amending standing rules at mass meeting

[TheAdvocate]

Once a year my high school holds a faculty meeting during which—using RRs—we decide which students will receive gold medals and honorable mentions for a variety of categories, such as fine arts or athletic achievement. 

 

We only do this once a year, there is no membership as such (no secretaries, elected members of any kind) and the meeting is run by our high school principal. This therefore is a mass meeting—a mass meeting where no one knows RR (I'm relatively ignorant, and I know way more than the rest). Last year, the teacher assigned as parliamentarian fell asleep during the meeting. So I need some clarification on two things as they might appoint me parliamentarian in the last minute.

 

1. Currently, we have two types of awards for each category: one is a gold medal, the other—an honorable mention. Under the current system, we all vote, and the student with the most votes wins the gold medal, and whoever is in second place is automatically the honorable mention. Everyone hates this rule, but how to amend it? These rules were put into place by the school administration, but since we are using RR, there must be a way to change it. I already know that at the beginning of the meeting, someone will rise and make a motion to allow for the honorable mention to receive a separate vote after the gold medal winner has been chosen.

 

From what little I know of RR, this seems to me best classified as a standing rule, and can be amended by 2/3 of the assembly. Am I correct?

 

2. RR states that it takes 2/3 to close nominations, but RR states that (sorry, I'm quoting 10th ed.) "the motion to close nominations should not generally be moved." RR does say that in very large assemblies it might be permissible, though. However, our assembly consists of perhaps 50 or 60 people. In any case, RR says "it should not...be moved." At my school, someone always make the motion to close nominations, and the principal always permits the motion. How hard and fast of a rule is it when it says "should not?"

 

 

 

 

[Josh Martin]

We only do this once a year, there is no membership as such (no secretaries, elected members of any kind) and the meeting is run by our high school principal.

 

Even a mass meeting needs at least two officers: a presiding officer and a secretary (to take minutes). Electing those officers (in that order) is the first thing to do in a mass meeting.

 

1. Currently, we have two types of awards for each category: one is a gold medal, the other—an honorable mention. Under the current system, we all vote, and the student with the most votes wins the gold medal, and whoever is in second place is automatically the honorable mention. Everyone hates this rule, but how to amend it? These rules were put into place by the school administration, but since we are using RR, there must be a way to change it. I already know that at the beginning of the meeting, someone will rise and make a motion to allow for the honorable mention to receive a separate vote after the gold medal winner has been chosen.

 

From what little I know of RR, this seems to me best classified as a standing rule, and can be amended by 2/3 of the assembly. Am I correct?

 

Since there is no permanent assembly here, the rules you have used in the past are irrelevant. There is no rule to amend. Each mass meeting adopts its own rules. I'd note that it is already the case under RONR that the votes would be taken separately - there's no "runner up" provision in Robert's Rules. So you can handle that by adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority (scroll down to the part about a group which doesn't have bylaws).

 

I'd also note, however, that under RONR a majority is required for selection. It sounds like you want to pick the award winners by plurality vote. The adoption of such a rule (which is really in the nature of a rule of order, not a standing rule) for the meeting will require a 2/3 vote. I'd do this right after adopting the parliamentary authority.

 

2. RR states that it takes 2/3 to close nominations, but RR states that (sorry, I'm quoting 10th ed.) "the motion to close nominations should not generally be moved." RR does say that in very large assemblies it might be permissible, though. However, our assembly consists of perhaps 50 or 60 people. In any case, RR says "it should not...be moved." At my school, someone always make the motion to close nominations, and the principal always permits the motion. How hard and fast of a rule is it when it says "should not?"

 

The short version is that the motion is not in order so long as members continue to make legitimate nominations, and when they are done making nominations, the motion isn't needed, since the chair can just declare the nominations closed. A rare case when it might be in order is if members are making nominations just to honor people who have no real chance of being elected. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 288-289 for more information.

[Guest Guest]

Even a mass meeting needs at least two officers: a presiding officer and a secretary (to take minutes). Electing those officers (in that order) is the first thing to do in a mass meeting.

 

 

Since there is no permanent assembly here, the rules you have used in the past are irrelevant. There is no rule to amend. Each mass meeting adopts its own rules. I'd note that it is already the case under RONR that the votes would be taken separately - there's no "runner up" provision in Robert's Rules. So you can handle that by adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority (scroll down to the part about a group which doesn't have bylaws).

 

I'd also note, however, that under RONR a majority is required for selection. It sounds like you want to pick the award winners by plurality vote. The adoption of such a rule (which is really in the nature of a rule of order, not a standing rule) for the meeting will require a 2/3 vote. I'd do this right after adopting the parliamentary authority.

 

Thanks for your swift reply. You are very dedicated to this forum, and have been for many years it seems.

 

Well, the situation that we have here is rather unique. I know for a fact that there will be no voting on who will be the presiding officer and secretary. It's always been the principal and the his administrative assistant, respectively. The admin assistant always takes minutes during all faculty meeting, anyway. It's part of her job description at the school!  So this is kind of like just another faculty meeting, only we adopt (or try to adopt) the rules, or at the least the spirit, of RR.

 

So the answer is, when a teacher rises and says, "Can we make it so that the honorable mention wins by majority vote instead of plurality," and they look to me tonight, I can advise the presiding offer (the principal) that two thirds would carry that.

 

[TheAdvocate]

Thanks for your swift reply. You are very dedicated to this forum, and have been for many years it seems.

 

Well, the situation that we have here is rather unique. I know for a fact that there will be no voting on who will be the presiding officer and secretary. It's always been the principal and the his administrative assistant, respectively. The admin assistant always takes minutes during all faculty meeting, anyway. It's part of her job description at the school!  So this is kind of like just another faculty meeting, only we adopt (or try to adopt) the rules, or at the least the spirit, of RR.

 

So the answer is, when a teacher rises and says, "Can we make it so that the honorable mention wins by majority vote instead of plurality," and they look to me tonight, I can advise the presiding offer (the principal) that two thirds would carry that.

[Josh Martin]

Well, the situation that we have here is rather unique. I know for a fact that there will be no voting on who will be the presiding officer and secretary. It's always been the principal and the his administrative assistant, respectively. The admin assistant always takes minutes during all faculty meeting, anyway. It's part of her job description at the school!  So this is kind of like just another faculty meeting, only we adopt (or try to adopt) the rules, or at the least the spirit, of RR.

 

If the assembly has no problem with this, this seems fine to me. These positions are often elected by unanimous consent in mass meetings.

 

So the answer is, when a teacher rises and says, "Can we make it so that the honorable mention wins by majority vote instead of plurality," and they look to me tonight, I can advise the presiding offer (the principal) that two thirds would carry that.

 

What? No, quite the opposite. A majority is what is required under RONR. A 2/3 vote would be required if the assembly wanted to adopt a rule that the gold medal winners, the honorable mentions, or both would be selected by a plurality instead of a majority.

[TheAdvocate]

Well, all I know is that the school has published the "rules" (maybe they're not standing rules, but they do stand as of now), and one of the rules state that second place gets the honorable mention automatically. (They don't call it a plurality, though de facto that is what it is.) Given that this rule is "standing," how can it be changed, starting from the moment that a teacher rises to be recognized and makes a motion to change it to majority vote for the honorary mention. I know what will happen: someone will second the motion, the presiding officer will look puzzled and then turn to me, and I will say either:

 

A. To change it to majority from plurality, it will take a majority vote of the assembly

 

OR

 

B. To change it to majority from plurality, it will take 2/3 of the assembly

 

Which do I say? (And thanks for your patience with me, Josh.)

[Josh Martin]

Well, all I know is that the school has published the "rules" (maybe they're not standing rules, but they do stand as of now), and one of the rules state that second place gets the honorable mention automatically. (They don't call it a plurality, though de facto that is what it is.) Given that this rule is "standing," how can it be changed, starting from the moment that a teacher rises to be recognized and makes a motion to change it to majority vote for the honorary mention. I know what will happen: someone will second the motion, the presiding officer will look puzzled and then turn to me, and

 

This rule doesn't stand. It's not clear to me that the rule was properly adopted in the first place, and even if it was, these are mass meetings. You don't have permanent rules, notwithstanding what has been published to the contrary.

 

Also, the current "second place" system is neither a majority nor a plurality.

 

A. To change it to majority from plurality, it will take a majority vote of the assembly

 

OR

 

B. To change it to majority from plurality, it will take 2/3 of the assembly

 

Which do I say? (And thanks for your patience with me, Josh.)

 

Neither. It will take a 2/3 vote to change it to plurality from majority. The rules used in previous mass meetings are not binding on this mass meeting. Under RONR, it will require a majority vote (which is more than half of the votes cast) to elect the "gold medal" winner and the "honorable mention," and separate votes will be taken for each. If the assembly wishes to elect either or both by a plurality (the most votes cast), let alone to elect them both on a single ballot and give "honorable mention" to the second place finisher, this will require the adoption of rules of order for the meeting, which requires a 2/3 vote.

[TheAdvocate]

Once someone makes a motion to change it from "second place in votes automatically obtains honorable mention" to "honorable mention will be voted upon separately and the winner is the one who obtains a simple majority," would this motion be debatable once seconded?

[Josh Martin]

Once someone makes a motion to change it from "second place in votes automatically obtains honorable mention" to "honorable mention will be voted upon separately and the winner is the one who obtains a simple majority," would this motion be debatable once seconded?

 

So you aren't really listening, then?

 

For the fourth time, the rule used in the past is NOT in effect. There is no need for someone to make a motion that "honorable mention will be voted on separately and the winner is the one who obtains a simple majority," because that is already the case. The default rule is that honorable mention and the gold medal winners will be voted on separately and a majority vote will be required. There is no need for a motion to do this. If someone wants to make a motion to adopt a rule that they won't be voted on separately and/or that they will require only a plurality vote, that motion will be debatable.

[TheAdvocate]

Ok, finally, I've got it. But of course, whether the school actually implements the way it ought to be is a whole different story. Anyhow, thank you, Josh. 

[Gary Novosielski]

So the answer is, when a teacher rises and says, "Can we make it so that the honorable mention wins by majority vote instead of plurality," and they look to me tonight, I can advise the presiding offer (the principal) that two thirds would carry that.

 

No, you can tell them that this is already the rule in RONR, and would require no motion to create it.  The fact that you've been doing it wrong in the past is not relevant.

[Gary c Tesser]

Presupposing that they're going to adopt some parliamentary authority.

 

Which battles should The embattled Advocate pick?

[Josh Martin]

Which battles should The embattled Advocate pick?

 

At the very least, it seems that it's worth fighting over the fact that the awards should be elected separately rather than the honorable mention automatically going to the runner up, since we are told in the original post that "everyone hates this rule." It might also be worth fighting over the majority vs. plurality issue - I'm not clear on the assembly's opinions on that point.

 

I'd just let the issue of the Principal and Administrative Assistant essentially serving as the ex officio chair and secretary slide.

[Transpower]

Doesn't your faculty already have an organization with bylaws, standing rules, customs?  If so, why not let that organization handle this situation?

[J. J.]

 

I'd also note, however, that under RONR a majority is required for selection. It sounds like you want to pick the award winners by plurality vote. The adoption of such a rule (which is really in the nature of a rule of order, not a standing rule) for the meeting will require a 2/3 vote. I'd do this right after adopting the parliamentary authority.

 

 

 

 

I think that a majority of the entire membership of the mass meeting could adopt such a rule (see pp. 546, ll. 17-21; p. 620, ll. 23-30).