Special Meeting: Notice states "No amendments"

[Guest Ed Michels]

In a special meeting, The board wishes to, after a debate, have only an up or down vote on the motion included in the Notice of the Meeting. Can or should the notice state that no amendments will be permitted, or other words to achieve that effect. For your answer, what are the Robert Rule (11) references?

 

[Timothy]

The only thing I can think of that would allow for that is if we assume that this is a scope of notice issue. But it seems more like the board is attempting to dictate the parliamentary procedure to the society, which would be out of order unless the bylaws specifically give them that authority.

[Gary c Tesser]

I fully agree with Timothy Fish (although I would caution that calling the issue "scope of notice" may be misleading). Let's hope that the secretary, in sending out the notice of the special meeting, has the sense and integrity not to not to go along with the board's improper designs -- see p. 93, lines 18 - 21: if the notice deceptively says that no amendments will occur, then, as Mr Fish acutely points out, the notice infringes on the inherent right of the assembly to fully deliberate.

Should the notice go out as the board intends, we are in a pickle. We have discussed this problem on this forum before: some members might not attend if they are sufficiently uninterested in the issue as presented in the call of the meeting, if it is indeed only to be voted up or down; but they might be very interested in the issue if the full range of amendment is available. And this will almost inevitably cause disruption at the meeting itself, when members who want the motion amended propose to amend it, as is their right, while others in attendance are both blindsided themselves (perhaps they might have researched the matter with a view towards possible amendment) and concerned about the rights of the hoodwinked absentees.

[Guest Guest]

more background. This has been a contentious issue, argued to death over 3 years. Postponed indefinitely at last annual meeting so a blue-ribbon panel could be appointed to come up with a compromise. They did, and the board endorses it. The compromise, as does the issue, has many facets and hits the bylaws in many places. Debate has gotten personal and divisive; the interested members are sick of it and just want it over. The intention is to have a rules motion at the beginning of the meeting to make the debate orderly, and not allow calling the question for set chunks of time to prevent the debate being over immediately. The question is amendments. There easily could be a dozen or more, allowing the session to go on for hours. If the meeting looks endless, the prior question will be called at the first opportunity and all debate, particularly from the likely minority view, will be over. 

[Edgar Guest]

 If the meeting looks endless, the prior question will be called at the first opportunity and all debate, particularly from the likely minority view, will be over. 

 

Assuming, of course, that you can muster a two-thirds vote. See FAQ #11.

[Gary c Tesser]

... Debate has gotten personal and divisive; ...

If you mean between meetings, that's too bad, but there it is. If you mean during meetings, that's insupportable. The presiding officer needs to enforce decorum. That's central to his job. HIre a security firm if you have to (RONR, 11th Ed, p. 649).

The intention is to have a rules motion at the beginning of the meeting to make the debate orderly...

I beg your pardon, I don't follow this at all: what will a rules motion do to make the debate orderly?

... and not allow calling the question for set chunks of time to prevent the debate being over immediately. The question is amendments. There easily could be a dozen or more, allowing the session to go on for hours. If the meeting looks endless, the prior question will be called at the first opportunity and all debate, particularly from the likely minority view, will be over.

I am at sea again. If the only way to restrain the majority from overwhelming the minority from the get-go, how do you think a motion to suppress that majority is going to pass? And if the majority is itching to adopt the previous question, by a 2/3 vote, any chance they get, how does the minority possibly hope to get any of its proposed amendments to go anywhere?

[Guest Ed Michels]

more background:

- divisiveness is between meetings. meeting conduct can be controlled

- rules motion for orderly debate (which must get 2/3 vote): Primary motion sponsor gets 10 minutes to explain motion and answer questions from floor, but not debate points. Then debate; 2 lines for speakers, 1 pro, 1 conn. Speakers get 2 minutes each. Call the Question is out of order, but after 30 minutes, and then every 15 minutes, a call the question vote on continuing. Members are friends , will approve (2/3) a rules motion that makes things orderly, prevents pre-emptive termination (call the question), but allows for regular checkpoints on whether the debate has gone on long enough.

[Gary c Tesser]

...

- rules motion for orderly debate (which must get 2/3 vote): ...

I think I see. Guest Michels and apparently pretty much everybody there think that barring amendments would be a good idea.

RONR 11th Ed. ref.: Section 15, "Limit or Extend Limits of Debate," noting the first paragraph on p. 192, and/or Section 25, "Suspend the Rules," looking at the example on p. 262, lines 6 - 8. Note that this would probaly be an incidental main motion (see p. 74. lines 17 - 26).

[Josh Martin]

In a special meeting, The board wishes to, after a debate, have only an up or down vote on the motion included in the Notice of the Meeting. Can or should the notice state that no amendments will be permitted, or other words to achieve that effect. For your answer, what are the Robert Rule (11) references?

 

No, the notice cannot state that no amendments will be permitted. Rules of order may not be created by putting them in the call of the meeting. If such a statement is improperly included, it is not binding. "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting. This rule, however, does not preclude the consideration of privileged motions, or of any subsidiary, incidental, or other motions that may arise in connection with the transaction of such business or the conduct of the meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 93) 

 

The assembly may adopt such a rule at the meeting if it wishes. It requires a 2/3 vote for adoption and is debatable and amendable.

 

- rules motion for orderly debate (which must get 2/3 vote): Primary motion sponsor gets 10 minutes to explain motion and answer questions from floor, but not debate points. Then debate; 2 lines for speakers, 1 pro, 1 conn. Speakers get 2 minutes each. Call the Question is out of order, but after 30 minutes, and then every 15 minutes, a call the question vote on continuing.

 

Such a motion is in order. It is debatable and amendable and requires a 2/3 vote for adoption. I would advise including that the rule may only be suspended by a very high threshold (say, a 4/5 vote). In the ordinary case, a rule of order may be suspended by a 2/3 vote. Since you seem to wish to prevent a 2/3 vote from adopting the previous question (except at the specified intervals), it would be wise to prevent members from using Suspend the Rules as a work-around.

[Edgar Guest]

I would advise including that the rule may only be suspended by a very high threshold (say, a 4/5 vote).

 

But adopting such a rule would only require a two-thirds vote, right?

[Josh Martin]

But adopting such a rule would only require a two-thirds vote, right?

 

Yes, adopting a rule of order for a meeting requires only a 2/3 vote, even if the rule provides that it may only be suspended by a higher vote.