First and Second Reading

[Natalie]

Our bylaws say:

"A resolution may be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting, at a subsequent meeting after the first reading. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present and voting is required to pass a resolution at the same meeting at which it is introduced."

As chair, I need some procedural structure on how to deal with the "first reading". I feel that the body should have the opportunity to kill a resolution on first reading if a majority deems to inappropriate, frivolous, abusive (in the case of introducing many resolutions all of which must be read aloud at the meeting) or just plain don't like it.

But I also understand that the 2-reading process (we meet monthly) is to give notice of the content of a resolution so people can let their opinions be heard on the topic.

Is there a standard procedure for this type of 2-step adoption?

Other questions:

Do we have to vote at all at the time of the 1st reading? Is the resolution moved and seconded and then we're done and go on with the next agenda item? Would it be appropriate to discuss the resolution on first reading, and if so, how do you decide to end discussion?

Should we vote to move the resolution to second reading? What should be the threshold? Wouldn't requiring a majority vote to move to second reading defeat the purpose of "notice", because if it doesn't get a majority vote, then it dies without giving notice to those who were not in attendance.

Where in the process would it be appropriate for the body to kill a resolution they don't want to waste their time on? How would they do this, what motions would be appropriate?

[Robert B Fish]

Our bylaws say:

"A resolution may be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting, at a subsequent meeting after the first reading. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present and voting is required to pass a resolution at the same meeting at which it is introduced."

We'd suggeest the use of the terms 'majority' and '2/3 vote'.

As chair, I need some procedural structure on how to deal with the "first reading". I feel that the body should have the opportunity to kill a resolution on first reading if a majority deems to inappropriate, frivolous, abusive (in the case of introducing many resolutions all of which must be read aloud at the meeting) or just plain don't like it.

Someone can use the motion 'postpone indefinitely' to kill a motion.

Is there a standard procedure for this type of 2-step adoption?

Other questions:

Do we have to vote at all at the time of the 1st reading? Is the resolution moved and seconded and then we're done and go on with the next agenda item? Would it be appropriate to discuss the resolution on first reading, and if so, how do you decide to end discussion?

Should we vote to move the resolution to second reading? What should be the threshold? Wouldn't requiring a majority vote to move to second reading defeat the purpose of "notice", because if it doesn't get a majority vote, then it dies without giving notice to those who were not in attendance.

Where in the process would it be appropriate for the body to kill a resolution they don't want to waste their time on? How would they do this, what motions would be appropriate?

RONR does not have rules for 'readings' so you need to specify the rules for your organization. One way might be to vote the first time on whether to send the motion to second reading. Failure at that point kills the motion. As an alternative, the member could move to suspend the rules and cosndier the motion for immediate passage (2/3 vote required). As said before, you need to adopt procedures for your organization as special rules of order.

-Bob

[Rob Elsman]

Our bylaws say:

"A resolution may be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting, at a subsequent meeting after the first reading. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present and voting is required to pass a resolution at the same meeting at which it is introduced."

As chair, I need some procedural structure on how to deal with the "first reading". I feel that the body should have the opportunity to kill a resolution on first reading if a majority deems to inappropriate, frivolous, abusive (in the case of introducing many resolutions all of which must be read aloud at the meeting) or just plain don't like it.

But I also understand that the 2-reading process (we meet monthly) is to give notice of the content of a resolution so people can let their opinions be heard on the topic.

Is there a standard procedure for this type of 2-step adoption?

Other questions:

Do we have to vote at all at the time of the 1st reading? Is the resolution moved and seconded and then we're done and go on with the next agenda item? Would it be appropriate to discuss the resolution on first reading, and if so, how do you decide to end discussion?

Should we vote to move the resolution to second reading? What should be the threshold? Wouldn't requiring a majority vote to move to second reading defeat the purpose of "notice", because if it doesn't get a majority vote, then it dies without giving notice to those who were not in attendance.

Where in the process would it be appropriate for the body to kill a resolution they don't want to waste their time on? How would they do this, what motions would be appropriate?

Most of your questions have more to do with the organzation's rules than anything in RONR. If you would like to review the handling of a motion under the general law, take a look at RONR (10th ed.), §4, pp. 31ff.

[Josh Martin]

Is there a standard procedure for this type of 2-step adoption?

No, as it is not standard procedure to have a "2-step adoption." The closest procedure in RONR is a requirement of previous notice, which is discussed in RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 116-118. Under that procedure, it is possible to provide notice of the motion either at the previous meeting (if the next meeting will be within a quarterly interval) or by including the notice in the call of the meeting. Under this procedure, nothing is done at the time of providing notice, other than that the secretary records the fact that notice was given in the minutes.

Other questions:

Do we have to vote at all at the time of the 1st reading? Is the resolution moved and seconded and then we're done and go on with the next agenda item? Would it be appropriate to discuss the resolution on first reading, and if so, how do you decide to end discussion?

Should we vote to move the resolution to second reading? What should be the threshold? Wouldn't requiring a majority vote to move to second reading defeat the purpose of "notice", because if it doesn't get a majority vote, then it dies without giving notice to those who were not in attendance.

Where in the process would it be appropriate for the body to kill a resolution they don't want to waste their time on?

All of these questions deal entirely with your assembly's customized rules and are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum.

How would they do this, what motions would be appropriate?

The motion for the Previous Question immediately brings a motion to a vote. It is not debatable and requires a 2/3 vote. It's up to your assembly to determine at what time this motion would be in order in your customized process.

[tctheatc]

Seems to me this 2-step business makes it hard to apply ANY of the parliamentary procedures you're asking about, as there will always be an issue of whether any action is applicable to the first or second reading, or both! I guess the draftees of the bylaws didn't trust the body to pay attention the first time around. Pity.

[Bruce Lages]

While you're considering how to interpret this customized rule of your organization, you might also want to look at the RONR description of resolution on pp 100-102. RONR uses the term to describe a complex or lengthy motion that should be in writing, and frequently uses the form of a number of "whereas" clauses followed by one or more "therefore" clauses. You'll have to decide whether the use of the word "resolution" in your rule is meant to be specific to this type of motion or not.

[J. J.]

Our bylaws say:

"A resolution may be passed by a simple majority of those present and voting, at a subsequent meeting after the first reading. A two-thirds (2/3) majority of those present and voting is required to pass a resolution at the same meeting at which it is introduced."

As chair, I need some procedural structure on how to deal with the "first reading". I feel that the body should have the opportunity to kill a resolution on first reading if a majority deems to inappropriate, frivolous, abusive (in the case of introducing many resolutions all of which must be read aloud at the meeting) or just plain don't like it.

But I also understand that the 2-reading process (we meet monthly) is to give notice of the content of a resolution so people can let their opinions be heard on the topic.

Is there a standard procedure for this type of 2-step adoption?

Even if the first meeting would "kill" the proposal, that would not prevent it from being introduced at the second meeting (at least under the same conditions as the first).

Other questions:

Do we have to vote at all at the time of the 1st reading? Is the resolution moved and seconded and then we're done and go on with the next agenda item? Would it be appropriate to discuss the resolution on first reading, and if so, how do you decide to end discussion?

Your society seems to have the option of adopting the motion by a 2/3 vote without notice or by a majority vote with notice (as does RONR for certain types of motions). I think your society should interpret its bylaws to determine if the member moving the motion can give notice (the first reading) separate from proposing the resolution for adoption.

Procedurally there is nothing wrong with a rule that says certain classes of motions (like all main motions) require notice or a 2/3 vote. As indicated, that is the RONR for a limited number of motions (they also have a majority of the entire membership option).

[Robert B Fish]

Even if the first meeting would "kill" the proposal, that would not prevent it from being introduced at the second meeting (at least under the same conditions as the first).

Your society seems to have the option of adopting the motion by a 2/3 vote without notice or by a majority vote with notice (as does RONR for certain types of motions). I think your society should interpret its bylaws to determine if the member moving the motion can give notice (the first reading) separate from proposing the resolution for adoption.

Procedurally there is nothing wrong with a rule that says certain classes of motions (like all main motions) require notice or a 2/3 vote. As indicated, that is the RONR for a limited number of motions (they also have a majority of the entire membership option).

If I were advising the chairman, other than to adopt some rules around this issue, I would suggest that upon first reading, the motion should be, "That the motion be advanced to second reading." If that fails to receive a majority, the motion dies (but could be renewed at a future meeting). If the proponents wish to have immediate adoption thay should move instead, "That the rules requiring a second reading be suspended and that the motion be immediately adopted." If 2/3 agree, the motion is adopted.

-Bob

[hmtcastle]

If the proponents wish to have immediate adoption thay should move instead, "That the rules requiring a second reading be suspended and that the motion be immediately adopted." If 2/3 agree, the motion is adopted.

I'm not sure why that rule would need to be suspended since there's already a provision in place for adopting a resolution at the same meeting at which it's made.

As suggested by Mr. Martin, this two-reading provision seems analogous to the standard previous notice provision. As such, there's no need to suspend the previous notice "rule" if one is opting for a two-thirds vote.

[Gary Novosielski]

As others have mentioned, RONR does not deal with the use of multiple "Readings" that are required by rule in some organizations, often legislative ones such as town councils and school boards.

The purpose of these readings, of course, is to give notice to the public (or in a private group, to the general membership) that potentially important business is about to be acted upon, and the nature of that business. The term "reading" may be a misnomer because in the days of copying machines it is more likely interested parties will simply be given a copy of the bill, ordinance, policy, or what have you.

RONR deals with the need for such notice in a simpler way, and it's simply called "previous notice". The intent to move an action that requires previous notice can be announced at the prior meeting, or sent out with the call of the meeting at which it will be moved. But the motion is never "placed before" the assembly at time of that announcement. It's not open to debate, amendment or any other secondary motions until it's finally taken up at the next meeting. The exact language of the proposal does not have to be read or copied in the notice. All that's needed is enough information to allow people to decide if it's something they care about enough to attend.

Now, although the requirement for multiple readings is not in RONR, the handling of the motion or resolution within that framework can still be done according to the rules in RONR that don't conflict with it. It can be treated as a quaint, if somewhat obsolescent and cumbersome method of previous notice.

I would suggest that the real difference is that when moved (and seconded) "on first reading" the motion is then placed before the assembly, which is then free to handle it in all respects but one, as a normal main motion, unless the customized rule says otherwise. They can debate it, amend it, kill it, refer it to a committee, and essentially do with it as they will, with one exception: they cannot finally adopt it.

A No vote would kill it, but a Yes vote would merely send it on for its required second "reading". At that subsequent meeting, the assembly can, if they wish, again debate, amend, or kill the proposal, and again vote on it. This time, however, unless substantially amended (and perhaps even then), a Yes vote would adopt the resolution.

If the special rule is interpreted as requiring that both readings pass the resolution in essentially the same form, then, after substantial amendments, a Yes would have the same effect as on first reading, and yet another reading would be needed.

Deciding whether the amendments were substantial is essentially the process in RONR for deciding if amendments are outside the scope of a previous notice. The difference being that, if they are, they do not render the amendment out of order, they merely extend the time required for final approval.

The custom rule that a measure can be passed in one reading by a 2/3 vote is essentially the RONR rule for Suspend the Rules and Pass, which was thoughtfully included in the custom rule, avoiding the necessity for an argument over whether, being in the nature of a rule of order, it could be suspended by a 2/3 vote, and the resolution passed anyway.

[Natalie]

Thank you for all the experienced advice. Personally I don't care what procedure we use as long as we agree on something, so we don't argue about the process every time. And that's what rules of order are all about

Natalie

[David A Foulkes]

Thank you for all the experienced advice. Personally I don't care what procedure we use as long as we agree on something, so we don't argue about the process every time. And that's what rules of order are all about

Natalie

Well, you can expect that you won't always agree, so it's important to follow a process whereby the will of the assembly can be determined, by appropriate vote, following civil debate. And that's what rules of order are all about.