Safety of the Members

[Dan Honemann]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't disagree, but at the risk of splitting hairs, let us suppose that the secretary and the chair acted properly and recorded all the necessary information, so no suspension is required; now the minutes have come up for approval.

41:10 says, in relevant part:

…. Corrections, when proposed, are usually handled by unanimous consent (4:58–63), but if any member objects to a proposed correction—which is, in effect, a subsidiary motion to Amend—the usual rules governing consideration of amendments to a main motion are applicable (see 12).

And in 12:7(7) we find:

Requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to adopt the question to be amended. This is true even in cases where adoption of the amendment would result in changing the vote required to adopt the question being amended, as from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote or vice versa….

So a correction offered, essentially as an amendment to the draft minutes, seems to require only a majority vote, even though it might change the vote required to adopt the minutes to two-thirds.  This is considerably complicated by the fact that said vote never occurs; the minutes are simply declared approved.

As I said, I'd oppose any attempt to strike the names of a roll-call vote if I were a member, but the rules aren't as crystal clear as they might be.

 

 

I think it might happen in one of two ways:

1.  The secretary reads the minutes which contain a record of how each member voted. A member moves that the minutes be corrected to delete the record of how each member voted. The chair rules that this motion is not in order because the rules require that this record be included in the minutes. I think it would then be in order for a member to move that the rules be suspended that interfere with the removal of this record from the minutes. This motion is undebatable and requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

2.  The secretary reads the minutes which do not contain a record of how each member voted. A member raises a point of order to the effect that the rules require that such a record be included in the minutes and the chair rules the point of order well taken. I think it would then be in order for a member to move that the rules be suspended that interfere with the assembly's approval of the minutes without the inclusion of this record. This motion is undebatable and requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption

I suppose there are a number of other possible scenarios, but you get the idea.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/4/2023 at 3:13 PM, Dan Honemann said:

I suppose there are a number of other possible scenarios, but you get the idea.

I do.  Thanks, to both you and @Josh Martin, for helping work through the details.  This whole thread was a strange one.

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/4/2023 at 10:18 AM, Josh Martin said:

It would seem simpler to adopt a rule that a motion for a roll call vote is not in order.

The meeting is tomorrow night. What is the proper wording for this motion? If I understood what has been said, the motion would be for a special rule or order, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/15/2023 at 6:26 PM, Wright Stuff said:

The meeting is tomorrow night. What is the proper wording for this motion? If I understood what has been said, the motion would be for a special rule or order, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

Unfortunately, unless your bylaws say otherwise, a Special Rule of Order requires for adoption:

• previous notice and a two-thirds vote; or, 
• a majority of the entire membership.

And you're undoubtedly outside the window of previous notice. So your only option is a majority of the entire membership, even those who are not there.  Besides, if I understand correctly the roll-call vote was already held, so a rule disallowing roll-calls can't undo the past.

If the approval of those minutes is what's coming up tomorrow, then I think the advice that @Dan Honemann gave is probably your best bet, depending how the secretary's draft has been, uh, drafted.

 

 

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/15/2023 at 7:02 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Unfortunately, unless your bylaws say otherwise, a Special Rule of Order requires for adoption:

• previous notice and a two-thirds vote; or, 
• a majority of the entire membership.

And you're undoubtedly outside the window of previous notice. So your only option is a majority of the entire membership, even those who are not there.  Besides, if I understand correctly the roll-call vote was already held, so a rule disallowing roll-calls can't undo the past.

If the approval of those minutes is what's coming up tomorrow, then I think the advice that @Dan Honemann gave is probably your best bet, depending how the secretary's draft has been, uh, drafted.

I'm past the screw up. I'm asking about @Josh Martin's suggestion for a motion for a rule that prospectively prohibits a roll-call vote, which is not appropriate for our organization. ("[A roll-call vote] should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency." (RONR 45:45) It's possible that we will be able to attain a majority vote of the entire membership.

Regarding the "entire membership", hypothetically, if there are ten voting positions, and two of the positions are filled by the same person (one person cannot vote twice), is the entire membership nine or ten? I say nine.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:36 PM, Wright Stuff said:

I'm past the screw up. I'm asking about @Josh Martin's suggestion for a motion for a rule that prospectively prohibits a roll-call vote, which is not appropriate for our organization. ("[A roll-call vote] should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency." (RONR 45:45) It's possible that we will be able to attain a majority vote of the entire membership.

Regarding the "entire membership", hypothetically, if there are ten voting positions, and two of the positions are filled by the same person (one person cannot vote twice), is the entire membership nine or ten? I say nine.

The entire membership of the organization is nine people?

If that's true, then a majority of that number is five.  But if that's the case, how could everyone not already know how everyone has voted, roll call or not?

[Wright Stuff]

On 5/15/2023 at 8:49 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The entire membership of the organization is nine people?

If that's true, then a majority of that number is five.  But if that's the case, how could everyone not already know how everyone has voted, roll call or not?

"hypothetically"

[Josh Martin]

On 5/15/2023 at 5:26 PM, Wright Stuff said:

The meeting is tomorrow night. What is the proper wording for this motion? If I understood what has been said, the motion would be for a special rule or order, and it requires a 2/3 vote to pass.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 7:36 PM, Wright Stuff said:

I'm past the screw up. I'm asking about @Josh Martin's suggestion for a motion for a rule that prospectively prohibits a roll-call vote, which is not appropriate for our organization. ("[A roll-call vote] should not be used in a mass meeting or in any assembly whose members are not responsible to a constituency." (RONR 45:45) It's possible that we will be able to attain a majority vote of the entire membership.

Regarding the "entire membership", hypothetically, if there are ten voting positions, and two of the positions are filled by the same person (one person cannot vote twice), is the entire membership nine or ten? I say nine.

Could you provide greater clarity on the nature of this organization or assembly? Is this some sort of board, given the reference to "ten voting positions" and how two positions are filled by the same person? (Not to mention the size.)

In any event, yes, based on the facts you have presented, the entire membership is nine, so a vote of a majority of the entire membership is five.

[Wright Stuff]

The meeting went off very well. The troublemakers were quite surprised at not only how well we were informed on RONR but also how fair and balanced we were with the bylaws. Thanks to all who replied with helpful suggestions. We're going to have regular sessions to continue learning more about RONR and its application.

 

[Gary Novosielski]

On 5/17/2023 at 12:19 AM, Wright Stuff said:

The meeting went off very well. The troublemakers were quite surprised at not only how well we were informed on RONR but also how fair and balanced we were with the bylaws. Thanks to all who replied with helpful suggestions. We're going to have regular sessions to continue learning more about RONR and its application.

 

That's a practice that always provides dividends.