Who can bring a motion to the floor?

[JTW]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

In my experience, if this is an elected public school board, then the president, as an elected member, has all the rights of any member, including the right to make motions, but as a matter of custom it would be unusual.  The president is often involved in the development of the agenda, if one is used, but the items of business there are often moved by committee chairs, or other members. Also, some school boards, by rule or custom, require seconds for motion, and sometimes record the names of seconders in the minutes.   I'm not sure if these are local or state adopted rules, or simply a case of "we've always done it that way."  

All of the circumstances that you mentioned are indeed the norm at the elected school board which I serve. But the current School Board President insists that they make motions when that is not how our school board has conducted its meetings in the past. But as you and others have informed me, it is allowable in RONR for a President to make motions.

And the motions are seconded, so since it is allowed, there seems to be nothing else for me to address here about that situation.

Thank you very much for the reply, Gary.

Edited February 17, 2023 at 02:58 AM by JTW

[JTW]

On 2/16/2023 at 9:18 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The presiding officer is never the judge and jury of any matter, because of the existence of the motion to Appeal from a decision of the chair.  

I'm sorry for addressing this again, but it is still makes me uneasy that my school board president can preside over a meeting, but can make motions at will without ever having to ask anyone to be given the floor.

The president is also now making motions to adjourn...specifically to preempt board members from speaking during our "Good of the Order" section of the meeting on our approved agenda.

The president states that they will make comments for all board members and not allow other board members to speak. This "Good of the Order" section exists in our bylaws. But since a majority of board members don't challenge the President, the minority of Board Members who have always spoken freely during this section  are not allowed to speak anymore.

"Point of Order" questions are ignored. The Board President opens the "Good of the Order" section of the meeting. Then the President offers their comments, but immediately after their comment, does not close the "Good of the Order" section and swiftly makes a motion to adjourn with the intent of not letting anyone else speak, without the majority challenging what just happened. The board attorney does not entertain questions of an improper motion that seemingly ignores the intent of that section to allow all board members the chance to speak within our bylaws. I'm baffled.

Edited February 21, 2023 at 05:11 AM by JTW

[Atul Kapur]

On 2/21/2023 at 12:08 AM, JTW said:

But since a majority of board members don't challenge the President

There is no 'RONR Police' to come in and enforce the rules―it depends on the members wanting to use them and holding each other to them by the use of Point of Order and Appeal when necessary. You may want to discuss with your colleagues to encourage use of the rules.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/20/2023 at 11:08 PM, JTW said:

The president is also now making motions to adjourn...specifically to preempt board members from speaking during our "Good of the Order" section of the meeting on our approved agenda.

The board is free if it wishes to adjourn the meeting prior to (or even during) the "Good of the Order" section if it wishes to do so. If the board does not wish to adjourn, then members are free to vote against the motion to adjourn.

On 2/20/2023 at 11:08 PM, JTW said:

The president states that they will make comments for all board members and not allow other board members to speak. This "Good of the Order" section exists in our bylaws. But since a majority of board members don't challenge the President, the minority of Board Members who have always spoken freely during this section  are not allowed to speak anymore.

I do not think the fact that the "Good of the Order" section exists in the bylaws means the board is prohibited from adjourning prior to this section if it wishes to do so. Indeed, one imagines that it would not be unusual to occasionally adjourn the meeting prior to this time, especially if the meeting had been especially lengthy before that point. If the organization wishes not to have this section again generally, it may be prudent to amend the bylaws for clarity, but there is ultimately nothing preventing the board, by majority vote, from adjourning early.

On 2/20/2023 at 11:08 PM, JTW said:

"Point of Order" questions are ignored.

That is a very serious problem which the board should address.

On 2/20/2023 at 11:08 PM, JTW said:

The Board President opens the "Good of the Order" section of the meeting. Then the President offers their comments, but immediately after their comment, does not close the "Good of the Order" section and swiftly makes a motion to adjourn with the intent of not letting anyone else speak, without the majority challenging what just happened. The board attorney does not entertain questions of an improper motion that seemingly ignores the intent of that section to allow all board members the chance to speak within our bylaws. I'm baffled.

While I can certainly see why this behavior might be viewed as concerning, especially since it is clarified that the President (and only the President) speaks before making a motion to Adjourn, but this is not an "improper motion." The motion to Adjourn is in order at pretty much any time during a meeting. If members don't want to adjourn, they can vote against the motion. If they want to adjourn, they can vote in favor of it. Majority rules.

I will note that I'm not sure preventing the President from making motions would help anything. Someone else could just make the motion to adjourn.

On 2/20/2023 at 11:59 PM, Atul Kapur said:

There is no 'RONR Police' to come in and enforce the rules―it depends on the members wanting to use them and holding each other to them by the use of Point of Order and Appeal when necessary. You may want to discuss with your colleagues to encourage use of the rules.

I concur with this, but it does not seem to me that any rule is being violated (at least with respect to the motion to Adjourn, which appears to be the principal concern). The President is moving to Adjourn. Such a motion is in order and requires a majority vote for adoption.

The suggestion that the President appears to simply ignore a "Point of Order," on the other hand, does seem to be highly concerning.

Edited February 21, 2023 at 12:44 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

@JTWIf you think you have the votes for it, you can always try for a motion of censure of the president for his actions in attempting to prevent other members from speaking in meetings, particularly during the "For the Good of the Order" portion of meetings. 

[JTW]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:58 PM, Richard Brown said:

@JTWIf you think you have the votes for it, you can always try for a motion of censure of the president for his actions in attempting to prevent other members from speaking in meetings, particularly during the "For the Good of the Order" portion of meetings. 

Yes Richard. I browsed RONR last night to try and find some solution to this President preventing others from speaking during the meetings. Even when some members have the floor, the President cuts them off and tries to stop them from speaking. But these actions are most out-of hand during the "Good of the Order" section.

(Last two meetings in a row)

Pres.: We will now move on to the Good of the Order.

Member: Mr. President, I would to make comments first.

Pres: No, you cannot have the floor because I will make comments for the whole board.

Member: Point of Order. I was not asked if I agreed to this. I will make my own comments.

Pres.: No you will not. Only I am making comments tonight.

Member: Point of Order. Again, there was no discussion of this prior to, or at any time during this meeting. I will make my own comments.

Pres.: I am making comments now. (Proceeds to make comments) 

(After Pres. comments)

Member: Point of Order. I am allowed to make my own comments and I would like to do so now.

Pres.: I am making a Motion to Adjourn. Is there a Second.

Member: Point of Order

Vice President: Second.

Pres.: All in favor

Some members: Yes

Pres.: Meeting Adjourned. Good night.

 

This is my dilemma. Other than a regularly scheduled Superintendent presentation, tha actual meeting portion lasts for only about 30 minutes. So there is no issue concerning a lengthy meeting or running past a predetermined time.

I cannot also seem to find enough votes for censure or removal of the President from presiding over any particular meeting if this occurs again.

Edited February 21, 2023 at 10:34 PM by JTW

[Gary Novosielski]

You've got one more Point of Order due, in that the chair neglected to call for "those opposed"  on the motion to adjourn.

[JTW]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You've got one more Point of Order due, in that the chair neglected to call for "those opposed"  on the motion to adjourn.

That is where the Board Secretary and Attorney have jumped in twice to declare that I cannot raise a Point of Order while a motion is on the table or when the vote to Adjourn has occurred .

Edited February 21, 2023 at 10:39 PM by JTW

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:37 PM, JTW said:

That is where the Board Secretary and Attorney have jumped in twice to declare that I cannot raise a Point of Order while a motion is on the table or when the vote to Adjourn has occurred .

Have they a) explained what rule permits them to "jump in," and b) provided a citation for this claim (the first one at least)?

[JTW]

On 2/21/2023 at 7:27 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Have they a) explained what rule permits them to "jump in," and b) provided a citation for this claim (the first one at least)?

No...no explanation whatsoever. I have:

1) Told the Board Secretary that he reports to the Board and does not have any authority to jump in and try to overrule any of my Points of Order, and

2) Told the Board Attorney that she serves in an advisory role and unless this is a legal issue, she cannot attempt to override my Points of Order either.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/21/2023 at 5:37 PM, JTW said:

That is where the Board Secretary and Attorney have jumped in twice to declare that I cannot raise a Point of Order while a motion is on the table or when the vote to Adjourn has occurred .

That ridiculous.  If the negative vote was not called for, then the vote to Adjourn has not properly occurred. 

And points of order are allowed: when a motion is not pending, when a motion is pending, and may even interrupt someone who has the floor and is in the process of speaking. 

What's not allowed is "jumping in" when someone is raising a point of order. And only the presiding officer may rule on the point.  Furthermore the chair's ruling may be appealed and overruled by a majority vote.  The secretary and attorney are free to have opinions, which they are free to keep to themselves until someone asks.

[JTW]

On 2/22/2023 at 1:49 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

That ridiculous.  If the negative vote was not called for, then the vote to Adjourn has not properly occurred. 

And points of order are allowed: when a motion is not pending, when a motion is pending, and may even interrupt someone who has the floor and is in the process of speaking. 

What's not allowed is "jumping in" when someone is raising a point of order. And only the presiding officer may rule on the point.  Furthermore the chair's ruling may be appealed and overruled by a majority vote.  The secretary and attorney are free to have opinions, which they are free to keep to themselves until someone asks.

Thanks. I am still trying to figure out how to handle all of them.

I appreciate the responses from everyone.

Edited February 22, 2023 at 12:21 PM by JTW

[Josh Martin]

On 2/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, JTW said:

I browsed RONR last night to try and find some solution to this President preventing others from speaking during the meetings. Even when some members have the floor, the President cuts them off and tries to stop them from speaking

Thank you for this clarification. That is a very serious concern. The President cannot simply interrupt others and try to stop them from speaking, except for very specific reasons (such as calling the member to order, for instance).

On 2/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, JTW said:

(Last two meetings in a row)

Pres.: We will now move on to the Good of the Order.

Member: Mr. President, I would to make comments first.

Pres: No, you cannot have the floor because I will make comments for the whole board.

Member: Point of Order. I was not asked if I agreed to this. I will make my own comments.

Pres.: No you will not. Only I am making comments tonight.

Member: Point of Order. Again, there was no discussion of this prior to, or at any time during this meeting. I will make my own comments.

Pres.: I am making comments now. (Proceeds to make comments) 

I agree that the President acted improperly in this instance, for the following reasons:

1.) The President refused to recognize a member who had properly sought recognition, apparently for no other reason than that the President wanted to speak first.

2.) The President failed to actually rule on either of the Points of Order. The proper course of action is for the President to rule the point "well taken" (meaning the chair agrees) or "not well taken" (meaning the chair disagrees) and explaining the chair's reasoning for this ruling. The chair did not make a clear ruling in either case (although a "not well taken" ruling seems implied) and the chair certainly did not explain the reasoning.

I will note, however, that the member did not act properly either. The proper means by which a member raises a Point of Order is to simply say "Point of Order" or "I rise to a Point of Order." The chair would recognize the member, and the member would then state his point. In the facts presented, the member was speaking without recognition in each instance that he spoke on the Point of Order.

You may wish to review RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15 for information on "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting." Ultimately, however, you will need at least a majority on your side to pull off those tools, and a 2/3 vote for some of them.

On 2/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, JTW said:

(After Pres. comments)

Member: Point of Order. I am allowed to make my own comments and I would like to do so now.

Pres.: I am making a Motion to Adjourn. Is there a Second.

Member: Point of Order

Vice President: Second.

Pres.: All in favor

Some members: Yes

Pres.: Meeting Adjourned. Good night.

The President again acted improperly in ignoring the two Points of Order. (Indeed, in this case, it appears they were completely ignored, rather than just handled poorly, as in the previous case.) As noted above, the member did not act properly on the first Point of Order. In addition, I do not think the first Point of Order really was a proper Point of Order, since no violation of the rules was occurring at that time. The member should have first sought recognition to speak again and, if the chair had then ignored the member, it would have then been appropriate to raise a Point of Order regarding that.

In addition, it is not proper to make a motion to Adjourn while a member has already sought recognition. It's generally "first come, first serve" for recognition. While there are some exceptions, a member cannot seek preference in recognition for purposes of seeking to move to Adjourn.

As previously noted, however, it does not violate any rule for the board to adjourn before all board members have had an opportunity to speak. If the President (or someone else) had moved to Adjourn before the member sought recognition (or if the member spoke, and then they moved to adjourn after that speech, but before other members sought recognition), no rule in RONR would be violated.

Finally, I would note that the chair should have also called for the negative vote on the motion to adjourn before declaring the result of the vote.

On 2/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, JTW said:

This is my dilemma. Other than a regularly scheduled Superintendent presentation, tha actual meeting portion lasts for only about 30 minutes. So there is no issue concerning a lengthy meeting or running past a predetermined time.

Okay. These facts may well be relevant to the assembly's members in determining whether they wish to adjourn, but the motion to adjourn is still in order.

On 2/21/2023 at 4:26 PM, JTW said:

I cannot also seem to find enough votes for censure or removal of the President from presiding over any particular meeting if this occurs again.

Well, then you won't be able to do these things. Majority rules. If the board doesn't have a problem with the President's behavior, you won't be able to do anything about it. So you'll have to work on that.

I would add that if the board wishes to get rid of "Good of the Order" and replace it with "President's Comments," perhaps the board should amend the bylaws to make that change, so that board members at least know ahead of time that they will not have an opportunity to make comments.

On 2/21/2023 at 4:37 PM, JTW said:

That is where the Board Secretary and Attorney have jumped in twice to declare that I cannot raise a Point of Order while a motion is on the table or when the vote to Adjourn has occurred .

They are both wrong.

"A Point of Order:

1. Takes precedence over any pending question out of which it may arise...

3. Is in order when another has the floor, even interrupting a person speaking or reading a report if the point genuinely requires attention at such a time (see Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order, 23:5)." RONR (12th ed.) 23:2

Edited February 22, 2023 at 01:21 PM by Josh Martin

[Richard Brown]

@JTWI suggest that you send a link to this discussion to the president, the attorney, and perhaps other members, maybe even to all members.

[JTW]

On 2/22/2023 at 9:45 AM, Richard Brown said:

@JTWI suggest that you send a link to this discussion to the president, the attorney, and perhaps other members, maybe even to all members.

Thank you very much Richard.

[JTW]

On 2/22/2023 at 8:19 AM, Josh Martin said:

Thank you for this clarification. That is a very serious concern. The President cannot simply interrupt others and try to stop them from speaking, except for very specific reasons (such as calling the member to order, for instance).

I agree that the President acted improperly in this instance, for the following reasons:

1.) The President refused to recognize a member who had properly sought recognition, apparently for no other reason than that the President wanted to speak first.

2.) The President failed to actually rule on either of the Points of Order. The proper course of action is for the President to rule the point "well taken" (meaning the chair agrees) or "not well taken" (meaning the chair disagrees) and explaining the chair's reasoning for this ruling. The chair did not make a clear ruling in either case (although a "not well taken" ruling seems implied) and the chair certainly did not explain the reasoning.

I will note, however, that the member did not act properly either. The proper means by which a member raises a Point of Order is to simply say "Point of Order" or "I rise to a Point of Order." The chair would recognize the member, and the member would then state his point. In the facts presented, the member was speaking without recognition in each instance that he spoke on the Point of Order.

You may wish to review RONR (12th ed.) 62:2-15 for information on "Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting." Ultimately, however, you will need at least a majority on your side to pull off those tools, and a 2/3 vote for some of them.

The President again acted improperly in ignoring the two Points of Order. (Indeed, in this case, it appears they were completely ignored, rather than just handled poorly, as in the previous case.) As noted above, the member did not act properly on the first Point of Order. In addition, I do not think the first Point of Order really was a proper Point of Order, since no violation of the rules was occurring at that time. The member should have first sought recognition to speak again and, if the chair had then ignored the member, it would have then been appropriate to raise a Point of Order regarding that.

In addition, it is not proper to make a motion to Adjourn while a member has already sought recognition. It's generally "first come, first serve" for recognition. While there are some exceptions, a member cannot seek preference in recognition for purposes of seeking to move to Adjourn.

As previously noted, however, it does not violate any rule for the board to adjourn before all board members have had an opportunity to speak. If the President (or someone else) had moved to Adjourn before the member sought recognition (or if the member spoke, and then they moved to adjourn after that speech, but before other members sought recognition), no rule in RONR would be violated.

Finally, I would note that the chair should have also called for the negative vote on the motion to adjourn before declaring the result of the vote.

Okay. These facts may well be relevant to the assembly's members in determining whether they wish to adjourn, but the motion to adjourn is still in order.

Well, then you won't be able to do these things. Majority rules. If the board doesn't have a problem with the President's behavior, you won't be able to do anything about it. So you'll have to work on that.

I would add that if the board wishes to get rid of "Good of the Order" and replace it with "President's Comments," perhaps the board should amend the bylaws to make that change, so that board members at least know ahead of time that they will not have an opportunity to make comments.

They are both wrong.

"A Point of Order:

1. Takes precedence over any pending question out of which it may arise...

3. Is in order when another has the floor, even interrupting a person speaking or reading a report if the point genuinely requires attention at such a time (see Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order, 23:5)." RONR (12th ed.) 23:2

Thank you Josh.