Did this already "pass" ?

[twolifter]

I have been studying and have a better grasp of the Rules. But in my preparation for my next meeting (We took Dec. off for a holiday party) I began preparing for another battle. The two issues were postponed until this month's meeting because we ran out of time. The Amendment I most care about was only half way finished when we stopped. I was just putting some finishing touches on "strategy" when I noticed that point "a." was suggested to be replaced and that amendment was voted down, but the new section "a." still had some of the original language from the previous version of the section in it. The rest of the original "a." was replaced with a subsection of "b." that won't be voted until Janurary's meeting next week.

So here is my question: When we voted against the requirements of the new "a." because they wanted to spread the rules over two sections of membership, did we already vote against the requirements in the original version of "a." and can they return in section "b."

This is a very difficult situation for me to describe. So I will try to make a simple imaginary bylaw that illustrates (please know I am fairly new to RONR so I will probably be making several mistakes in both logic, vocabulary, and interpretation - but I am better than I was in Nov.)

original bylaw:

ArticleIII Membership

section 3 XXXXXXXXX

a. Active members: All active members are required to wear green shirts, and red hats to meetings...

b. Honorary members: Honorary members wear blue hats and white shirts to meetings.....

Notice was sent out in advance as required (or at least we can assume it was) that a new membership class might be created but offered a very limited "scope".

here is an example of that scope:

a. Provisional Members: Provisional members must wear green shirts to meetings.

a.b. Active Members meet the requirements of provisional members above, wear green shirts and in addition must wear red hats to meetings, and must bawk like a chicken when the Grand-Cluckster enters the room.

b. c. Honorary members (same as above for honorary members)

The voting began, and we voted down the idea of "Provisional Membership"<edit we voted "no" on the requirements for a.> in november. The vote on "Active Membership" was set for next week. (I believe this is called "postponed to a certain time", some people say it is called other things)

So my re-worded question is:

Did we vote out the idea of wearing green shirts all together if "b." passes in any form ?

Can wearing both green shirts and red hats be placed in section "b." in any fashion? and if "b." also fails do we resort to the bylaw as originally written or would wearing green shirts and red hats still be out all together because we voted against them in the suggested "a." version replacement ?

And are we simply now voting on the issue of clucking like chickens and any other thing we can think of other than the green shirt red hat issue ? (because we voted out the green shirts for the proposed amending of the original "a." )

On re-reading this it no longer seems to make it any clearer, but I will try again if need be.

Thank you for any comments.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

The Amendment I most care about was only half way finished when we stopped.

I was just putting some finishing touches on "strategy" when I noticed that point "a." was suggested to be replaced and that amendment was voted down, but the new section "a." still had some of the original language from the previous version of the section in it.

The rest of the original "a." was replaced with a subsection of "b." that won't be voted until Janurary's meeting next week.

Q. When we voted against the requirements of the new "a." because they wanted to spread the rules over two sections of membership,

did we already vote against the requirements in the original version of "a." and can they return in section "b."?

a simple imaginary bylaw that illustrates

original bylaw:

ArticleIII Membership

section 3 XXXXXXXXX

a. Active members: All active members are required to wear green shirts, and red hats to meetings...

b. Honorary members: Honorary members wear blue hats and white shirts to meetings.....

Notice was sent out in advance as required (or at least we can assume it was) that a new membership class might be created but offered a very limited "scope".

here is an example of that scope:

a. Provisional Members: Provisional members must wear green shirts to meetings.

a.b. Active Members meet the requirements of provisional members above, wear green shirts and in addition must wear red hats to meetings, and must bawk like a chicken when the Grand-Cluckster enters the room.

b. c. Honorary members (same as above for honorary members)

The voting began, and we voted down the idea of "Provisional Membership" <edit we voted "no" on the requirements for a.> in november.

The vote on "Active Membership" was set for next week.

So my re-worded question is:

Did we vote out the idea of wearing green shirts all together if "b." passes in any form?

Can wearing both green shirts and red hats be placed in section "b." in any fashion?

and

if "b." also fails do we resort to the bylaw as originally written or would wearing green shirts and red hats still be out all together because we voted against them in the suggested "a." version replacement?

And are we simply now voting on the issue of clucking like chickens and any other thing we can think of other than the green shirt red hat issue?

(because we voted out the green shirts for the proposed amending of the original "a." )

It is hard to follow your description.

I will give you some general rules, and you'll have to figure out if it applies.

General rule:

#1. Within the same session, you cannot ask the assembly to entertain an identical motion to one which the assembly voted down.

#2. Corollary: If a question is virtually the same, despite a change in wording, then see Rule #1.

#3. If a minor change in wording makes the rejected motion a "different question", then that motion is in order, even if the concept is identical, and even if much of the wording is identical, to that which was rejected.

#4. Obvious side note: Whatever was ADOPTED, of course, won't be re-entertained.

I leave it up to you to determine if you fit or don't fit within the above general rules.

[twolifter]

It is hard to follow your description.

I will give you some general rules, and you'll have to figure out if it applies.

General rule:

#1. Within the same session, you cannot ask the assembly to entertain an identical motion to one which the assembly voted down.

#2. Corollary: If a question is virtually the same, despite a change in wording, then see Rule #1.

#3. If a minor change in wording makes the rejected motion a "different question", then that motion is in order, even if the concept is identical, and even if much of the wording is identical, to that which was rejected.

#4. Obvious side note: Whatever was ADOPTED, of course, won't be re-entertained.

I leave it up to you to determine if you fit or don't fit within the above general rules.

Thank you very much, I had read the book to discover #1 myself and was wondering to what extent it applies. I will return soon after following up on your very helpful points and try to base my question with page and line numbers to better illustrate my questions, as that seems to be the custom around here. If I recall correctly I should be looking in the 570's, that is where I have been doing the most of my reading. And thank you for #4 that was also involved in my question as I have learned we can't reconsider when changing bylaws. Sadly I believe myself to be the best versed in my club about the rules of order. If their are any religious among you, you may want to say a little prayer for democracy around 7pm next Tuesday.

[David A Foulkes]

I think it's safe to say that when considering amendments to bylaws, especially in the case of rewording an existing bylaw, if the amendment is voted down, the original bylaw remains. Since you voted down the Provisional Member bylaw, you still have only Active and Honorary members, with associated garment restrictions as originally noted, until the new proposed amendment a.b. is brought up for debate and vote.

Now, the revised a.b. bylaw, which references provisional membership (which is no longer applicable), would need to be further amended to read something like

Active members: All active members are required to wear green shirts, and red hats to meetings, and must bawk like a chicken when the Grand-Cluckster enters the room.

I think you would approach this with a careful wording of "strike and/or insert" to alter the proposed amendment as noticed into the desired wording.

[twolifter]

Thanks,

I think where it is getting confusing is that it was originally one motion. Because we are not formal we consider things as a whole committee and I suggested we separate the question so we could debate the merits of the "green shirts".

We voted to get rid of "a." when we did did we vote to get rid everything in it ? because it mentioned green shirts are green shirts now off of the table. Or is it still okay to have green shirts in section b. because they are also in section b. in the scope of notice mailing.

Would it be different if the question was "divided" or "separated by paragraph" ?

[Josh Martin]

And thank you for #4 that was also involved in my question as I have learned we can't reconsider when changing bylaws.

That's not quite true. The motion to Reconsider may not be applied to an adopted bylaw amendment, but it may be applied to a failed amendment.

We voted to get rid of "a." when we did did we vote to get rid everything in it ? because it mentioned green shirts are green shirts now off of the table. Or is it still okay to have green shirts in section b. because they are also in section b. in the scope of notice mailing.

From the example provided, it does not seem to me that what is done to Section A has any bearing on Section B, as they deal with two different classes of membership.

Would it be different if the question was "divided" or "separated by paragraph" ?

I don't think it would have any effect on this particular issue, no.

[twolifter]

That's not quite true. The motion to Reconsider may not be applied to an adopted bylaw amendment, but it may be applied to a failed amendment.

From the example provided, it does not seem to me that what is done to Section A has any bearing on Section B, as they deal with two different classes of membership.

Thanks again Josh,

I have just come back to let everyone know I am not slacking, I have just discovered what I was looking for on page 266 ln 29 thru the top of the next page. (I think)

Just to be clear,the scope of notice notification was sent out and it is listed as one change, who ever proposed it was hoping for one up or down vote for it, but that is no longer a possibility. it added a new part a. and moved the original part "a." to become part "b." But parts of "Active membership" from the original bylaws is now IN the newer "provisional" membership. The other part was left in "active membership" but they added a few things, I think just to fill up space.

I don't understand the difference between pg 266 ln 34 it says it takes precedence over postpone indefinately (for bylawsamendments) but later on 267 it says ln 4 it says that it yeilds to it, so does that mean this motion can not be postponed indef. but if it fails the original bylaw that was originally adopted goes back into place ?

[David A Foulkes]

I don't understand the difference between pg 266 ln 34 it says it takes precedence over postpone indefinately (for bylawsamendments) but later on 267 it says ln 4 it says that it yeilds to it, so does that mean this motion can not be postponed indef. but if it fails the original bylaw that was originally adopted goes back into place ?

Take another look at page 267 line 4 and note the word "except" in there.

[twolifter]

Keeping the subdivisions open until one final vote open avoids complications which would result - especially in the case of bylaws

(not an exact quote)

I do have a question, about the above portion from line #1 on page 268. If we have been voting out subjects line for line in "a." and stopped before consideration of "b." is there still time to go back and add things to "a." or is it simply to late for that ? I can not tell if the quoted text is a warning saying consideration by paragraph is to be used carefully or if it is explaining a merit of considering by paragraph. I have been reading it as a merit not a warning.

[Josh Martin]

(not an exact quote)

I do have a question, about the above portion from line #1 on page 268. If we have been voting out subjects line for line in "a." and stopped before consideration of "b." is there still time to go back and add things to "a." or is it simply to late for that ? I can not tell if the quoted text is a warning saying consideration by paragraph is to be used carefully or if it is explaining a merit of considering by paragraph. I have been reading it as a merit not a warning.

In using consideration by paragraph, each paragraph or section is opened to debate and amendment separately, and after all paragraphs or sections have been amended in this fashion, the entire document is opened to debate and amendment. So yes, there is another bite at the apple if someone comes up with an amendment to an earlier section later on.

[twolifter]

In using consideration by paragraph, each paragraph or section is opened to debate and amendment separately, and after all paragraphs or sections have been amended in this fashion, the entire document is opened to debate and amendment. So yes, there is another bite at the apple if someone comes up with an amendment to an earlier section later on.

Thank you, I began to worry that I had painted myself into a corner. Not that I have a dog in this particular fight, at least not after the last meeting anyway. The bylaws I can deal with, it is the reform of the adherence to them that is what I am hoping to accomplish in my efforts. If I was to make things too complicated all at once continuing to follow them would not be an option. I got them to agree to a formal business meeting by saying " We get to make our own rules why not just make rules we intend or at least want to follow."

We decided to vote down all of the original section a. but we have some ideas that have been suggested now that we are not all mad at each other that we would like to put in there that should make everyone even happier. Are ideas inserted Prior to moving onto b. or after ?

[Josh Martin]

We decided to vote down all of the original section a. but we have some ideas that have been suggested now that we are not all mad at each other that we would like to put in there that should make everyone even happier. Are ideas inserted Prior to moving onto b. or after ?

If we're still talking about consideration by paragraph, after. When consideration of each paragraph or section has been completed, amendments to any part of the document will be in order.

[twolifter]

I apologize for this question(s), although it may not appear this way to those here, this is the first inquiry I am seeking an easy answer to. It appears our secretary is trying state that the motion of "postpone to a certain time" was a motion to "table". And is now trying to stall or kill the motion. I am aware that everywhere from Wikipedia to Rules for dummies is stating that this is not the correct use, however A motion was seconded for "postpone to a certain time". Now the secretary has apparently convinced the chair not to consider this motion at our Tuesday meeting.

What would be the best and "most correct" method of explaining in laymen's terms to the group what is happening, and the correct method of continuing to bring this matter back before the assembly ?

My understanding since before any matter was brought before us is that this the oldest trick, that isn't even in the book. And probably one or two people's plan from the beginning, is anyone aware of how the supposed common improper use of tabling to kill a motion normally works ?

I do appreciate all of the time and consideration I have gotten here, I hope these couple of points are not too much to ask.

Edit: Changed the word not for now

[Gary Novosielski]

It appears our secretary is trying state that the motion of "postpone to a certain time" was a motion to "table". And is now trying to stall or kill the motion. I am aware that everywhere from Wikipedia to Rules for dummies is stating that this is not the correct use, however A motion was seconded for "postpone to a certain time". Now the secretary has apparently convinced the chair not to consider this motion at our Tuesday meeting.

What would be the best and "most correct" method of explaining in laymen's terms to the group what is happening, and the correct method of continuing to bring this matter back before the assembly ?

My understanding since before any matter was brought before us is that this the oldest trick, that isn't even in the book. And probably one or two people's plan from the beginning, is anyone aware of how the supposed common improper use of tabling to kill a motion normally works ?

A good explanation will be found in our FAQ #12 and #13.

Additionally, you should be sure to correct the minutes, when they come up for approval, to reflect that the motion made was in fact to Postpone, not to Table. Even if people do not (yet) understand the difference, they should agree that the minutes must properly record what happened.

If actually Laid upon the table, a motion would die if not Taken from the Table at the next meeting after it was tabled. A motion to Postpone, in contrast, would come up automatically for consideration under Unfinished Business. If it does not, then raise a point of order.

As the FAQ says, a motion to Lay on the Table is rarely needed, and therefore seldom in order.

If you are not successful in having the minutes corrected, you can still move to Take from the Table the question as it was at the last meeting. That requires only a majority vote. The president has no magic power to suppress motions. And virtually every ruling of the chair is subject to Points of Order and Appeal.

But even if the motion was "killed" by the improper use of Table, there's nothing to prevent you from renewing it (moving it again) at any meeting, now or in the future.

[twolifter]

Thank you for the link I had forgotten I had seen that here as well.

[twolifter]

A good explanation will be found in our FAQ #12 and #13.

Additionally, you should be sure to correct the minutes, when they come up for approval, to reflect that the motion made was in fact to Postpone, not to Table. Even if people do not (yet) understand the difference, they should agree that the minutes must properly record what happened.

If actually Laid upon the table, a motion would die if not Taken from the Table at the next meeting after it was tabled. A motion to Postpone, in contrast, would come up automatically for consideration under Unfinished Business. If it does not, then raise a point of order.

As the FAQ says, a motion to Lay on the Table is rarely needed, and therefore seldom in order.

If you are not successful in having the minutes corrected, you can still move to Take from the Table the question as it was at the last meeting. That requires only a majority vote. The president has no magic power to suppress motions. And virtually every ruling of the chair is subject to Points of Order and Appeal.

But even if the motion was "killed" by the improper use of Table, there's nothing to prevent you from renewing it (moving it again) at any meeting, now or in the future.

My sources tell me that they are going to try to use the scope of notice clause in our bylaws to try to say that the revisions promised at the Nov. meeting for January (we had a Holiday Party in Dec. with no quorum present, the quorum I assume would be set by default because our bylaws do not state one, furthermore I was not informed of any business meeting although I was in attendance although they did install a new member in another room in the house (from what I see from the news letter )

I do not find "postpone in contrast" in the index.

[Gary Novosielski]

I do not find "postpone in contrast" in the index.

No, it's just Postpone. Well, actually, it's Postpone to a Definite Time. But, in contrast to Lay on the Table, it would come up automatically. That's what I was trying to say.

[Josh Martin]

Well, actually, it's Postpone to a Definite Time.

The full name of the motion is either Postpone Definitely or Postpone to a Certain Time. You appear to have combined the two here.

[Gary Novosielski]

The full name of the motion is either Postpone Definitely or Postpone to a Certain Time. You appear to have combined the two here.

Thank you. I may have been confusing it with the motions to Take From Behind the Sofa, or Postpone Until Pigs Fly.

[twolifter]

Well things did not go well Tues shouting matches starting from the chair who has apparently granted himself executive powers to "do whatever, whenever he likes" is this the same thing as when pigs fly ? Will the 11th edition be covering nasty e-mails, older gentlemen who claim to instinctively know every rule and point of order because they chaired a committee in 1960, and dramatic threats of leaving and never coming back ?

I do thank everyone for their help.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Well things did not go well Tues shouting matches starting from the chair who has apparently granted himself executive powers to "do whatever, whenever he likes"

is this the same thing as when pigs fly?

Look to the 12th "atomic" edition for text on the rules for flying pigs.

Will the 11th edition be covering nasty e-mails, older gentlemen who claim to instinctively know every rule and point of order because they chaired a committee in 1960, and dramatic threats of leaving and never coming back ?

Yeah.

The Eleventh Edition shall repeat the text on "decorum".

[Josh Martin]

Well things did not go well Tues shouting matches starting from the chair who has apparently granted himself executive powers to "do whatever, whenever he likes" is this the same thing as when pigs fly ?

Considering we get reports of chairmen claiming the power to to whatever they want at least once a week, this is not nearly as unusual as a flying pig. See FAQ #20.

Will the 11th edition be covering nasty e-mails, older gentlemen who claim to instinctively know every rule and point of order because they chaired a committee in 1960, and dramatic threats of leaving and never coming back ?

Nasty e-mails will not be covered in the 11th edition because RONR does not concern itself with conduct outside of meetings, although as in any case in which members are guilty of "conduct... tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work," the society may take disciplinary action if it wishes. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 630, lines 1-7) The procedures are covered in RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX. I think RONR, 10th ed., pg. 243, lines 12-16 covers the issue of the elderly gentlemen quite nicely. Dramatic threats of leaving and never coming back are covered in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 277-280 and quite possibly RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 379-382, as the more dramatic threats tend to violate at least one of the rules of decorum.