Can a Main Motion Pose a Yes/No Question?

[David D.]

A member of our assembly would like to pose a question to members of the form "Should we perform X action?" with yes, no, and abstention as valid responses. This question could be formulated as a resolution of the form "Resolved, that we should perform X action," but the sponsor of the motion only wants an answer to the question, not a commitment to perform the action if the yes side prevails. Otherwise, the question would be subject to all the procedures of main motions. Under Robert's Rules, can a main motion pose a question in this way?

Thank you in advance, and my apologies if this is answered elsewhere.

[Richard Brown]

21 minutes ago, David D. said:

A member of our assembly would like to pose a question to members of the form "Should we perform X action?" with yes, no, and abstention as valid responses. This question could be formulated as a resolution of the form "Resolved, that we should perform X action," but the sponsor of the motion only wants an answer to the question, not a commitment to perform the action if the yes side prevails. Otherwise, the question would be subject to all the procedures of main motions. Under Robert's Rules, can a main motion pose a question in this way?

Thank you in advance, and my apologies if this is answered elsewhere.

First, this is not the proper way to state or "put" a motion to a vote per RONR.  I suppose the rules could be suspended to permit such a vote.  I also note that members have the right to abstain and that "abstain" should not be listed as an option on a ballot or roll call vote.  A member may abstain regardless of whether the option is offered when voting.

The second issue, raised in the portion of your question I bolded, is that it appears the member is wanting to conduct what amounts to a straw poll, something specifically  prohibited by RONR.  Again, I suppose the rules could be suspended to permit such a poll.   RONR (12th ed.) 45:72

Edited to add:  45:72 suggests going into the committee (or quasi committee) of the whole to take up such a non-binding resolution.

Edited November 30, 2020 at 04:59 PM by Richard Brown
Added last paragraph

[Dan Honemann]

 I don't know why this member thinks that. if the question is posed to members as "Should we perform X action?", with yes, no, and abstention as valid responses, the result will not be just as binding as if presented in the form of a motion "that we should perform X action." 

[David D.]

Thank you both for your responses. For clarification, this is a university grad student assembly. The member is a committee chair who is considering an action entitled to that position, and which does not require the approval of the whole assembly. However, the action is potentially controversial because it has complex implications over the assembly's relationship to another university assembly. Therefore, the member wants to consider the opinion of our assembly before committing to an action, which would be a straw poll. 

Since straw polls are not permitted, I suppose we could format the discussion as a 'presentation' informing members of the issue, which under our Bylaws would allow for Q&A.

 

[J. J.]

Wording could be different, e.g., "That the assembly encourage the committee chair to _______ ."  The assembly can adopt a motion that expresses an opinion.

[Guest Pozzeling]

I think that by a 2/3 vote the assembly can adopt a "special rule of order" ordering the chair of such-and-such committee to do this-and-not-that. 

So maybe (even if it only will get a majority) it might be an idea to put it in this form. (And have a counted vote and record the voting outcome) 

[Atul Kapur]

I'm not sure why it would need a 2/3 vote or a Special Rule of Order.

An assembly can direct a committee and the motion to give directions would generally only require a majority vote.

[Josh Martin]

50 minutes ago, Guest Pozzeling said:

I think that by a 2/3 vote the assembly can adopt a "special rule of order" ordering the chair of such-and-such committee to do this-and-not-that. 

So maybe (even if it only will get a majority) it might be an idea to put it in this form. (And have a counted vote and record the voting outcome) 

Generally, it would seem to me that a majority vote is sufficient to order the committee to take the action in question.

[Guest Puzzeling]

53 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I'm not sure why it would need a 2/3 vote or a Special Rule of Order.

An assembly can direct a committee and the motion to give directions would generally only require a majority vote.

3 Reasons:

1) This is not a direction to a committee but to a committee chair (member / officer /individual) 

2) the committee is because it seems to have some authority outside the organization is more a kind of board than a real committee, and a special rule of order for a board needs a 2/3 vote in favour. (There was another tread on this), I do think that special rules of order can have results  outside the organization.

3) it is a controversial issue so I think it is better to have a clear majority than a small one. 

[Josh Martin]

28 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

1) This is not a direction to a committee but to a committee chair (member / officer /individual) 

This has nothing to do with it.

28 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

2) the committee is because it seems to have some authority outside the organization is more a kind of board than a real committee, and a special rule of order for a board needs a 2/3 vote in favour. (There was another tread on this), I do think that special rules of order can have results  outside the organization.

I don't think this "outside the organization" business has anything to do with whether a 2/3 vote or special rule of order is required or whether the committee is in the nature of a board. I don't know if it is correct that the committee is "more a kind of board," but even if it is, a majority vote is still sufficient unless action has previously been taken on this matter, in which event the action would need to be rescinded or amended. That would require a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice. It still would not take a special rule of order.

Adopting a special rule of order requires a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but ordering a committee, committee chair, or a board to take a particular action, in and of itself, is not a special rule of order.

28 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

3) it is a controversial issue so I think it is better to have a clear majority than a small one. 

It may well be that it is better to have a clear majority in such cases, but this does not mean that such a majority is required.

Edited December 1, 2020 at 04:34 PM by Josh Martin

[Atul Kapur]

I agree with Mr. Martin's responses.

I will just add that I believe this statement is incorrect

3 hours ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

I do think that special rules of order can have results  outside the organization.

Special rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 2:14. So I'm not sure how you conclude that they can have results outside the organization when they don't always apply to the organization's activities outside of its meetings. Are you thinking of standing rules?

[Guest Puzzeling]

55 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

I agree with Mr. Martin's responses.

I will just add that I believe this statement is incorrect

Special rules of order "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 2:14. So I'm not sure how you conclude that they can have results outside the organization when they don't always apply to the organization's activities outside of its meetings. Are you thinking of standing rules?

The committee chair is acting as a kind of nofficer (he does it as committee chair not as ordinary citizen ) and the duties of officers can be regulated by a special rule of order.

[Josh Martin]

3 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

The committee chair is acting as a kind of nofficer (he does it as committee chair not as ordinary citizen )

Being a committee chair, in and of itself, does not make a person an officer of a society, although it does make the person an officer (the presiding officer) of the committee. (Although this is not the main problem.)

6 minutes ago, Guest Puzzeling said:

and the duties of officers can be regulated by a special rule of order.

The relevant citation states "Such rules relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." RONR (12th ed.) 2:14, emphasis added

So the fact that a rule relates to the duties of officers does not necessarily mean that it is a rule of order. It must relate to duties of officers which are in connection with "the orderly transaction of business in meetings."