extremely simplified motion process

[Guest Guest Ross]

Hello! I am just instituting RONR and would like to start with the (correct) basics of a motion for my group to follow (nothing about amending, striking out, etc-just a simple motion). I've looked in my handbook and have written down the process as I believe it to be, but want to make sure this is the correct process:

1) Motion (I move that...)

2) Someone seconds motion

3) the Chair states the question (It is moved and seconded that...)

4) Debate could ensue

5) the Chair asks "Is there any further debate?"

6) the Chair then restates the question ("The question is on the adoption of the motion...Those in favor say aye, opposed say no, any abstentions")

7) the Chair then announces which side "has it" (ie-The 'ayes' have it and the motion is adopted...)

Is this correct? We really need to start with the basics of procedure and I want to start off on the right foot. Any help is appreciated, thank you!

[jstackpo]

I do believe you've got it.

Two details:

Step 0: The member obtains recognition by the chair.

Step 6: No need (and really not proper) to ask for abstentions.

For the rest of the story (and straightforward explanations of the sort you have made for yourself) get a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief" (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2004). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.00! You can read it in an evening.

What "handbook" are you looking at?

[Gary Novosielski]

Hello! I am just instituting RONR and would like to start with the (correct) basics of a motion for my group to follow (nothing about amending, striking out, etc-just a simple motion). I've looked in my handbook and have written down the process as I believe it to be, but want to make sure this is the correct process:

1) Motion (I move that...)

2) Someone seconds motion

3) the Chair states the question (It is moved and seconded that...)

4) Debate could ensue

5) the Chair asks "Is there any further debate?"

6) the Chair then restates the question ("The question is on the adoption of the motion...Those in favor say aye, opposed say no, any abstentions")

7) the Chair then announces which side "has it" (ie-The 'ayes' have it and the motion is adopted...)

Is this correct? We really need to start with the basics of procedure and I want to start off on the right foot. Any help is appreciated, thank you!

Not bad.

But the chair should never ask "any abstentions". Abstaining means not voting, and anyone who did not answer either Aye or No has already abstained. In fact, someone who refused to answer to "any abstentions" has still abstained just as much as someone who did, and arguably more so, so the whole idea is pointless. Abstentions are never called for, never counted, never recorded in the minutes, and never make any difference in the outcome of any vote. Ignore them.

Also except for the simplest of motions, the chair should restate the motion in its entirety, using the exact language of its possibly amended current wording. If there is a chance of misinterpretation, he should also state the exact effect of a yes vote and a no vote.

For an excellent introduction to the basics of parliamentary procedure, look for a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief (aka RONRIB) in your bookstore or on your Kindle. It has sample dialogs like your example for all the common situations, and citations to The Work Itself (RONR) for unusual ones.

[Guest Guest Ross]

oops-by handbook I meant RONR-NR. We are just at the start of the entire process and I just want to make sure that we understand the very basics before I do too much (and do it wrong). This site is very helpful; thank you for letting me know at least I'm on the right path!

[Gary Novosielski]

RONR-NR.

No, that one's not out yet. All we have so far is RONR.

[David A Foulkes]

oops-by handbook I meant RONR-NR. We are just at the start of the entire process and I just want to make sure that we understand the very basics before I do too much (and do it wrong). This site is very helpful; thank you for letting me know at least I'm on the right path!

No, that one's not out yet. All we have so far is RONR.

Rose - don't mind Gary, he's got an enlarged funny bone, which is to say the "NR" in "RONR" stands for Newly Revised, so there's no need for the "-NR" in your abbreviation above. Just didn't want you to think you had the wrong version, unless of course you do have RONR-NR, possibly being a pre-publication release of the galleys for the 11th Edition??????

Also, if you're just getting started with all of this stuff, you've hit on the right website. I suspect (and hope) you'll be around for a while asking more excellent questions, so you might want to consider signing up as a member. It's fast, it's fun, and it's free! And the benefit package includes such things as being able to edit your posts, put a signature line on them, and even upload a photo in your profile area. Why not sign up today??

[Josh Martin]

In fact, someone who refused to answer to "any abstentions" has still abstained just as much as someone who did, and arguably more so, so the whole idea is pointless.

I don't think it would be a very good argument.

never recorded in the minutes,

They are in a roll call vote, if a member actually responds with "Abstain" or "Present" or if it is necessary to record the names of members who have not responded to show the presence of a quorum.

[Gary Novosielski]

I don't think it would be a very good argument.

Neither do I, but I suppose it's better than not arguing at all.

They are in a roll call vote, if a member actually responds with "Abstain" or "Present" or if it is necessary to record the names of members who have not responded to show the presence of a quorum.

Good point. Never say never, right?

In a roll-call vote which establishes a quorum, there could be four possible entries (columns). The first two, under the heading "Voting" are Aye and No. The next two, under the heading "Not Voting" would be Present and Absent.

The category "Present" is exactly equivalent to abstaining, as the member is present but not Voting. (And as such does not affect a majority of those present and voting.)

[David A Foulkes]

Abstentions are never called for, never counted, never recorded in the minutes, and never make any difference in the outcome of any vote.

Well, what about a vote of the entire membership? or of members present? Don't they have the effect of a "no" vote in those cases?

[Gary Novosielski]

Well, what about a vote of the entire membership? or of members present? Don't they have the effect of a "no" vote in those cases?

Yes, I misspoke. On those vote types there is an effect. What actually matters is the number of yes votes and the number of people on the rolls, or present, respectively. But while abstentions are still not called for or counted, they do effectively "make a difference" in such cases, as they have an effect on the outcome that's the same as a No vote.

Even so, abstentions are not considered to be actual votes. For example, a person who abstained on a motion that therefore failed cannot move to Reconsider, because although his abstention had the effect of a No vote, it is not one, and so he did not vote on the prevailing side.

[Josh Martin]

In a roll-call vote which establishes a quorum, there could be four possible entries (columns). The first two, under the heading "Voting" are Aye and No. The next two, under the heading "Not Voting" would be Present and Absent.

No, there is no "Absent" category. There would be only three entries - Aye, No, and Present. The first two categories are self-explanatory. The third category always includes those members who have responded "Abstain" or "Present," and if the number of members to respond does not demonstrate the presence of a quorum, also includes the names of enough members who have not responded to demonstrate the presence of a quorum.

[tctheatc]

Hello! I am just instituting RONR and would like to start with the (correct) basics of a motion for my group to follow (nothing about amending, striking out, etc-just a simple motion). I've looked in my handbook and have written down the process as I believe it to be, but want to make sure this is the correct process:

1) Motion (I move that...)

2) Someone seconds motion

3) the Chair states the question (It is moved and seconded that...)

4) Debate could ensue

5) the Chair asks "Is there any further debate?"

6) the Chair then restates the question ("The question is on the adoption of the motion...Those in favor say aye, opposed say no, any abstentions")

7) the Chair then announces which side "has it" (ie-The 'ayes' have it and the motion is adopted...)

Is this correct? We really need to start with the basics of procedure and I want to start off on the right foot. Any help is appreciated, thank you!

Technically #6 would be PUTs the question (to a vote) (RONR 10th ed p. 31 l.20)