Special rule at a special meeting

[J. J.]

The society has a special meeting; special meetings are authorized in the bylaws.  More than a quorum is present; in fact more than 90% of the entire is present, but there are absentees.  RONR 12 ed. is the parliamentary authority established.

A special meeting is called to consider items A, B, and C; proper notice is given for these items only.

First situation:

At the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted.  He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes."

1. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order?  (Note:  It will deal with the conduct of such business within this meeting, but it will do so beyond the special meeting as well.)

2.  If the answer to Question 1 is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice?

Second situation: 

the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted.  He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

3. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order? 

4.  If the answer to Question 3 is yes, and the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted?

5.  If the answer to Question 4is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice?

 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, J. J. said:

The society has a special meeting; special meetings are authorized in the bylaws.  More than a quorum is present; in fact more than 90% of the entire is present, but there are absentees.  RONR 12 ed. is the parliamentary authority established.

A special meeting is called to consider items A, B, and C; proper notice is given for these items only.

First situation:

At the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted.  He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes."

1. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order?  (Note:  It will deal with the conduct of such business within this meeting, but it will do so beyond the special meeting as well.)

2.  If the answer to Question 1 is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice?

Second situation: 

the meeting, while A is being considered, a member moves to lay it on the table, which is adopted.  He then moves the adoption of the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

3. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order? 

4.  If the answer to Question 3 is yes, and the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted?

5.  If the answer to Question 4is no, but the motion is adopted by a majority of the entire membership, but by less than a 2/3 vote, may a point of order be raised at the next regular meeting that the adoption of the rule is null and void due to lack of notice?

 

The answer to question 1 is no, assuming that this motion to create a special rule of order is not the business described in B or C.

The answer to question 2 is yes, assuming some attempt is made to enforce the rule at the next regular meeting.

The answer to question 3 is yes.  Such a motion is referred to in 15:4.

The answer to questions 4 and 5 is no. 

[J. J.]

On 1/10/2024 at 10:23 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The answer to question 1 is no, assuming that this motion to create a special rule of order is not the business described in B or C.

The answer to question 2 is yes, assuming some attempt is made to enforce the rule at the next regular meeting.

The answer to question 3 is yes.  Such a motion is referred to in 15:4.

The answer to questions 4 and 5 is no. 

Why is the answer to Question 4 no? 

I will add that the special rule is not item B or C.

I'll add a question, Question 6. 

At a regular meeting of the society, with the same people present, a member moves the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

Question 6.  If the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted?

Edited January 10, 2024 at 04:35 PM by J. J.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/10/2024 at 11:22 AM, J. J. said:

Why is the answer to Question 4 no? 

I will add that the special rule is not item B or C.

I'll add a question, Question 6. 

At a regular meeting of the society, with the same people present, a member moves the following incidental main motion,  "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

Question 6.  If the motion receives a vote of a majority of the entire membership, but less than a 2/3 vote, is the motion adopted?

The answer to 4 and new question 6 are both no because, as indicated in 15:4 and 15:5(7), they both constitute a suspension of the rules.

[J. J.]

On 1/10/2024 at 3:43 PM, Dan Honemann said:

The answer to 4 and new question 6 are both no because, as indicated in 15:4 and 15:5(7), they both constitute a suspension of the rules.

Then why would the answer to Question 3 be yes.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/10/2024 at 4:21 PM, J. J. said:

Then why would the answer to Question 3 be yes.

Question 3 is an entirely different question, having nothing to do with the vote required for adoption. 

[J. J.]

On 1/10/2024 at 4:37 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Question 3 is an entirely different question, having nothing to do with the vote required for adoption. 

Why does the vote total make a difference? 

 

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, J. J. said:

3. Is the motion to adopt the special rule in order? 

Well, it's actually a motion to Limit Debate, rather than a special rule, but it is in order. See Mr. Honemann's reference to §15.

[J. J.]

On 1/10/2024 at 11:19 PM, Atul Kapur said:

Well, it's actually a motion to Limit Debate, rather than a special rule, but it is in order. See Mr. Honemann's reference to §15.

A special rule could do that, however.

I have no doubt that an incidental main motion to limit debate for the special meeting would be in order. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/10/2024 at 11:23 PM, J. J. said:

A special rule could do that, however.

I have no doubt that an incidental main motion to limit debate for the special meeting would be in order. 

In the first situation you described (Questions 1 and 2), the motion which was made and adopted was a motion to create a special rule of order. This motion was not in order because it was not business mentioned in the call of the special meeting. Its purported adoption was null and void, since it violated a rule protecting absentees, thus creating a continuing breach (see 23:6(d)).

In your second situation (Questions 3-5), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

In your third situation (Question 6), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 6:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

In the first situation you described (Questions 1 and 2), the motion which was made and adopted was a motion to create a special rule of order. This motion was not in order because it was not business mentioned in the call of the special meeting. Its purported adoption was null and void, since it violated a rule protecting absentees, thus creating a continuing breach (see 23:6(d)).

In your second situation (Questions 3-5), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

In your third situation (Question 6), the motion which was made does not propose the creation of a special rule of order. It proposes only the creation of a rule described in 15:4, which requires a two-thirds vote for its adoption.

3-5 does create a special rule of order.  It is, "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

Perhaps the chair should state it as suspension of the rules, but as made it is clearly a motion to adopt a special rule. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:14 AM, J. J. said:

3-5 does create a special rule of order.  It is, "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

Perhaps the chair should state it as suspension of the rules, but as made it is clearly a motion to adopt a special rule. 

This is incorrect. A special rule of order is a rule which continues in effect from session to session (8:14).

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 8:36 AM, Dan Honemann said:

This is incorrect. A special rule of order is a rule which continues in effect from session to session (8:14).

That is how the motion is stated.  That may be incorrect, but if so, the chair should rule it out of order. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:03 AM, J. J. said:

That is how the motion is stated.  That may be incorrect, but if so, the chair should rule it out of order. 

Rather than rule it out of order, I think it would make much more sense for the chair to treat it as a motion described in 15:4, which is what it really is.  

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:30 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Rather than rule it out of order, I think it would make much more sense for the chair to treat it as a motion described in 15:4, which is what it really is.  

The chair could require it to be restated as a motion that is in order under 15:4.  There are substantive differences between a motion to suspend the rules and a motion to adopt a special rule of order, one of which is the vote needed.

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:42 AM, J. J. said:

The chair could require it to be restated as a motion that is in order under 15:4.  There are substantive differences between a motion to suspend the rules and a motion to adopt a special rule of order, one of which is the vote needed.

The motion you presented was as follows:

 "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

The only thing wrong with this is the use of the word "special",  which isn't even a part of the proposed rule which is clearly a rule described in 15:4.  This is nothing more than a mistake in nomenclature.  The substance of the proposed rule is what is important, and calling it by the wrong name is inconsequential.

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 10:21 AM, Dan Honemann said:

The motion you presented was as follows:

 "That the following special rule be adopted:  Debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This rule shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."

The only thing wrong with this is the use of the word "special",  which isn't even a part of the proposed rule which is clearly a rule described in 15:4.  This is nothing more than a mistake in nomenclature.  The substance of the proposed rule is what is important, and calling it by the wrong name is inconsequential.

The "nomenclature" here is substantive. Further, it would be treated as a proposed "suspension of the rule," not a rule itself. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 10:53 AM, J. J. said:

The "nomenclature" here is substantive. Further, it would be treated as a proposed "suspension of the rule," not a rule itself. 

I disagree. I suppose one could quibble about calling this a rule instead of an order, but this is of no real significance.

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 11:17 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I disagree. I suppose one could quibble about calling this a rule instead of an order, but this is of no real significance.

The real significance is that the member can pick up their copy of RONR and say, "2:22 says that a special rule can be adopted by a majority of the entire membership.  A majority of the entire membership just adopted it."   

(Keep in mind that I do agree a special meeting could only adopt such rules as properly advertised and that incidental main motion to suspend the rules for the remainder of the session is covered in 15.4.)

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 12:01 PM, J. J. said:

The real significance is that the member can pick up their copy of RONR and say, "2:22 says that a special rule can be adopted by a majority of the entire membership.  A majority of the entire membership just adopted it."   

And you would tell him (I trust) that the rule he is proposing is not a special rule of order described in 2:22

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

And you would tell him (I trust) that the rule he is proposing is not a special rule of order described in 2:22

Hopefully, but it may be too late after you have agreed to its introduction as a motion creating a special rule.  A chair that did that, intentionally, could be accused of misleading the assembly. 

[Dan Honemann]

On 1/11/2024 at 1:47 PM, J. J. said:

Hopefully, but it may be too late after you have agreed to its introduction as a motion creating a special rule.  A chair that did that, intentionally, could be accused of misleading the assembly. 

A presiding officer who thinks that a motion to create a rule such as the one you describe, which specifically says that it will be effective only for the duration of the session in progress, is a motion to create a special rule of order is not competent to serve as a presiding officer. 

[J. J.]

On 1/11/2024 at 2:43 PM, Dan Honemann said:

A presiding officer who thinks that a motion to create a rule such as the one you describe, which specifically says that it will be effective only for the duration of the session in progress, is a motion to create a special rule of order is not competent to serve as a presiding officer. 

I agree, but I will say that about a presiding officer who would permit the assembly to believe that as well.  There is no problem with the chair putting that motion into "suitable form (4:18)."

[Atul Kapur]

On 1/11/2024 at 1:47 PM, J. J. said:

Hopefully, but it may be too late after you have agreed to its introduction as a motion creating a special rule.  A chair that did that, intentionally, could be accused of misleading the assembly. 

If, at long last, we have arrived at the point and it is regarding intentional (as opposed to inadvertent or incompetent) misuse or misapplication of the rules of order, then I believe there is no question that a malicious presiding officer can mislead an assembly that does not know better. 

But as for this example, until and immediately after the result has been announced, a point of order that the motion did not receive a two-thirds vote is timely, no matter whether the motion was labelled as a special rule instead of a motion to limit debate. You can call a duck a horse, but you still can't ride it in the Kentucky Derby.

[J. J.]

On 1/12/2024 at 11:13 PM, Atul Kapur said:

If, at long last, we have arrived at the point and it is regarding intentional (as opposed to inadvertent or incompetent) misuse or misapplication of the rules of order, then I believe there is no question that a malicious presiding officer can mislead an assembly that does not know better. 

But as for this example, until and immediately after the result has been announced, a point of order that the motion did not receive a two-thirds vote is timely, no matter whether the motion was labelled as a special rule instead of a motion to limit debate. You can call a duck a horse, but you still can't ride it in the Kentucky Derby.

I agree that a point of order would need to be timely. 

What if the motion were "To suspend the rules and require that debate on each debatable motion shall be limited to one speech of no longer than two minutes.  This suspension shall expire at the final adjournment of this session."  If the chair were to declare the motion adopted based on a vote of less that than two thirds, would it not require a timely point of order as well?  Would you then claim that the motion to suspend the rules in this case only required a majority vote?