Guest27506 Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:24 PM Hi, In my college's Student Government, a few issues have arisen in dealing with a meeting. Because it is an atypical meeting time, there was doubt on whether or not quorum would be present (2/3 of all representatives). The proposed solution is to have the meeting "campus wide" to enable those in class to still count towards quorum. Is this allowed in Robert's Rules? (Constitution and Bylaws do not mention where the meetings need to take place). From my little experience in Robert's Rules, it seems as though it would need to be in a designated room. The next part of the proposed solution is to enable proxy voting. Again, our Constitution and Bylaws are silent. I have read the section in reference to this and came to the conclusion that it is not allowed, but others are using "Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required" as though because it is not disproved, it can be done. Final question, if this vote is done while violating Robert's Rules, does Robert's Rules make the vote officially null and void? Thank you for the help! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jstackpo Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:35 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:35 PM "Designated room": correct! None of this "campus wide" nonsense. No proxies unless positively authorized in your bylaws. "does Robert's Rules make the vote officially null and void?" No, not exactly. RONR will tell you that the vote IS null and void, but it is up to the assembly, by agreeing to a point of order to that effect, to assert that it is indeed null and void. p. 251. And such an assertion can only be made at a real meeting. Nobody, obviously, should act on the motion if it was indeed "adopted" - improperly - with proxy votes. And since you are having a real meeting, do the vote on the question properly this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:37 PM Report Share Posted February 4, 2014 at 10:37 PM Because it is an atypical meeting time, there was doubt on whether or not quorum would be present (2/3 of all representatives). I don't think the atypical meeting time is your biggest problem. This is an absurdly high quorum. Even legislative bodies usually only have a quorum of a majority. I'd advise amending the bylaws to lower the quorum at the earliest opportunity. The proposed solution is to have the meeting "campus wide" to enable those in class to still count towards quorum. Is this allowed in Robert's Rules? (Constitution and Bylaws do not mention where the meetings need to take place). From my little experience in Robert's Rules, it seems as though it would need to be in a designated room. No, this is not allowed. You're absolutely correct that a meeting must be held in a designated room or area. The next part of the proposed solution is to enable proxy voting. Again, our Constitution and Bylaws are silent. I have read the section in reference to this and came to the conclusion that it is not allowed, but others are using "Ordinarily it should neither be allowed nor required" as though because it is not disproved, it can be done. Proxy voting is not allowed unless it is authorized in the bylaws. The statement the members are referring to means that RONR advises not to authorize it in the bylaws. It should not be understood to undercut the strong prohibitions elsewhere in that section. Final question, if this vote is done while violating Robert's Rules, does Robert's Rules make the vote officially null and void? In this particular case, yes, the motion would be null and void since the violations are so egregious, but as Dr. Stackpole notes, only the assembly (at a proper meeting which really has a quorum) can actually make that determination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Hunt Posted February 5, 2014 at 06:13 AM Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 at 06:13 AM In this particular case, yes, the motion would be null and void since the violations are so egregious, but as Dr. Stackpole notes, only the assembly (at a proper meeting which really has a quorum) can actually make that determination. They may also find themselves wanting to Ratify the illegally-taken action, so as to ensure that action may still be taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J. J. Posted February 5, 2014 at 04:09 PM Report Share Posted February 5, 2014 at 04:09 PM "Designated room": correct! None of this "campus wide" nonsense. Unless they could all hear and/or see each other simultaniously. There are small campuses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest B Posted February 6, 2014 at 12:15 AM Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 at 12:15 AM "Designated room": correct! None of this "campus wide" nonsense.No, this is not allowed. You're absolutely correct that a meeting must be held in a designated room or area.Unless they could all hear and/or see each other simultaniously. There are small campuses. Where would I find this in RONR? The campus is comparatively small, but definitely not small enough for hearing/seeing everyone else. "does Robert's Rules make the vote officially null and void?" No, not exactly. RONR will tell you that the vote IS null and void, but it is up to the assembly, by agreeing to a point of order to that effect, to assert that it is indeed null and void. p. 251. And such an assertion can only be made at a real meeting. Nobody, obviously, should act on the motion if it was indeed "adopted" - improperly - with proxy votes. And since you are having a real meeting, do the vote on the question properly this time.In this particular case, yes, the motion would be null and void since the violations are so egregious, but as Dr. Stackpole notes, only the assembly (at a proper meeting which really has a quorum) can actually make that determination.They may also find themselves wanting to Ratify the illegally-taken action, so as to ensure that action may still be taken.Our Constitution does allow a quasi-judiciary committee to review matters of interpretations, so I will probably go through that avenue. Also, to have an answer ready in case it comes up, does proxy voting count towards quorum? (Assuming it is allowed for the sake of argument) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM Report Share Posted February 6, 2014 at 12:25 AM Where would I find this in RONR? The campus is comparatively small, but definitely not small enough for hearing/seeing everyone else. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 1, lines 12-14. Also, to have an answer ready in case it comes up, does proxy voting count towards quorum? (Assuming it is allowed for the sake of argument) See FAQ #10 (especially the last sentence). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest27506 Posted February 12, 2014 at 08:42 PM Author Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 at 08:42 PM To remedy the situation in a correctly held general meeting, where the actions illegally taken with lack of quorum and use of proxy voting are agreed to be null and void, would the proper steps of action be: 1. Motioning to lay the subsequent orders of the day on the table2. Motion to accept the resignations presented at the incorrect meeting3. Motion to accept the incorrectly passed business4. Motion to take from the table the pending orders of the day Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 12, 2014 at 09:32 PM Report Share Posted February 12, 2014 at 09:32 PM To remedy the situation in a correctly held general meeting, where the actions illegally taken with lack of quorum and use of proxy voting are agreed to be null and void, would the proper steps of action be: 1. Motioning to lay the subsequent orders of the day on the table2. Motion to accept the resignations presented at the incorrect meeting3. Motion to accept the incorrectly passed business4. Motion to take from the table the pending orders of the day If the assembly wishes to approve the improperly conducted business, the correct tool is the motion to Ratify. You could approve all of the business that was conducted (including accepting resignations) in a single motion. As for the first and last steps, if you're trying to get multiple orders of the day out of the way, Lay on the Table is not the most efficient tool, since you'd need to handle them one by one. If you want to take up the motion to Ratify before the other items in the order of business, I'd instead use a motion to Suspend the Rules, so long as you can muster a 2/3 vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest27506 Posted February 13, 2014 at 06:15 AM Author Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 06:15 AM If the assembly wishes to approve the improperly conducted business, the correct tool is the motion to Ratify. You could approve all of the business that was conducted (including accepting resignations) in a single motion. Is there much difference between a motion to approve and a motion to ratify in this case? As for the first and last steps, if you're trying to get multiple orders of the day out of the way, Lay on the Table is not the most efficient tool, since you'd need to handle them one by one. If you want to take up the motion to Ratify before the other items in the order of business, I'd instead use a motion to Suspend the Rules, so long as you can muster a 2/3 vote. Would another option be to: Motion to amend the agenda to include the ratification of incorrectly passed resignations/business (and is this a majority or 2/3 vote?)Motion to ratify the resignations/businessContinue on with new business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary c Tesser Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:21 AM Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 08:21 AM If the assembly wishes to approve the improperly conducted business, the correct tool is the motion to Ratify... Is there much difference between a motion to approve and a motion to ratify in this case? Looking at p. 124, I'm not seeing much. (And I was surprised, though it's been there at least since 2000.) (Do you pronounce "harass" with the accent on the first or second syllable?) But personally, I've always seen the word "ratify" used for this. Not that you should care, nobody listens to me. I'm always the goat. Great Steaming Cobnuts. Except maybe R. Ed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Martin Posted February 13, 2014 at 04:01 PM Report Share Posted February 13, 2014 at 04:01 PM Is there much difference between a motion to approve and a motion to ratify in this case? Not really. Ratify is just the proper term in this situation. Motion to amend the agenda to include the ratification of incorrectly passed resignations/business (and is this a majority or 2/3 vote?)Motion to ratify the resignations/businessContinue on with new business Yes, that would be another option. A motion to amend the agenda requires a majority vote if it is made when the agenda is pending for approval, or a 2/3 vote if it is made after the agenda has been approved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.