Is debate considered acting on motion?

[Guest Khendo59]

After a motion is made, would debate be considered as "action" on the motion?

[Rob Elsman]

I get this sense that we are getting ready to have a discussion about "action items" in an "agenda".  Is this the background to the question?

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/8/2022 at 9:09 PM, Guest Khendo59 said:

After a motion is made, would debate be considered as "action" on the motion?

In the way the word "action" is most often used, no.  An action is the result of a motion--more specifically the result of a vote on a question, or unanimous consent.  A motion is the way the assembly decides whether to take an action.

In the narrowest sense, debate is one of the actions, such as postponement, referral, amendment, et al., which can be taken on a motion, but I can find only one citation where it the word action is used to describe these procedural stages in consideration of a question.

Are you trying to parse some obscure language in your bylaws or other rules in a way that would be particularly desirable?

I think my answer has to be: Probably No, why do you ask?

Edited June 9, 2022 at 02:09 AM by Gary Novosielski

[Guest Khendo59]

Thanks for the input, the background for this question is that the club I belong to  has had a regime change and the current president is pushing a revision to our bylaws. Our current bylaws state that any change or revision shall be read at the regular meeting and not acted on before the next regular meeting. Every president, including myself, for the past 70+ years has interpreted that to mean read it and then wait for the next meeting to debate. This current president says that debate is not "acting" on the motion.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:58 AM, Guest Khendo59 said:

Thanks for the input, the background for this question is that the club I belong to  has had a regime change and the current president is pushing a revision to our bylWelaws. Our current bylaws state that any change or revision shall be read at the regular meeting and not acted on before the next regular meeting. Every president, including myself, for the past 70+ years has interpreted that to mean read it and then wait for the next meeting to debate. This current president says that debate is not "acting" on the motion.

Well, here's how you force a bylaws interpretation:

• Wait for the situation to arise, where a proposed amendment is read, and the chair opens the floor to debate.
• Rise to a Point of Order, that the bylaws prohibit action on the question until the meeting following the reading.
• Wait for the president to rule that the point is not well taken, since debate is not, technically, action.
• Respond: "I Appeal from the decision of the chair".  Wait for the person you prearranged with to second the appeal.
• See §24 Appeal, for how debate and voting on an appeal are handled.  Briefly the Chair goes first and last.  Others can speak only once on the appeal.  A vote is then taken "Shall the decision of the chair stand as the decision of the assembly?' So that a No vote is a vote to overrule the chair.  A majority vote in the negative is required to overrule.

During debate, you, and others, can raise the valid point that decades of custom have held that debate cannot begin at the same meeting, and that absent a change to the written rule, custom must be observed.  You would increase your chances of success substantially by lobbying among other members to plan your action, determine who will raise the Point of Order, who will Appeal, who will second the appeal, who will raise what points during debate, and so on.

It will also help you to have a good grasp on §§23-24, Point of Order and Appeal, so you know what to expect and what to do.

If you miss the opportunity to do this, and the ruling of the chair stands, you can begin work on a bylaws amendment to clarify the rule so that is no longer open to two interpretations.

Edited June 9, 2022 at 02:39 PM by Gary Novosielski

[Rob Elsman]

Since the members adopted the bylaw, it is to be presumed that the members know what it means.  It falls to the members to interpret the bylaw and determine what "action" was intended to mean when the bylaw was adopted, and whether debate was to be considered "action".  As far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, a member may rise to speak in debate.  If the president refuses to assign the floor on account that the bylaw prohibits debate after the first reading, an Appeal from the decision of the chair can be raised by any two members.  The appeal will be debatable, and, during debate, the members can deliberate about the matter.

It will be of no use to argue this out on this forum.  As I am fond of saying, it is your rule; you tell us.

[Josh Martin]

On 6/9/2022 at 8:58 AM, Guest Khendo59 said:

Thanks for the input, the background for this question is that the club I belong to  has had a regime change and the current president is pushing a revision to our bylaws. Our current bylaws state that any change or revision shall be read at the regular meeting and not acted on before the next regular meeting. Every president, including myself, for the past 70+ years has interpreted that to mean read it and then wait for the next meeting to debate. This current president says that debate is not "acting" on the motion.

Such a provision seems to me like a requirement for previous notice. When previous notice is given at a meeting, no debate is done at that time - it waits until the next meeting. I expect this was the intent of the rule in question. Nonetheless, I believe the President is correct as a technical matter that debate is not "acting" on the motion, so I believe a reasonable argument could be made for an interpretation that permits debate at both meetings.

Ultimately, it will be up to the assembly to interpret its own rules. In the long run, it would be desirable to amend the rule in question for clarity.

Edited June 9, 2022 at 02:52 PM by Josh Martin

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 6/9/2022 at 10:50 AM, Josh Martin said:

When previous notice is given at a meeting, no debate is done at that time - it waits until the next meeting.

True. However, RONR does contemplate brief, informal discussion at the time the notice is given:

"When notice of a bylaw amendment is given in open meeting, it cannot be considered at that time, except to be discussed informally and briefly at the discretion of the presiding officer (see also 43:31–34)." (57:14)

[Guest Khendo59]

Thanks for the input, l kinda figured it would be an appeal to the membership. I'll have to give it a shot. I appreciate your insight.

[smb]

I'm a bit late sounding in, and concur with the general tenor of the analysis so far.  I have several large clients [unions and professional associations] who have similar language and they ALL apply it in the manner that many public entities call 'first reading' and 'second reading'.   That is, at the first meeting [reading] the motion or resolution is introduced and read nothing else usually happens [but there may be an explanation and an opportunity to ask questions of the author(s)].  This gives members the opportunity to digest the material before it comes up at the next meeting for second reading.  No action, including debate, is taken until second reading.  As others have noted, whether that is your association's intent is for them to decide -- I add this only to suggest the first/second reading interpretation is quite common.

[Richard Brown]

I concur with the analysis immediately above by SMB and would only add that where organizations have a “First reading“ at one meeting and a “second reading“ at a subsequent meeting, the motion (or legislation) is usually fully amendable at the second reading,  but not at the first reading.  The first reading is basically the equivalent of “giving notice“ but in a more detailed manner, i.e., The full text of the motion is introduced.

[Gary Novosielski]

I had a somewhat different experience with a school board on which I served.  I never read the original language of whatever regulation required two readings, but judging by some we've seen here, I don't think I missed much by way of clarity.  So none of this should be considered persuasive, except as an example of how it was done one place at one time.

Two readings were not required for most actions.  Hiring, firin, budget transfer approvals, personnel matters, contracts, and most other questions were adopted on a majority vote, where debate was allowed but seldom happened. Two readings were only required for additions to the policy manual--more of a legislative function than an administrative one.

A question would occur in the agenda, and be moved on First Reading like any resolution.  It could be debated, and even amended at that point, but the final vote did not approve it, it just moved it to the next meeting, for Second Reading.   At that point if was again open to discussion as (if) amended.  Often the answers to some requests for information raised at the first reading were provided at the second.  As I recall, we sometimes did amend the resolution at this point, but if the changes were substantial, it was considered passed on first reading once again, and had to wait until the subsequent meeting to be approved.

I confess that most of this was in the nature of "made up as we went along", since nobody seemed to know for sure what constituted "substantial" changes, for instance, or what the point of the two readings actually was.

[J. J.]

On 6/9/2022 at 9:58 AM, Guest Khendo59 said:

Thanks for the input, the background for this question is that the club I belong to  has had a regime change and the current president is pushing a revision to our bylaws. Our current bylaws state that any change or revision shall be read at the regular meeting and not acted on before the next regular meeting. Every president, including myself, for the past 70+ years has interpreted that to mean read it and then wait for the next meeting to debate. This current president says that debate is not "acting" on the motion.

The motion would probably not become pending until the next regular meeting and would not be debatable under the normal rules; I agree that the reading requirement is a notice requirement.  However, there are several possibilities for discussing the revision.

1.  Recess, and discuss the merits of the revision while the meeting is not in session.

2.  Suspend the rule to permit debate of something not pending, i.e., the bylaw revision.

3.  It may be possible to appoint a committee of the whole to "consider recommending a proposed bylaw revision."  The committee of the whole could discuss the one that has been given notice as a possibility.