule of order to be placed in effect for the duration of a meeting or session requires a two-thirds vote (p. 620, ll. 4-12).