Point of Order / out of order

[mvd]

Hello,

I am a new chair and hoping for some advice. I am using the 11th ed of RONR.

In my organization, we set meeting agendas in advance, but they can be altered up to the moment at which they are approved at the start of the meeting by motion. Our meetings are structured as follows

1. Call to order
2. Approval of agenda
3. Approval of minutes from prev mtg
4. Business arising from the prev minutes
5. Chair and Board reports
6. New business
7. Committee reports
8. Adjournment

One item of confusion for me is around motions. My organization doesn't view Chair, Board, and committee reports as motions but as information. Is this correct? Likewise, our New Business is almost always a series of items for discussion, and no motions are made unless we want to take a particular action which depending on the severity we may simply assign as an "action item" to be assigned to a person rather than a motion. We typically reserve motions for important actions, decisions which may be controversial, or for issues of great significance. 

The reason I ask is that a proposal is being brought forward to our meeting that is in violation of the bylaws of the organization. It will likely come in the form of a report or a discussion item as has been our custom practice. Since a proposal in the form if report or a discusion item isn't a motion per se, can it still be subject to a point of order and ruled out of order since it violates bylaws?

Alternately, can a motion be made to avoid discussing a proposal until such time as it is brought into alignment with the bylaws? 

In short, as chair, how do I deal with "out of order" issues when they are not brought forward as motions but as reports (information), proposals, or discussion items? 

Any advice would be appreciated.

mvd

 

[George Mervosh]

Until you rid yourself of "discussion items" and "action items" there's always going to be plenty of procedural problems, but your duty as presiding officer under RONR is to rule motions that violate the organization's rules out of order.  

[Guest Zev]

1 hour ago, mvd said:

Since a proposal in the form if report or a discusion item isn't a motion per se, can it still be subject to a point of order and ruled out of order since it violates bylaws?

Normally discussion will occur as a result of a motion. If the motion is ruled out of order then no discussion takes place.

Quote

Unless the assembly has specifically authorized that a particular subject be discussed while no motion is pending, however, such a discussion can be entered into only at the sufferance of the chair or until a point of order is made; and in the latter case, the chair must immediately require that a motion be offered or the discussion cease.

RONR 11th ed. p. 34.

I see nothing that prevents you as the presiding officer to raise a point of order and rule the discussion of an item or the presentation of a report that includes an item which is clearly in violation of the bylaws as out of order in exactly the same as if indecorous language had been used in regular debate.

[Josh Martin]

2 hours ago, mvd said:

One item of confusion for me is around motions. My organization doesn't view Chair, Board, and committee reports as motions but as information. Is this correct?

Yes, this is correct. It may be that a report will contain recommendations, and a member will then make one or more motions to implement those recommendations, but the report itself is not a motion.

2 hours ago, mvd said:

The reason I ask is that a proposal is being brought forward to our meeting that is in violation of the bylaws of the organization. It will likely come in the form of a report or a discussion item as has been our custom practice. Since a proposal in the form if report or a discusion item isn't a motion per se, can it still be subject to a point of order and ruled out of order since it violates bylaws

No, I do not think it can be ruled out of order on that basis, since merely talking about this presumably does not violate the bylaws. It could, however, be ruled out of order on the basis that no discussion is in order without a motion pending.

If and when a motion on this subject is made, you certainly could rule it out of order on the basis that it conflicts with the bylaws - unless, of course, the motion is properly made as an amendment to the bylaws, in accordance with the amendment process in your bylaws.

2 hours ago, mvd said:

Alternately, can a motion be made to avoid discussing a proposal until such time as it is brought into alignment with the bylaws? 

I see no reason why not.

2 hours ago, mvd said:

In short, as chair, how do I deal with "out of order" issues when they are not brought forward as motions but as reports (information), proposals, or discussion items? 

Well, so far as RONR is concerned, you should not permit proposals or discussion items. Nothing should be discussed unless and until it is brought forward as a motion. As for a report, you would simply hear the report and move on. So RONR does not really have an answer to your dilemma.

50 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

Normally discussion will occur as a result of a motion. If the motion is ruled out of order then no discussion takes place.

RONR 11th ed. p. 34.

I see nothing that prevents you as the presiding officer to raise a point of order and rule the discussion of an item or the presentation of a report that includes an item which is clearly in violation of the bylaws as out of order in exactly the same as if indecorous language had been used in regular debate.

It seems to me, however, that the discussion in question is out of order whether or not the proposal conflicts with the bylaws. I also don’t know that this is really very helpful, since members could just say “Yes, I acknowledge that my proposal violates the bylaws, but hypothetically, if we were to amend the bylaws...”

It seems to me that the organization should either follow RONR’s rules on this subject and only permit discussion when a motion is pending (unless otherwise ordered by the assembly in a particular case), or in the alternative, adopt its own rules governing how all these “action items” and “proposals” and “discussion items” are handled.

As to reports, which are governed by RONR, I disagree with this notion that the presiding officer may rule a report out of order on the grounds that it contains a proposal which conflicts with the bylaws.

Edited December 19, 2018 at 11:46 PM by Josh Martin

[mvd]

Thank you for all the help!

It sounds like my organization thinks that it follows Robert's Rules, but over time has developed its own blended governance practices. I am unlikely to be able to change the way of doing business for the multiple layers of governance where I work, but maybe I can change the committee I chair at least.

The main issue, I think, is that our agenda consists of discussion items rather than motions. 

To use a strata group as an example, an agenda like mine may include a "discussion item" of roof replacement with a resulting "action item" to gather three quotations. Instead, there should have been one of the following

1. a motion to replace the roof + discussion arising and perhaps an amendment to obtain 3 quotes
2. A communication or report on the state of the roof out of which arises a motion to gather 3 quotes and report back to the assembly

As I learn RONR, I suspect that the presenting of reports and communications (from which motions and thus discussions arise) has slowly evolved into "discussion items" whereby reports and communications are discussed and debated as "information" without motions. This works great when we have no issues, but when we need to rely on proper procedure, there is nothing to fall back on.

I think my solution will be to ask if the proposal is a motion or for information only. Motions can be ruled on, and an informational report can also give rise to motions that the proposal contained in the report is out of order for not following the bylaws and thus will need to be revised and brought back to the assembly before any motion to implememt can be undertaken.

[Joshua Katz]

43 minutes ago, mvd said:

The main issue, I think, is that our agenda consists of discussion items rather than motions. 

 

Well, that is generally a problem, but now there's the added wrinkle, which I think we all missed initially, that you are talking about a committee, not a full assembly. Rules are more relaxed in a committee, and discussion is more encouraged. But this is confusing, since you previously referred to hearing committee reports. Were those subcommittees?

44 minutes ago, mvd said:

 To use a strata group as an example, an agenda like mine may include a "discussion item" of roof replacement with a resulting "action item" to gather three quotations. Instead, there should have been one of the following

1.  a motion to replace the roof + discussion arising and perhaps an amendment to obtain 3 quotes
2.  A communication or report on the state of the roof out of which arises a motion to gather 3 quotes and report back to the assembly

 

A report that the roof is in trouble could certainly lead to a motion to take action. However, more commonly, a committee makes a report with its recommendation, and the presenting member (usually the committee chair) moves the recommendation. Thus, the committee chair would report briefly on the state of the roof, explain that the committee is recommending that it be replaced, and then say "I move on behalf of the committee that a RFP be sent out, three quotes obtained, and the chair empowered to execute a contract with the lowest qualified bid." (Or whatever you want it to be.)

Alternatively, there is no reason you can't have 3. a motion to replace the roof and to obtain 3 quotes. That is, the 3 quotes need not arise from an amendment, they can be in the original motion, if the mover desires.

48 minutes ago, mvd said:

 As I learn RONR, I suspect that the presenting of reports and communications (from which motions and thus discussions arise) has slowly evolved into "discussion items" whereby reports and communications are discussed and debated as "information" without motions. This works great when we have no issues, but when we need to rely on proper procedure, there is nothing to fall back on.

 

Well, I remain unconvinced that this sort of thing, which is common, ever "works great" in the sense of getting people home at the optimal time and facilitating the best decisions. Perhaps it works passably; more likely, in my opinion, most organizations think it works fine because they haven't experienced just how much more efficient they could be. Demanding that there be a pending motion, to which debate is confined, reduces decisions to a binary decision tree (even if there are 4 options presented via amendments, first you wind up choosing between 2, then between the winner and a third, etc.) This is, in my view, ideal - otherwise, debate becomes less focused, with people waiting for their "turn" simply to make their own point, rather than engaging with what has already been said. 

 

50 minutes ago, mvd said:

 I think my solution will be to ask if the proposal is a motion or for information only. Motions can be ruled on, and an informational report can also give rise to motions that the proposal contained in the report is out of order for not following the bylaws and thus will need to be revised and brought back to the assembly before any motion to implememt can be undertaken.

Before I can comment on this, I need to know if we are talking about an assembly or a committee. You used both words in this post.

[mvd]

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

Before I can comment on this, I need to know if we are talking about an assembly or a committee. You used both words in this post.

Ah, my apologies. It turns out I am learning about committee vs assembly too! I chair a council which functions as its own deliberative body or assembly in most matters as dictated by legislation, and it has a number of standing committees. The council has its own set of bylaws of which one states that we are to use RONR.  It sometimes gives advice to or receives direction from a Senate. The Senate reports to a Board. 

 

[Joshua Katz]

Well, it's not a "pure" definition, but this sounds more like an assembly, and probably should require there be a motion pending.

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

1 hour ago, mvd said:

 I think my solution will be to ask if the proposal is a motion or for information only. Motions can be ruled on, and an informational report can also give rise to motions that the proposal contained in the report is out of order for not following the bylaws and thus will need to be revised and brought back to the assembly before any motion to implememt can be undertaken.

 

I would recommend simply telling people you'll be ruling out of order any "motion" which does not propose an action, i.e. those "for information only" points. I think "motions that the proposal contained in the report is out of order" is confusing, and potentially not true. A report can say whatever the reporting body wants it to say. If the committee moves an out of order recommendation, a point of order is appropriate, but if the committee simply says they think it would be a good idea a point of order cannot be raised. 

Backing up, while technically a point of order is a type of motion, saying you'll allow motions that a point is out of order is confusing. You can just rule that a proposal is out of order, or rule on a point of order to that effect - but only when it is before the body as a proposal, not just because someone said it (which is a good reason not to allow "information only" discussions, unless the body forces your hand through a motion to do so).

[Guest Zev]

Quote

Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting (63) at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order.

RONR 11th ed. p. 362.

We know that many organizations have such headings in their order of business. As a natural consequence some discussion or ideas may be presented without pending motions. This is not the preferred way of doing things, nevertheless RONR acknowledges that such a thing exists and has tried to make it useful to those organizations that find some value in it.

I cannot reconcile the fact that the presiding officer has certain responsibilities and obligations whenever a motion is moved but whenever some discussion is made with no pending motion the rules of decorum, which includes harmony with the bylaws and objectives of the society, are somehow thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned when a member speaks, whether in debate on a pending motion or otherwise, all the rules of debate are in force. Perhaps non-motions and reports are exempt from the rules of decorum but at this moment I see no evidence of it.

[Joshua Katz]

I would distinguish "Jack is a moron," which clearly violates the rules of decorum, from "I think it would be good to carry more debt" even if the bylaws restrict the amount of debt the organization may carry, so that a motion "to borrow $10k" would be out of order. If you're going to allow discussions/debate without pending motions, I don't think you can turn around and say "but don't you say anything that might, if it were an actual proposal, break the rules." For one thing, if I actually wanted to make the motion to borrow $10k, I'd have a way to do it - by moving to amend the bylaws. So are we going to say that it's out of order to say "we should borrow more money" but not to say "we should amend the bylaws to borrow $10k?" 

In other words, if the utterance itself is out of order, then I agree it's out of order. But to the extent anyone is suggesting that statements made with no pending motion can be out of order because, if they were in fact motions, the thing they'd be trying to do is out of order, then I disagree. 

Of course, any uncertainty on that point can be avoided by restricting broad, aimless (and often way too long) discussion to either Good of the Order, or the bar.

[Josh Martin]

10 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

I cannot reconcile the fact that the presiding officer has certain responsibilities and obligations whenever a motion is moved but whenever some discussion is made with no pending motion the rules of decorum, which includes harmony with the bylaws and objectives of the society, are somehow thrown out the window. As far as I am concerned when a member speaks, whether in debate on a pending motion or otherwise, all the rules of debate are in force. Perhaps non-motions and reports are exempt from the rules of decorum but at this moment I see no evidence of it.

The rules of decorum do not include “harmony with the bylaws and objectives of the society.” These rules are discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 391-394. I completely agree that those rules are in force at all times during a meeting, but none of those rules involve making a suggestion which, if made as a motion, would conflict with the bylaws. If the bylaws had some rules which actually applied to what members say, then those rules would be in force. In short, the rule that a motion cannot conflict with the bylaws is not a rule of debate, so the fact that “all of the rules of debate are in force” doesn’t matter.

[mvd]

Thanks again, all.

I think I have a handle on things now. It seems easiest to simply let everyone know that motions precede discussion. Presentations of communications or reports can be brought before the assembly, but a motion must be made before any discussion or debate occurs--eg. to adopt the report or adopt the recommendations. My understanding is that if no motion grows out of a communication or report, the matter is simply dropped.

Even though our custom has been different, custom falls to the ground if a point of order is made due to a conflict with the parliamentary authority (being RONR and the bylaws)

Cheers.

[Joshua Katz]

46 minutes ago, mvd said:

My understanding is that if no motion grows out of a communication or report, the matter is simply dropped.

Well, you can always thank the reporting member, but yes. 

 

47 minutes ago, mvd said:

 Even though our custom has been different, custom falls to the ground if a point of order is made due to a conflict with the parliamentary authority (being RONR and the bylaws)

 

Correct.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, mvd said:

Thanks again, all.

I think I have a handle on things now. It seems easiest to simply let everyone know that motions precede discussion. Presentations of communications or reports can be brought before the assembly, but a motion must be made before any discussion or debate occurs--eg. to adopt the report or adopt the recommendations. My understanding is that if no motion grows out of a communication or report, the matter is simply dropped.

Even though our custom has been different, custom falls to the ground if a point of order is made due to a conflict with the parliamentary authority (being RONR and the bylaws)

Cheers.

I disagree with the part of your comment that I have bolded.  Questions about a report are in order after a report is presented regardless of whether the report includes (or leads to) an actual motion. Those questions would usually be in the form of a "Request for Information".

Edited December 20, 2018 at 07:03 PM by Richard Brown

[Josh Martin]

3 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I disagree with the part of your comment that I have bolded.  Questions about a report are in order after a report is presented regardless of whether the report includes (or leads to) an actual motion. Those questions would usually be in the form of a "Request for Information".

Yes, certainly questions are in order, but it must be clear that discussion or debate of a report for information only is not in order. I get the impression that, at present, such discussions are permitted.