Chair tries to give speech before meeting

[RLE56]

Our "United" Methodist Church is about to have a large, contentious meeting (a disaffiliation vote).  The meeting notice specifies that the only business at the meeting is to vote on disaffiliation (which I presume will be raised as a main motion).  The meeting will be chaired by the district superintendent (DS) who has no voting rights.

I believe that the DS is planning to speak about the motion, giving the "leadership" point of view, not to disaffiliate.  He also plans to prevent anyone else from speaking or debating.

If he tries to speak after calling the meeting to order but before a motion is made, that's pretty easy to handle: make a point of order that there is no motion on the floor, hence no discussion permitted, covered elsewhere in this forum.  But, what if the DS is RONR saavy and tries to make a speech at the appointed meeting time, before calling the meeting to order? Short of simply saying "the meeting hasn't been called to order" and having loud (and perceived as rude) conversations, is there any procedure to deal with this?

As far as his desire for no debate: what if he simply states the question, waits 10 seconds politely, then calls the question (seeing no debate)? Or worse, doesn't wait at all? Is there any requirement that he actually call on the person who made the motion, or state in any way that the floor is open for debate? I'd much rather raise a point that he didn't follow some particular procedure rather than raising a point that he didn't wait long enough, which is nebulous.

If the floor does open, may the DS talk as a non-member?

And, my understanding that the proper way to forbid or close discussion is to make a Previous Question motion, 2/3 vote required. (That may not be hard to get from a congregation who simply wants to get on with voting.)

I'm in the North Georgia conference where a judge has already slapped the DS's and the bishop for not following procedure, but they are still playing games, so I want to be prepared.

Thanks,

Rob

[George Mervosh]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

Our "United" Methodist Church is about to have a large, contentious meeting (a disaffiliation vote).  The meeting notice specifies that the only business at the meeting is to vote on disaffiliation (which I presume will be raised as a main motion).  The meeting will be chaired by the district superintendent (DS) who has no voting rights.

I believe that the DS is planning to speak about the motion, giving the "leadership" point of view, not to disaffiliate.  He also plans to prevent anyone else from speaking or debating.

If he tries to speak after calling the meeting to order but before a motion is made, that's pretty easy to handle: make a point of order that there is no motion on the floor, hence no discussion permitted, covered elsewhere in this forum.  But, what if the DS is RONR saavy and tries to make a speech at the appointed meeting time, before calling the meeting to order? Short of simply saying "the meeting hasn't been called to order" and having loud (and perceived as rude) conversations, is there any procedure to deal with this?

As far as his desire for no debate: what if he simply states the question, waits 10 seconds politely, then calls the question (seeing no debate)? Or worse, doesn't wait at all? Is there any requirement that he actually call on the person who made the motion, or state in any way that the floor is open for debate? I'd much rather raise a point that he didn't follow some particular procedure rather than raising a point that he didn't wait long enough, which is nebulous.

If the floor does open, may the DS talk as a non-member?

And, my understanding that the proper way to forbid or close discussion is to make a Previous Question motion, 2/3 vote required. (That may not be hard to get from a congregation who simply wants to get on with voting.)

I'm in the North Georgia conference where a judge has already slapped the DS's and the bishop for not following procedure, but they are still playing games, so I want to be prepared.

Thanks,

Rob

This is a bit long but just a few points:

1) The procedural rules in RONR are not applicable prior to the meeting being called to order.

2) On a debatable motion, the chair must recognize the member who made the motion if that member desires to speak to it.  See RONR (12th ed.), 42:9.

3) A non-member presiding officer has no right to speak in debate on a main motion that is before the assembly. It will require a suspension of the rules by a 2/3 vote for that to be permitted.  See RONR (12th ed.), 25:9 n7.

If he becomes a huge problem while presiding, a majority vote is all that is required to declare the chair vacant and elect a new chairman. See RONR (12th ed.), 62:10-11 and n4.

[RLE56]

Thanks, George.

Unfortunately, removing the DS as a chair isn't an option as the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD) prevails:  "The district superintendent shall preside at the meetings of the charge [church] conference or may designate an elder to preside." Fortunately, not much else in the BOD interferes with RONR.

As for debate on the motion, I could certainly raise a point of order that the DS didn't call on the motion-maker. In raising the point I could also make the right to debate clear to anyone listening.

I'm also going to have to face "if you're late to the meeting (arrive after call to order) you can't vote." That was stated in the meeting notice. Fortunately, RONR is clear on that one.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/8/2023 at 5:58 PM, RLE56 said:

Unfortunately, removing the DS as a chair isn't an option as the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD) prevails:  "The district superintendent shall preside at the meetings of the charge [church] conference or may designate an elder to preside." Fortunately, not much else in the BOD interferes with RONR.

Don't be too sure:

You can still do it but it would take a 2/3 vote. Such a provision is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and can be suspended by a 2/3 vote.

See  62:12n5

 

[Josh Martin]

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

But, what if the DS is RONR saavy and tries to make a speech at the appointed meeting time, before calling the meeting to order? Short of simply saying "the meeting hasn't been called to order" and having loud (and perceived as rude) conversations, is there any procedure to deal with this?

Prior to the meeting being called to order, the assembly is not in session, so there is no procedure to deal with this. The rules in RONR are not applicable outside of a meeting. Nothing in RONR would prevent the District Superintendent (or anyone else) from making speeches outside of a meeting.

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

As far as his desire for no debate: what if he simply states the question, waits 10 seconds politely, then calls the question (seeing no debate)? Or worse, doesn't wait at all?

A member should first seek recognition to speak in debate. If the chair then calls for the vote notwithstanding this, a member should raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

Is there any requirement that he actually call on the person who made the motion, or state in any way that the floor is open for debate?

The chair is not required to automatically call on the motion maker, although it is customary in many assemblies to ask if the motion maker wishes to speak in debate. Strictly speaking, however, the motion maker, while having preference in recognition (that is, he has the right to speak first), is required to seek recognition to speak in debate, the same as anyone else.

The chair is required, before putting a debatable question to a vote, to say something to the effect of "Are you ready for the question?" or "Is there any debate?" Even if the chair fails to do so, however, members who wish to speak in debate can and should seek recognition.

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

If the floor does open, may the DS talk as a non-member?

No, for two reasons.

• The chair of a large assembly, whether a member or not, must avoid speaking in debate in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality. In order to speak in debate, the chair would relinquish the chair to another person to preside.
• In addition, as a non-member, a nonmember has no right to speak in debate. So the DS would not have a right to speak on this matter even if he relinquished the chair to another person.
• The assembly could, if it wished, suspend the rules to permit a nonmember to speak in debate, by a 2/3 vote.

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

And, my understanding that the proper way to forbid or close discussion is to make a Previous Question motion, 2/3 vote required.

Yes, this is correct.

On 9/8/2023 at 5:58 PM, RLE56 said:

Unfortunately, removing the DS as a chair isn't an option as the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD) prevails:  "The district superintendent shall preside at the meetings of the charge [church] conference or may designate an elder to preside." Fortunately, not much else in the BOD interferes with RONR.

Actually, removing the DS from the chair is still an option under such circumstances. It's just that it would require a 2/3 vote to do so, rather than a majority. The rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended.

Edited September 9, 2023 at 11:47 AM by Josh Martin

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/8/2023 at 5:58 PM, RLE56 said:

I'm also going to have to face "if you're late to the meeting (arrive after call to order) you can't vote." That was stated in the meeting notice. Fortunately, RONR is clear on that one.

I think an argument could be made that this makes the meeting improperly called.  If someone was running late and then turned around and went home because of a mistaken believe that they would not be permitted to vote anyway, that's a problem.

[RLE56]

 

On 9/9/2023 at 11:20 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think an argument could be made that this makes the meeting improperly called.  If someone was running late and then turned around and went home because of a mistaken believe that they would not be permitted to vote anyway, that's a problem.

Yep, I pointed that exact scenario out.

On 9/9/2023 at 7:45 AM, Josh Martin said:

Prior to the meeting being called to order, the assembly is not in session, so there is no procedure to deal with this. The rules in RONR are not applicable outside of a meeting. Nothing in RONR would prevent the District Superintendent (or anyone else) from making speeches outside of a meeting.

A member should first seek recognition to speak in debate. If the chair then calls for the vote notwithstanding this, a member should raise a Point of Order, followed by an Appeal if necessary.

The chair is not required to automatically call on the motion maker, although it is customary in many assemblies to ask if the motion maker wishes to speak in debate. Strictly speaking, however, the motion maker, while having preference in recognition (that is, he has the right to speak first), is required to seek recognition to speak in debate, the same as anyone else.

The chair is required, before putting a debatable question to a vote, to say something to the effect of "Are you ready for the question?" or "Is there any debate?" Even if the chair fails to do so, however, members who wish to speak in debate can and should seek recognition.

No, for two reasons.

• The chair of a large assembly, whether a member or not, must avoid speaking in debate in order to preserve the appearance of impartiality. In order to speak in debate, the chair would relinquish the chair to another person to preside.
• In addition, as a non-member, a nonmember has no right to speak in debate. So the DS would not have a right to speak on this matter even if he relinquished the chair to another person.
• The assembly could, if it wished, suspend the rules to permit a nonmember to speak in debate, by a 2/3 vote.

Yes, this is correct.

Actually, removing the DS from the chair is still an option under such circumstances. It's just that it would require a 2/3 vote to do so, rather than a majority. The rule in question is in the nature of a rule of order and may be suspended.

Removing the DS could let the meeting proceed, but then the motion would be pointless. The ultimate vote requires that the DS be the chair. Plain english version of the UMC BOD rule: "You can vote to disaffiliate, but with the condition that the DS chair the meeting."

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm sure that's not a quote, although you've put it in quotation marks. That's your interpretation of the rule which in my opinion is not a correct one.

It's clear that any rule that says so-and-so always presides is in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended.  Once the presiding officer is replaced, why would that affect the motion to disaffiliate?  It is the language of the rule that matters, not someone's "plain English" paraphrase of it.

[RLE56]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:37 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm sure that's not a quote, although you've put it in quotation marks. That's your interpretation of the rule which in my opinion is not a correct one.

It's clear that any rule that says so-and-so always presides is in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended.  Once the presiding officer is replaced, why would that affect the motion to disaffiliate?  It is the language of the rule that matters, not someone's "plain English" paraphrase of it.

Yeah, I wasn't bothering quoting, sorry for the quote marks.  We could absolutely make the motion, but if passed, the motion has to be accepted and ratified by the conference, and their rule is that the DS has to preside. We are not in a position to change that rule.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:50 AM, RLE56 said:

Yeah, I wasn't bothering quoting, sorry for the quote marks.  We could absolutely make the motion, but if passed, the motion has to be accepted and ratified by the conference, and their rule is that the DS has to preside. We are not in a position to change that rule.

And I'm saying that such a rule is a rule of order and is suspendible.  You are not in a position to change the rule, but you are in a perfectly cromulent position to suspend it.

However, since I am not a member, my opinion is barely worth the recycled electrons it is printed on.  Good luck with your quest.

[RLE56]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:53 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And I'm saying that such a rule is a rule of order and is suspendible.  You are not in a position to change the rule, but you are in a perfectly cromulent position to suspend it.

However, since I am not a member, my opinion is barely worth the recycled electrons it is printed on.  Good luck with your quest.

Thanks Gary.  I appreciate the inputs (and reading your inputs on other posts)! Yep, we can suspend the rule at OUR meeting, but that would simply mean that the conference would refuse to ratify our motion at THEIR meeting.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/9/2023 at 11:20 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

I think an argument could be made that this makes the meeting improperly called.  If someone was running late and then turned around and went home because of a mistaken believe that they would not be permitted to vote anyway, that's a problem.

I do not concur that this erroneous information in the call would make the meeting improperly called, at least as a parliamentary matter. But given the nature of the issue, I do think it would be prudent to seek legal counsel on this question, and also concerning this matter generally.

Certainly, there is no doubt that this statement is not enforceable. Unless otherwise provided in the bylaws, members have a right to vote if they are present at the time the vote is taken.

On 9/9/2023 at 11:25 AM, RLE56 said:

Removing the DS could let the meeting proceed, but then the motion would be pointless. The ultimate vote requires that the DS be the chair. Plain english version of the UMC BOD rule: "You can vote to disaffiliate, but with the condition that the DS chair the meeting."

This all sounds rather ridiculous to me, but to the extent this is correct, I suppose I would simply advise thoroughly reading the following sections of RONR in order to be prepared to overrule any incorrect rulings made by the DS, in the unfortunate event he "cannot" be removed from the chair.

• Section 23: Point of Order
• Section 24: Appeal
• 62:2-9: Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting

I also note you say the ultimate vote requires that the DS be the chair. You say this is a paraphrase, so I'm not sure how literally I should interpret this. But taken literally, it would seem the DS could be removed from the chair for the bulk of the meeting, and put back in as chair just prior to taking the final vote on the main motion.

On 9/9/2023 at 11:53 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And I'm saying that such a rule is a rule of order and is suspendible.  You are not in a position to change the rule, but you are in a perfectly cromulent position to suspend it.

However, since I am not a member, my opinion is barely worth the recycled electrons it is printed on.  Good luck with your quest.

Mr. Novosielski, as I understand what the OP is saying, the problem is that this is a rule imposed upon the assembly not by the organization's own bylaws, but by the bylaws of a superior organization. Further, it seems from the facts presented that the rule is intended for the explicit purpose of preventing the assembly from doing exactly what we are discussing. Assuming all of this is correct, I think it may be that the correct interpretation is that the rule cannot be suspended.

Additionally, the OP appears to suggest that the vote to disaffiliate must subsequently be confirmed by the superior organization, and that if the DS is removed from the chair, the superior organization will refuse to do so.

This all seems rather complicated, and a complete answer to the OP's questions appear to require a thorough reading of the rules of this organization and the parent organization, and possibly also applicable law. I think it would be prudent for the organization to seek assistance from a professional parliamentarian, an attorney, or both.

[Drake Savory]

Question:  Suppose the call to the meeting says it starts at 8pm.  At 8pm the DS stands and begins his speech without calling the meeting to order.  Is there anyway the assembly can call the meeting to order themselves at the appointed time?  I assume a Point of Order wouldn't work since the meeting hasn't started.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/10/2023 at 8:31 AM, Drake Savory said:

Is there anyway the assembly can call the meeting to order themselves at the appointed time?

Theoretically, I suppose a member could call the meeting to order themselves, and then subsequently raise a Point of Order (followed by an Appeal), although I am skeptical of this strategy in these particular circumstances as both a parliamentary and practical matter, since the regular presiding officer is present, most assemblies permit some latitude with regard to calling a meeting to order exactly on time, and members of most assemblies will have no idea what is going on if a member attempts this.

The DS could also avoid this problem by simply making the speech a few minutes before the scheduled time of the meeting.

On 9/10/2023 at 8:31 AM, Drake Savory said:

I assume a Point of Order wouldn't work since the meeting hasn't started.

Correct. A Point of Order cannot be raised outside of a meeting.

Edited September 10, 2023 at 05:21 PM by Josh Martin

[RLE56]

Thanks everyone.  At a church meeting where basically nobody is familiar with RONR, the practical aspect will rule unless the RONR argument is ironclad.  It would almost need to say "If a Methodist DS tries to...." for anybody to pay attention. And nobody wants to litigate this after the fact.

This is even more of a powderkeg than I said.  The conference already forbid certain speakers from addressing the church in any way -- basically those speakers who disagree with the conference.  They also have made it clear that they would retaliate by moving pastors around if there was even a vote on disaffiliation.  So, any point of order raised needs to be ironclad.

This is being repeated in about 7,000 Methodist churches across the country.  Sigh.

[Drake Savory]

Is this meeting being run under RONR?  It sounds almost like for this ad-hoc meeting/vote that you are using the Church's rules.  Is there any document saying you use RONR or is that an assumption you are making?

[RLE56]

This is a church conference called under Section 248 of the Methodist book of discipline (BOD).  Nothing in the BOD requires Roberts rules, but basically every conference has adopted them. The central methodist church even adresses the fact that different conferences use different versions, which affects how abstentions are counted, see https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-is-the-umc-really-part-11

You are right, however, that somebody may say "this is just a vote, not a meeting, and RONR doesn't apply." I'm working outside the meeting to ensure that nobody tries to pull that.

[Drake Savory]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:22 PM, RLE56 said:

The central methodist church even adresses the fact that different conferences use different versions, which affects how abstentions are counted,

That has nothing to do with different versions of RONR.  It deals with if the vote threshold is a majority vote or a majority of the membership.  And an abstention is never counted but the number of "aye" votes may change thus an abstention has the effect of a "no" vote.

100 members.  45 vote aye.  30 vote no.  25 abstain

Majority: More ayes than nos.  Motion passes.

Majority of the membership: 51 ayes needed.  Motion fails by 6 votes.  

Quote

The current 12th edition specifies that when there are voting requirements based on the number of members present (as in this case), an abstention can function as a negative vote. This is because in these instances, per Robert's (12th Edition), the total number of votes to be counted is based on the total number of eligible voters (professing members) present at the meeting at the time of the vote. However, in Robert's Rules of Order in Plain English, and in several previous versions of Robert's Rules, a vote to abstain is simply not counted as a vote at all.

I'm assuming one of our parliamentarian historians can tell us which edition was the first where a majority of the membership is a voting threshold because I'm pretty sure it was in my copy of the 11th edition.  I just looked up the 4th edition and that threshold is not there.  Re-reading this a few times the author is right but completely misunderstands what's going on and as such misleads the reader.

As a further example of the author having no clue on RONR voting and where they get it wrong

Quote

Similarly, let us say out of 100 one hundred professing members present, 59 ballots are marked in favor of the motion to disaffiliate, 30 ballots are marked against, and 11 are left blank or marked as abstentions. The total of ballots cast is 89. Sixty votes are still needed to reach a 2/3 majority to pass the motion. The motion fails.

Quote

In the case where the 12th edition is being followed, however, the outcomes would be different.

In the first case (60 ballots for, 30 against, 10 abstentions), the total number of ballots to be considered is 100. This requires 67 votes to reach the 2/3 majority required to pass the motion. The motion fails. For the same reason, the motion also fails in the second instance (67 votes are still required). 

Nope.  Abstaining has never counted as a no vote when 2/3 are needed.  If twice as many vote aye than no and so the first example is correct in that it meets the 2/3 threshold.  Analysis of the second vote is completely wrong unless the association has some special rule requiring that vote to have 2/3 of the membership voting in the affirmative but there is no motion in RONR requiring that.

So here is the payoff question: what will your vote require?

Quote

Paragraph 2553.3 states “The decision to disaffiliate from The United Methodist Church must be approved by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the professing members of the local church present at the church conference.”

A two-thirds vote would NOT count abstentions at all.  A two-thirds vote of the membership attending would have abstentions have the effect of a no vote.  The way this is written, it is the first and not the latter.  If out of 100 attending 50 vote for disaffiliation, 20 vote against affiliation and 30 abstain then the disaffiliation passes.  However I suspect given the guidance of your link, the DS would say it failed.

Edited September 10, 2023 at 07:14 PM by Drake Savory

[Rob Elsman]

How are other, similar meetings chaired by the DS commenced? Is it the general practice for the DS to deliver an opening allocution at such meetings by virtue of his supervisory office? How have other congregations facing the same situation proceeded? How did they know how to proceed?

My suspicion is that the norms and practices of the UMC will be the operative norms and practices for this meeting, too—not so much what RONR (12th ed.) has to say.

[Josh Martin]

On 9/10/2023 at 12:49 PM, RLE56 said:

Thanks everyone.  At a church meeting where basically nobody is familiar with RONR, the practical aspect will rule unless the RONR argument is ironclad.  It would almost need to say "If a Methodist DS tries to...." for anybody to pay attention. And nobody wants to litigate this after the fact.

This is even more of a powderkeg than I said.  The conference already forbid certain speakers from addressing the church in any way -- basically those speakers who disagree with the conference.  They also have made it clear that they would retaliate by moving pastors around if there was even a vote on disaffiliation.  So, any point of order raised needs to be ironclad.

This is being repeated in about 7,000 Methodist churches across the country.  Sigh.

Based upon these additional facts, I must reiterate again my advice, in the strongest possible terms, that the organization is best served by retaining a professional parliamentarian, an attorney, or both, in order to thoroughly review the organization’s rules and applicable law on this matter. While this forum contains many experienced parliamentarians, we can only provide general, informal advice in response to the limited information we have available, and it is not a substitute for a thorough review by a professional parliamentarian, and is certainly not a substitute for legal advice.

On 9/10/2023 at 1:22 PM, RLE56 said:

The central methodist church even adresses the fact that different conferences use different versions, which affects how abstentions are counted

While I do not attempt to comment here on the UMC’s interpretation of its own rules, their advice with regard to RONR is incorrect. The manner in which abstentions are counted is identical regardless of what version of RONR is used, so long as it is an official edition of RONR. (The “Plain English” version being referred to is a third party knockoff.)

If a vote of 2/3 of the members present is required, as the UMC states that its rules require, an abstention will have the same effect as a “no” vote. This is the case regardless of the edition consulted. Further, the only edition which should be consulted is the 12th edition, unless the organization’s rules specifically provide otherwise.

Edited September 10, 2023 at 08:40 PM by Josh Martin