Postponing a vote.

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

Is this rule suspendable?

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Is this rule suspendable?

What rule?

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:16 PM, Dan Honemann said:

What rule?

Oh sorry that the motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes cannot be heard the same day.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/15/2023 at 4:47 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The only business that can be conducted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting.  So now, what right of absentees is being violated here?

I don't understand how the fact that this is a special meeting is relevant. There could still be members absent who would want the opportunity to affect the result by attending on another day if they knew that an unrepresentative number of members are present on this day. 

The rules relating to a quorum apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting, so I would think the rules relating to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting as well. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:39 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The rules relating to a quorum apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting, so I would think the rules relating to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting as well. 

I agree.  It's just that the fact that the rule in 37:46 is a rule that can be suspended is more glaringly apparent in this instance.

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:55 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree.  It's just that the fact that the rule in 37:46 is a rule that can be suspended is more glaringly apparent in this instance.

Suspended how, and by what vote? The rule allows any member* (with the help of a seconder if required) to delay the final vote to another day, so wouldn't that member's consent be necessary to suspend the rule? 

*who voted with the prevailing side 

Edited January 16, 2023 at 12:04 AM by Shmuel Gerber
Added asterisk

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 6:39 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't understand how the fact that this is a special meeting is relevant. There could still be members absent who would want the opportunity to affect the result by attending on another day if they knew that an unrepresentative number of members are present on this day. 

The rules relating to a quorum apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting, so I would think the rules relating to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes apply equally to a special meeting as to a regular meeting as well. 

I think that unrepresented members could have a type of absentee right.

I am looking at 25:2 #7. 

Absentees would presume that they, with their attending allies, would have sufficient votes to change the result of the vote.  The rules relating to reconsider and enter onto the minutes protect them, if there more absentees and losing votes than there are winning votes. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

So suspendable or not?  I think not.  Using logic and equity which I know is not explicitly stated (the equity part) in RONR but I fail to see the point of this whole enterprise without at least that as a value not necessarily the top value.

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:09 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

So suspendable or not?  I think not.  Using logic and equity which I know is not explicitly stated (the equity part) in RONR but I fail to see the point of this whole enterprise without at least that as a value not necessarily the top value.

I think it is not suspendable in circumstances where it violates sufficient rights of members to affect the result, but it suspendable in other circumstances. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

On 1/15/2023 at 5:14 PM, J. J. said:

I think it is not suspendable in circumstances where it violates sufficient rights of members to affect the result, but it suspendable in other circumstances. 

That is equitable to me and I would agree.

[J. J.]

Here is what I am looking at, a 19 member board with a quorum of 10.  A majority vote is needed to adopt the main motion.  A motion is made to suspend the rules and prohibit reconsider and enter on the minutes [REM]:

A.  17 yes, 1 no, 1 absent.  The motion to suspend the rules is adopted.  The minority the rule protects is to 2, and 17 is greater than 2 and 2/3 of the vote cast.

B.  8 yes, 4 no, 7 absent.  The motion to suspend the rules is defeated.  The minority the rule protects is 11, and 8 is less than 11.

I think this is how it would work, but I am not sure, and I am open to other ideas.  There are rights for absentees, but it has to be sufficient absentees. 

[Caryn Ann Harlos]

If it is not a sufficient number then there wasn't an "unrepresentative majority" which is what the motion is all about.

[Rob Elsman]

I do not believe the maker obtains a right of an individual member; so, yes, the rules can be suspended, by a two-thirds vote, that interfere with taking up the main motion immediately.

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:02 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I do not believe the maker obtains a right of an individual member; so, yes, the rules can be suspended, by a two-thirds vote, that interfere with taking up the main motion immediately.

I'm not certain where there is taking anything up immediately in the example.

Further, in some examples, no right of an individual member is mentioned (or implied). 

[Rob Elsman]

See Mr. Gerber's reply. Certainly, no fundamental principle of parliamentary law is involved, and I do not see that a basic right of an individual member is involved. The motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes does not protect a minority of one, so a motion to suspend the rules and take up the main motion immediately requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

Edited January 16, 2023 at 01:21 AM by Rob Elsman

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 8:20 PM, Rob Elsman said:

See Mr. Gerber's reply. Certainly, no fundamental principle of parliamentary law is involved, and I do not see that a basic right of an individual member is involved. The motion to reconsider and enter on the minutes does not protect a minority of one, so a motion to suspend the rules and take up the main motion immediately requires a two-thirds vote for adoption.

Ah, a minority of one is not the only requirement for having something other than a 2/3 vote required ti suspend the rules.  See 25:2 #7. 

[Phil D]

Doesn’t 25:13 apply to prevent the temporary majority from nullifying the effect of reconsidering and entering on the minutes? “Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended.”

[Gregory Carlson]

I don't think rules regarding absentees apply in the making of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (REM) assuming the Bylaws were followed and the necessary information was in the call of a Special Meeting.

The standard characteristic number 7 of Suspend the Rules states "In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."  (25:2)

37:51 points out that Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes can be carried out by a defined minority of any two members, (motion made and seconded).  Thus in my opinion, any vote to suspend the rules to disallow REM would fail if 2 or more people voted against the motion to suspend the rules, absentee votes being ignored. 

[J. J.]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:58 PM, Phil D said:

Doesn’t 25:13 apply to prevent the temporary majority from nullifying the effect of reconsidering and entering on the minutes? “Rules that have their application outside of the session which is in progress cannot be suspended.”

The rule itself is applicable within the meeting, only.  It can, in some cases, have an effect outside of the meeting.

On 1/16/2023 at 12:03 AM, Gregory Carlson said:

I don't think rules regarding absentees apply in the making of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (REM) assuming the Bylaws were followed and the necessary information was in the call of a Special Meeting.

The standard characteristic number 7 of Suspend the Rules states "In any case, no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule."  (25:2)

37:51 points out that Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes can be carried out by a defined minority of any two members, (motion made and seconded).  Thus in my opinion, any vote to suspend the rules to disallow REM would fail if 2 or more people voted against the motion to suspend the rules, absentee votes being ignored. 

 Well, wouldn't that be the case with any motion that requires a second?  Further, if the vote was 10 to 9 against, with no absentees, why could REM not be suspended? 

[Gregory Carlson]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:24 PM, J. J. said:

 Well, wouldn't that be the case with any motion that requires a second?  Further, if the vote was 10 to 9 against, with no absentees, why could REM not be suspended? 

What rule would you be trying to suspend?  We might be confusing the making of the motion to REM and its taking up.  I am referring only to the making of the motion, not when it is taken up and treated like the regular motion to reconsider which requires a majority vote.

To make the motion to REM has very special characteristics as pointed out in 37:51 which "give any two members power to hold up action taken by a meeting."  As mentioned in my original post, in my opinion a vote to suspend the specific rule about making the motion to REM  would fail if two or more people voted against it, regardless of how many people voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules, and ignoring abstentions.

[J. J.]

On 1/16/2023 at 12:36 AM, Gregory Carlson said:

What rule would you be trying to suspend?  We might be confusing the making of the motion to REM and its taking up.  I am referring only to the making of the motion, not when it is taken up and treated like the regular motion to reconsider which requires a majority vote.

To make the motion to REM has very special characteristics as pointed out in 37:51 which "give any two members power to hold up action taken by a meeting."  As mentioned in my original post, in my opinion a vote to suspend the specific rule about making the motion to REM  would fail if two or more people voted against it, regardless of how many people voted in favor of the motion to suspend the rules, and ignoring abstentions.

The rule that is being suspended is that REM can be made at this special meeting.  What would be reconsidered is the vote on the noticed motion.

Even with REM's characteristics, I think that if all 19 members are present, 2/3 could suspend the rules and prevent REM from being adopted.  The effect of REM. however, is that it protects the total of all absentees, plus those members voting against suspending the rules in order to prevent REM from being adopted.  

[Gregory Carlson]

On 1/15/2023 at 10:52 PM, J. J. said:

I think that if all 19 members are present

Oh, I was assuming that not all the members were present.  That is interesting if the Chair ruled the motion out of order either because "all of the members were present" or scarily if in the Chair's opinion "the members present at the meeting were representative of the society" followed by the likely appeal.

I could get on board, maybe, of the Chair ruling the motion out of order if all members were present - the Chair could just treat it as the regular motion to reconsider or maybe it would take the two-thirds vote.

However, if even one member was absent, I think the argument could be made that the temporary attendance was not representative (think for example of a 5 person Board with 1 absence).  In this case, I stand by my previous two posts.  I'd add that the minority being protected, as far as Suspend the Rules (25:2#7) is concerned, is not the absentee(s) but rather the minority of two people making the motion to REM on behalf of the absentee(s). 

Finally, because RONR explicitly states ways to prevent REM's abuse, it represents a true acknowledgement that two people really can hold up action by the assembly.  If REM is used repeatedly to improperly delay action, perhaps it is time to ban that motion in the Special Rules of Order, or to require a larger required minority vote to make the motion to REM.

Edited January 16, 2023 at 06:13 AM by Gregory Carlson

[J. J.]

I do not agree that it is a minority of two people.  It exists to protect a more permanent majority (37:26).

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/15/2023 at 7:03 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

Suspended how, and by what vote? The rule allows any member* (with the help of a seconder if required) to delay the final vote to another day, so wouldn't that member's consent be necessary to suspend the rule? 

*who voted with the prevailing side 

The rule being suspended is the rule in 37:46 and 37:47(6) that says that, if a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes has been properly made (and seconded if necessary) it cannot be called up on the day it is made (with one exception).  This rule, if it is a rule that can be suspended at all, is a rule that can be suspended by a two-thirds vote. 

In the instant case, the assumption is that we are concerned with the adoption, at a special meeting, of a motion constituting the business specified in the call of the meeting.  The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that, in such instances, motions to Reconsider are not in order at all. This is for the same reason that affirmative votes on motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted cannot be reconsidered.

[Rob Elsman]

If a main motion has been rejected during a properly called and quorate special session, and new information brought to light during the meeting indicates that it is urgent to do what the main motion proposes, it is my opinion that a motion to Reconsider is in order during the meeting.

For much the same reason, if a main motion has been adopted, and a motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes has been made (and seconded) at the meeting on account of an "unrepresentative" attendance, new information may indicate that it is urgent to do what the main motion proposes. In my opinion, a motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with taking up the main motion immediately is in order (the maker of the motion to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes not being willing to withdraw his motion), the two-thirds vote being sufficient to protect against any misuse by an "unrepresentative" convocation.