Will of the assembly -- extracted from https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/35759-suspend-the-rules-and-reconsider

[Nathan Zook]

A significant part of the discussion centered on the meaning of "will of the assembly" in relationship to whether or not the motion in question should be considered "dilatory".  There was repeated insistence that if two-thirds, or 89% of those present and voting are in favor of something, then it cannot be against the "will of the assembly".  I cannot agree.  The "will of the assembly" is expressed in it bylaws, special rules of order, parliamentary authority, and approved motions.  When the assembly has adopted a bylaw that a 90% vote is required for a certain action, and then an 89% vote in favor of the action occurs, the will of the assembly is that the action not be agreed to.

And to be clear, while RONR refers to the "minority" when discussing the losing side of a vote, it seems to me that the rules surrounding the definition of dilatory ought to be more stringent when the prevailing side is less than 50%.  In general, a group of size greater than 50% is much less vulnerable to browbeating than a group of smaller size.  Of course, it is unavoidably that a raw majority can use Appeal to force its way through anything.  But then entire purpose of RONR is to provide for and orderly process for the conduct of business which provides for the rights of all.  That a prevailing minority actually prevail seems to me to be one of the more critical of these rights.

 

[Atul Kapur]

That seems at least a bit unbalanced, in the sense as used in:

"PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARLIAMENTARY LAW
The rules of parliamentary law found in this book will, on analysis, be seen to be constructed upon a careful balance of the rights of persons or subgroups within an organization’s or an assembly’s total membership. That is, these rules are based on a regard for the rights:
• of the majority,
• of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third,
• of individual members,
• of absentees, and
• of all these together."

and the definition of the will of the assembly

"Ultimately, it is the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion."
RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

[J. J.]

The will of the majority in regard to dilatory motions is on if question should be considered.  It is not a question of if the prevailing side on the question is less than a majority.

The will of the assembly may be expressed by something other than a main motion.  An unchallenged point of order is the expression of the will of the assembly, for example. 

[Dan Honemann]

13 hours ago, J. J. said:

The will of the majority in regard to dilatory motions is on if question should be considered.  It is not a question of if the prevailing side on the question is less than a majority.

The will of the assembly may be expressed by something other than a main motion.  An unchallenged point of order is the expression of the will of the assembly, for example. 

Well, J.J., the problem (or at least one of them) that arose in that other thread was the result of this inaccurate statement of yours: “However a motion can only be dilatory "if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation  (p.  342, ll. 12-14)."  🙂

[J. J.]

On 11/3/2020 at 9:44 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, J.J., the problem (or at least one of them) that arose in that other thread was the result of this inaccurate statement of yours: “However a motion can only be dilatory "if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation  (p.  342, ll. 12-14)."  🙂

Dan, who gets to determine if an action "if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation?"