proper conduct after a motion/vote

[Guest Richard Burns]

During a city hall monthly meeting, there was a motion(and a 2nd) to vote on a 1)new city hall build and 2)to research a cost on remodeling existing city hall.  The vote was 3 to 2 to research remodeling city hall and 2 votes to build a new city hall.  The mayor was the 2nd vote to build a new city hall.  After the mayor realized that she didn't have enough votes to get a new city hall, she started negotiating with one council member to change her vote in favor of a new city hall...even offering to put a fitness center in the new city hall, which was one of the things the CC member had requested before.

Is that legal under Roberts Rules?

[Joshua Katz]

I don't understand what happened. You had a motion to do two things, so how were there different votes? It sounds like you may have had two main motions at the same time, which violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure.

[Josh Martin]

On 2/11/2024 at 6:27 AM, Guest Richard Burns said:

During a city hall monthly meeting, there was a motion(and a 2nd) to vote on a 1)new city hall build and 2)to research a cost on remodeling existing city hall.  The vote was 3 to 2 to research remodeling city hall and 2 votes to build a new city hall.  The mayor was the 2nd vote to build a new city hall.  After the mayor realized that she didn't have enough votes to get a new city hall, she started negotiating with one council member to change her vote in favor of a new city hall...even offering to put a fitness center in the new city hall, which was one of the things the CC member had requested before.

Is that legal under Roberts Rules?

No, but I expect not because of the reason you think.

RONR doesn't care about the negotiations between the Mayor and the council member about the fitness center. That's a legal or ethical question, not a parliamentary one.

The parliamentary issues here are as follows:

• There shouldn't be two different votes on different parts of a single motion. If a member wishes to vote for parts of the motion and not others, there should be a motion to Divide the Question, so that each motion is debated and voted on separately. Members then vote "yes" or "no" on each motion. And one motion is completed before moving on to the next.
• In what manner, specifically, do you mean the member "changed" her vote? There's a very limited window of time for a member to change their vote under RONR - generally too narrow for much negotiation to take place.

"Except when the vote has been taken by ballot (or some other method that provides secrecy), a member has a right to change his vote up to the time the result is announced but afterward can make the change only by the unanimous consent of the assembly requested and granted, without debate, immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote (see below).

After the result of a vote has been announced, members can still propose or demand certain actions that may change the result. A member may raise a point of order regarding the conduct of the vote, demand a division of the assembly, move to retake the vote under another method, move for a recapitulation of a roll-call vote, or request unanimous consent to change his vote. With the exception of a point of order raised against a breach of a continuing nature (23:6–9), if any of these actions is to apply to a vote after the result has been announced, it must be taken immediately after the chair's announcement, before any debate or business has intervened. For example, it is too late to take these actions after any member has been recognized and begun to speak in debate or to give a report or presentation, or after the chair has stated the question on a subsequently made motion, or after the chair has begun to take the vote and any member has voted on another motion that was pending. For the time limits on ordering that a counted rising vote, a ballot, or a roll-call vote be recounted, see the last sentence of 45:15; 45:41; and 45:54. See also Contesting the Announced Result of an Election, 46:48–50." RONR (12th ed.) 45:8-9

But it is extremely likely that a City Council has its own rules and/or applicable law on various matters, and those rules will take precedence over RONR. So I think this is ultimately a question for the city's clerks and attorneys.

On 2/11/2024 at 6:43 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I don't understand what happened. You had a motion to do two things, so how were there different votes? It sounds like you may have had two main motions at the same time, which violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure.

I concur that this "violates a fundamental principle of parliamentary procedure" and is not permissible under RONR.

I would not be surprised, however, if this is permissible under the council's rules.

Edited February 11, 2024 at 02:03 PM by Josh Martin

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/11/2024 at 9:02 AM, Josh Martin said:

I would not be surprised, however, if this is permissible under the council's rules.

I have never seen a special rule to the effect that two main motions may be pending at the same time. 

[Rob Elsman]

Having multiple main motions pending at the same time would cause impossible confusion and disorder, because the limits of debate would be vague and unenforceable, and the application of secondary motions would be problematic.

Edited February 11, 2024 at 03:56 PM by Rob Elsman

[Josh Martin]

On 2/11/2024 at 9:36 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I have never seen a special rule to the effect that two main motions may be pending at the same time. 

I have seen in public bodies a rule which permits the assembly to consider a series of motions at once, as part of a consent agenda or otherwise, but for members to be permitted to cast their votes differently on each of the items, as opposed to requiring a member to "pull" an item for separate consideration. Typically, the custom is that if debate is anticipated, the item is pulled, but if the member simply wishes to vote "no" and does not have interest in debating the item, the item is not pulled.

I'm not saying it's a good rule, I'm just saying I've seen it.

Edited February 12, 2024 at 01:15 PM by Josh Martin

[Rob Elsman]

My sense of it is that the handling of multiple main motions dealing with the same topic and choosing among them a la carte, so to speak, is really due to the members' unfamiliarity with the subsidiary motion, Amend, and the order of precedence of motions.  The simultaneous handling of multiple solutions to the problem at hand is an attempt to flatten the order of precedence with which the assembly is either unaware or incompetent.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/11/2024 at 10:36 AM, Joshua Katz said:

I have never seen a special rule to the effect that two main motions may be pending at the same time. 

Perhaps you mean immediately pending at a time. Under the rules in RONR there are a number of situations in which there can be two main motions pending at a time.

But even if you mean immediately pending, what about a situation in which, while no business is pending, a motion is made “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” (see 25:4)?   If you assume that such a motion to suspend the rules can be made when no business is pending is an incidental main motion then, if it is adopted, two main motions have been made, considered (albeit without debate or amendment), and adopted simultaneously.  If rejected, it is only the motion to suspend the rules that has been disposed of.  The unadopted resolution can be made again, when in order and no business is pending. 

Edited as shown.

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/12/2024 at 9:47 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Perhaps you mean immediately pending at a time. Under the rules in RONR there are a number of situations in which there can be two main motions pending at a time.

 

Yes, thank you.

On 2/12/2024 at 9:47 AM, Dan Honemann said:

But even if you mean immediately pending, what about a situation in which, while no business is pending, a motion is made “to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution…” (see 25:4)?   If you assume that such a motion to suspend the rules can be made when no business is pending is an incidental main motion then, if it is adopted, two main motions have been made, considered (albeit without debate or amendment), and adopted simultaneously.  If rejected, it is only the motion to suspend the rules that has been disposed of.  The unadopted resolution can be made again, when in order and no business is pending. 

 

That is not a special rule of order; it's a situation permitted by RONR itself, so while it disproves "you cannot have two immediately pending main motions," it does not disprove the claim that I've never seen a special rule of order to that effect.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/12/2024 at 11:37 AM, Joshua Katz said:

Yes, thank you.

That is not a special rule of order; it's a situation permitted by RONR itself, so while it disproves "you cannot have two immediately pending main motions," it does not disprove the claim that I've never seen a special rule of order to that effect.

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it disproved the claim you made.  I was just wondering what your thoughts might be concerning 25:4, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question can be considered at a time.

[Gary Novosielski]

On 2/12/2024 at 8:13 AM, Josh Martin said:

I'm not saying it's a good rule, I'm just saying I've seen it.

I've seen it too, and I did what I could to use the proper procedure of demanding a separate debate and vote on some items.  Spoiler alert—the RONR procedure worked better. 😎

[Rob Elsman]

I think a motion to suspend a rule of order is always an incidental motion, even if it is made when no other motion is pending.

In contrast, a motion to suspend a standing rule is an incidental main motion when made at a time when no other motion is pending.

Thus, a motion to suspend the rules and immediately adopt a resolution does not violate the fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one main motion can be pending at a time.

[Rob Elsman]

I'm going to take back my earlier response just a bit. We all know that a motion to limit debate for a meeting is an incidental main motion, even though it suspends a rule of order. Nevertheless, I still opine that a motion to suspend the rules and immediately adopt a resolution involves the combination of an incidental motion and a main motion, avoiding the violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

Edited February 12, 2024 at 05:39 PM by Rob Elsman

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/12/2024 at 12:39 PM, Rob Elsman said:

I'm going to take back my earlier response just a bit. We all know that a motion to limit debate for a meeting is an incidental main motion, even though it suspends a rule of order. Nevertheless, I still opine that a motion to suspend the rules and immediately adopt a resolution involves the combination of an incidental motion and a main motion, avoiding the violation of the fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

But the fundamental principle involved is that that only one question can be considered at a time.

[Rob Elsman]

A motion to suspend the rules and immediately agree to a resolution is one question, and only one vote is taken. The motion is the conjoining of a main motion part and an incidental motion part that is incidental to the main motion part. Nevertheless, the conjuction of the two parts results in just one question.

[Dan Honemann]

On 2/12/2024 at 1:14 PM, Rob Elsman said:

A motion to suspend the rules and immediately agree to a resolution is one question, and only one vote is taken. The motion is the conjoining of a main motion part and an incidental motion part that is incidental to the main motion part. Nevertheless, the conjuction of the two parts results in just one question.

This isn't entirely true because, if the motion is rejected, only the motion to suspend the rules has been rejected.

[Rob Elsman]

Well, the assembly has decided not to do what is proposed, which is to suspend the rules and immediately adopt the resolution. I do agree that the resolution can then be offered and considered under the usual rules, because the question is different.

[Joshua Katz]

On 2/12/2024 at 11:55 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that it disproved the claim you made.  I was just wondering what your thoughts might be concerning 25:4, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only one question can be considered at a time.

It seems to me that a motion to suspend the rules and immediately adopt X presents one question, whose resolution might achieve two things. It is similar to a compound motion. The difference is in the logical structure - here, the first thing is necessary but not sufficient for the second thing to be done. Note that the assembly is not free, absent a motion to amend, to adopt the suspension but reject X.

[Rob Elsman]

On 2/12/2024 at 2:47 PM, Joshua Katz said:

absent a motion to amend, to adopt the suspension but reject X.

This motion is not amendable or debatable.