If you go back and read my previous post, you'll note that it begins
<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>If you are following Roberts Rules<hr></blockquote>

As long as things are flowing smoothly for you, go with the flow. But you should know Roberts Rules so you can keep the meeting under control if things do get contentious.

If there is ever a dispute, failure to follow the proper rules of order can invalidate any actions you've taken. Then, you'll need to convene a new meeting, follow the rules carefully, and take the same actions again.

My wife's family tells a story of doing exactly this when her great-grandfather tried to establish a 4-year high school in town. An opponent got the resolution thrown out for failure to properly follow the rules of order, even though the district patrons had supported it overwhelmingly. Her great-grandfather obtained a copy of Roberts Rules, studied them carefully, and then arranged another meeting at which the proposal was again voted on. And this is why her grandmother was able to attend a four-year high school without having to travel to another town.

The comment that I've often regretted allowing discussion without a motion is based on my own experience only. I've found having a motion focuses the discussion better. Your mileage may vary.

I realize I should be following the roberts rules. However,I find it works for me that I just be myself. Our board meets before the PTO meeting, so there is no surprises. We follow the agenda presented at the meeting. Any discussion valued over $100 has to be brought to a vote, and we use voting ballets for this. The Vice President counts the votes. It's stressful enough wondering what these parents will bring up at the meeting. Plus I am trying to develop a friendly and welcoming atmosphere for old and new members that come to our meetings. Do what makes you comfortable so you can get your message across.

Because that's how it has been done for a century and how I continued to keep doing it. I went to the library and checked out a couple of books on Roberts Rules. I guess it couldn't hurt to change something else in our group .

I don't understand why you choose to have the officers second a motion. I prefer to have someone other then board members (officers) present the motion and second it. Seems more of a group consensus that way. jmho
I think we use relaxed Roberts Rules of Orders. We have an agenda, must have a quorom for a vote, and ALWAYS vote on items if they're not in the budget if over $200 but discussion is not limited to a certain time. Meetings never last more then 1 1/2 hours and usually are just one. Works for us!

I like my way better! I guess I'm not familiar with Roberts Rules.

If you are following Roberts Rules, there actually shouldn't be any discussion without a motion on the floor. Having said that, I've allowed discussion more than once towards the goal of determining the consensus position so the motion can be made -- and usually regretted it.

If a committee report includes a motion, the motion should be deferred until the new business portion of the meeting. You may want to allow discussion of the issue as part of the committee report, but remember that the real purpose of that discussion time is questions for the committee about their report.

When you get to the new business, it is now the time when the motion should be made. Some organizations operate under the rule that a motion from a committee does not require a second, but even then it doesn't hurt to obtain a second. Once the motion had been made and seconded, the floor it open for discussion. If you do not have procedural rules that limit debate, then you either have to wait for there to be no more discussion or you need someone to call the question.

Calling the question is a motion to cut off debate, and as such requires a 2/3 vote. If this motion passes or fails has nothing to do with the approval or defeat of the motion on the floor. If you vote to call the question, you have voted to vote on the motion now. Since calling the question requires a vote, you shouldn't do it unless necessary.

When debate has ended, however it was ended, you should have the secretary read back the motion as it currently stands and then call for the vote. If you call for a voice vote, you make determination of passage or failure. If you call for a countable vote, such as show of hands, then you are required to count the vote and report it. If somebody disagrees with your determination of an uncountable vote, they can call for a division of the house, at which point you revote in a countable manner.

Generally speaking, a motion can be amended no more than twice, and the amendments cannot reverse the meaning of the original motion. An amendment can be amended once. The vote on the amendment is not a vote on the motion itself, simply a vote to change the wording of the motion under consideration.

So, you could find yourself voting on an amendment of an amendment. Then voting on the amendment of the motion. And only then voting on the motion itself. And every one of these votes could be preceeded by a vote on a motion to call the question.

If the motion presented is malformed, such as through poor wording or a complete absence of relevant details, you might consider a "substitute motion". A substitute motion is also sometimes referred to as an "amendment of the whole". If the substitute is approved, it amends the original motion by completely replacing it. Like any other amendment, approval of the amendment is not approval of the motion.

Confused enough yet? I've not even considered points of order, objections and appeals of parlimentary rulings -- stuff that can get real important in a contentious issue.

(I remember watching WGN coverage of the Chicago Board of Alderman trying to choose a new mayor after the current mayor died in office. It was a fascinating show of parlimentary manuevering as different factions tried to obtain an advantage for their candidate.)

[ 01-14-2003: Message edited by: KC Swan ]</p>