| The following picks up from 333.89 re motion to adjourn not being
debatable.
Though there is room for either interpretation, I believe that in the
case of our Special Meeting, a motion to adjourn should be considered
a main motion, not a privileged one. It would then only be in order
when no other business is on the floor and would be debatable.
"A motion to adjourn is always a privileged motion except in
the following cases:
.
.
3) When the effect of the motion to adjourn, if adopted,
would be to dissolve the assembly with no provision
for another meeting, as is usually the case in a mass
meeting or the last meeting of a convention.
Under any of the conditions (1) through (3) above, a motion to
adjourn is not privileged and is treated just as any other main
motion."
"In ordinary societies having bylaws that provide for several
regular meetings during the year and having no fixed hour for
adjournment, a motion "to adjourn," when unqualified, is always
a privileged motion."
"When adjournment would disolve an assembly, the motion to adjourn
is a main motion subject to debate, amendment, or the application
of any other subsidiary motion. A motion to close the session in
an assembly that will thereby be dissolved, or will not meet again
for a long time unless called into authorized special session under
the bylaws or other governing rule, is often referred to as a motion
to "adjourn sine die," which means to "adjourn without day.""
Robert's Rules, Section 21
Even if a privileged motion to adjourn is allowed by the chair, and the
meeting sustains that ruling, Robert's does provide:
"Although the privileged motion to Adjourn is undebatable, the
following parliamentary steps are in order while it is pending:
-to inform the assembly of business requiring attention
before adjournment;
-to make important announcements;
-..."
Robert's Rules, Section 21
If this Special Meeting is adjourned "sine die" (without fixing a time
at which to reconvene) prior to consideration of any portion of its
order of business, I believe we will have discarded those items with
no action. That might result in a second petition and, if successful,
a second special meeting. I think it better that we decide (rather
than avoid) the issues.
I do not expect this meeting to be dominated by parliamentary
machinations. The purpose of the rules is to help the meeting to work,
to provide the structure and sequence which enable the meeting to
deliberate and decide efficiently. It is the responsibility of the
chair to see that they are used that way, and not to thwart the will
of the members (within the bylaws).
An earlier note suggested that attendance is the overriding issue. I
agree. The majority of the members present will decide. Robert's Rules
are a structure to accomplish that. There should be plenty of support
in the hall for any member who wishes to do something but does not know
how to proceed under the rules. That is one of the responsibilites of
the chair - so ask.
Jack
|
|
Re: .1
>I do not expect this meeting to be dominated by parliamentary
>machinations. The purpose of the rules is to help the meeting to work,
>to provide the structure and sequence which enable the meeting to
>deliberate and decide efficiently. It is the responsibility of the
>chair to see that they are used that way, and not to thwart the will
>of the members (within the bylaws).
That is precisely how I understand it also. Isn't there a
procedure provided for the assembled members to question and
even override a ruling by the chair if they disagree? I seem to
remember there being one. I once attended a town meeting where in
the opinion of the members, the chair was showing clear bias and his
ruling on a point was challenged and overridden.
Steve
|
| Re .2
Any member can both request rulings from the chair and challenge rulings
which she believes to be mistaken.
In the former case:
"When a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being
violated, he can make a Point of Order, thereby calling upon the
chair for a ruling and an enforcement of the regular rules."
Robert's Rules Section 23
For example, if a member makes a statement which maligns or impugns
the motives of another member or group of members, then
"Mr Chairman, I rise to a point of order."
"What is your point of order?"
"I bring to your attention a breach of the rules which you have not
addressed. The statement by Mr Smith that ... is sarcastic and
undermines the credibility of a member."
At this point, the Chair must make a ruling (or he could "being in
doubt, submit the point to a vote of the assembly.")
The purpose here is to enforce the rules, not to manipulate the meeting.
A rule should be cited.
In the later case,
"By electing a presiding officer, the assembly delegates to him
the authority and duty to make necessary rulings on questions of
parliamentary law, But any two mwmbers have the right to Appeal
from his decision on such a question. By one member making the
appeal and another seconding it, the question is taken from the
chair and vested in the assembly for final decision."
"If a member disagrees with a ruling of the chair affecting any
substantial question, he should not hesitate to appeal. The
situation is no more delicate than disagreeing with another member
in debate."
Robert's Rules Section 24
Might go like this:
"I appeal from the decision of the chair."
The chair then states his reasons for his ruling.
There may or may not be debate, depending on the cicumstances.
The chair then puts the question to the membership in such a way that
a positive vote supports his ruling, and a negative vote overrides.
"Shall the decision of the chair be sustained."
This is the only case I know where a tie vote is affirmative.
If anyone is interested, the power of the assembly, by majority vote,
over arbitrary behaviour by the chair is considerable.
Under "Remedies Against Misconduct or Deriliction of Duty in Office",
"If the chair at a meeting ignores a motion apparently made and
seconded in good faith, and neither states the question on the
motion nor rules it out of order, the maker of the motion should
raise a Point of Order (23) covering the case, and on the chair's
decision he can make an Appeal (24). If the chair also ignores
the point of order, the member can repeat the motion; and if it
is seconded and the chair still ignores it, the maker of the motion
can himself put it to a vote standing in his place. If the regular
presiding officer of an organized society culpably fails to perform
the duties of the chair properly in a meeting, a motion can also be
made to censure him, which can be put to a vote by the maker of
the motion as just explained, if necessary. If the offending
occupant of the chair is not the regular presiding officer of
the society, a motion can be made to "declare the chair vacant
and proceed to elect a new chairman." Such a motion is a question
of privilege affecting the assembly."
So the chair is quite ineffective without majority support of the
membership. A majority can "bully" a meeting, but a chairman who lacks
their support cannot.
Jack
|