HomeMy WebLinkAbout03. _Review Board Policy BP 012-Parliamentary Procedures3.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
May 11, 2015
TO: ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE CHAIR WILLIAMS
AND MEMBER MCGILL
FROM: ELAINE R. BOEHME, SECRETARY OF THE DISTRICT(
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF BOARD POLICY BP 012, PARLIAMENTARY
PROCEDURES POLICY
Issue
Staff has been directed to present existing Board Policies to the Administration Committee
for biennial review and submit proposed revisions to the Board for consideration.
Background
Staff has been directed to take existing Board Policies to the Administration Committee
every two years for review. If changes are proposed by staff or the Committee, the
changes will be scheduled for consideration by the Board.
Member Williams requested that, while reviewing the Board Policies, consideration is given
to extracting "procedures" from the Policies, leaving them concise and high - level. He noted
that the procedures relating to executing the Board Policies should be separate documents
developed and maintained by staff, rather being included in the Board Policy document.
Board Policy BP 012 was approved by the Board in January, 2014 to adopt a set of
parliamentary procedures to assist in conducting Board meetings. No changes are
recommended at this time.
Attachments:
1. BP 012 Parliamentary Procedures Policy
Number: BP 012
Authority: Board of Directors
Effective: January 9, 2014 (Resolution 2014 -005)
Revised:
Reviewed: ??
Initiating Dept. /Div.: Administration
BOARD POLICY
' I t I t •
s
www.centralsan.org
PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURES POLICY
PURPOSE
To adopt a set of parliamentary procedures to assist in conducting meetings of the
Board of Directors in an orderly fashion with rules that establish order, are easy to
understand, and preserve the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the
minority.
POLICY
The proceedings of the Board shall be governed by the provisions of law applicable
thereto and by Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as modified and incorporated herein by
reference.
RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CENTRAL CONTRA COSTA SANITARY DISTRICT
ADOPTING ROSENBERG'S RULES OF ORDER,
WITH MODIFICATIONS, AS THE PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE
FOR THE CONDUCT OF BOARD MEETINGS
WHEREAS, the Board of Directors requested that the Policy Development and Internal
Operations Committee look at options for possible adoption of a set of parliamentary
procedures to assist with the conduct of District Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, staff obtained information on the three most commonly -used sets of procedures:
Roberts Rules of Order, Sturgis, and Rosenberg's Rules of Order; and
WHEREAS, at its meeting of October 15, 2013, the Policy Development and Internal
Operations Committee reviewed and compared the three options; and
WHEREAS, the Policy Development and Internal Operations Committee recommended
adoption of Rosenberg's Rules of Order as the most suitable for District Board meetings; and
WHEREAS, District Counsel has amended the rules to clarify voting requirements and how
abstentions are counted.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Central
Contra Costa Sanitary District as follows:
1. The Board hereby adopts Rosenberg's Rules of Order, as amended, as the set of
parliamentary procedures that will govern the conduct of Board meetings.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of January, 2014, by the Board of Directors of the
District by the following vote:
AYES: Members: Causey, McGill, Nejedly, Pilecki, Williams
NOES: Members: None
ABSENT: Members: None
David R. Williams
President of the Board of Directors
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State of California
COU SIGNED: Elaine R. Boehme, CMC
Secretary of the District
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
County of Contra Costa, State 6f Califor fa
Approved as to form:
Kenton L. Al q.
Counsel for the District
Rosenberg's Rules of Order
REVISED 2011
Simple Rules of Parliamentary Procedure for the 21st Century
As revised by
District Counsel
By Judge Dave Rosenberg
As adopted by Central Contra
Costa Sanitary Board 1/9/14
TABLE OF CONTENTS
About the Author ........................ ............................... ii
Introduction............................. ............................... 2
Establishing a Quorum ................. ............................... 2
The Role of the Chair .................. ............................... 2
The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion ................ 2
Motions in General ..................... ............................... 3
The Three Basic Motions ............... ............................... 3
Multiple Motions Before the Body ... ............................... 4
To Debate or Not to Debate ........... ............................... 4
Majority and Super - Majority Votes .. ............................... 5
CountingVotes .......................... ............................... 5
The Motion to Reconsider ............. ............................... 6
Courtesy and Decorum ................. ............................... 7
Special Notes About Public Input .... ............................... 7
1
L Lr
LEAGUE'
OF A oU E'
CITIES
MISSION AND CORE BELIEFS
To expand and protect local control for cities through education and advocacy to enhance the quality of life for all Californians.
VISION
To be recognized and respected as the leading advocate for the common interests of California's cities
About the League of California Cities
Established in 1898, the League of California Cities is a member organization that represents California's incorporated cities.
The League strives to protect the local authority and automony of city government and help California's cities effectively
serve their residents. In addition to advocating on cities' behalf at the state capitol, the League provides its members with
professional development programs and information resources, conducts education conferences and research, and publishes
Western City magazine.
02011 League ofCahfomia Cities All rights rescrvel.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Dave Rosenberg is a Superior Court Judge in Yolo County. He has served as presiding judge of his court, and as
presiding judge of the Superior Court Appellate Division. He also has served as chair of the Trial Court Presiding Judges
Advisory Committee (the conunittee composed of all 58 California presiding judges) and as an advisory member of the
California Judicial Council. Prior to his appointment to the bench, Rosenberg was member of the Yolo County Board of
Supervisors, where he served two terms as chair. Rosenberg also served on the Davis City Council, including two terms
as mayor. He has served on the senior staff of two governors, and worked for 19 years in private law practice. Rosenberg
has served as a member and chair of numerous state, regional and local boards. Rosenberg chaired the California State
Lottery Commission, the California Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board, the Yolo -Solano Air Quality
Management District, the Yolo County Economic Development Commission, and the Yolo County Criminal Justice
Cabinet. For many years, he has taught classes on parliamentary procedure and has served as parliamentarian for large
and small bodies.
U
INTRODUCTION
The rules of procedure at meetings should be simple enough for
most people to understand. Unfortunately, that has not always
been the case. Virtually all clubs, associations, boards, councils
and bodies follow a set of rules -- Robert's Rules of Order —
which are embodied in a small, but complex, book. Virtually no
one I know has actually read this book cover to cover. Worse yet,
the book was written for another time and for another purpose. If
one is chairing or running a parliament, then Robert's Rules of
Order is a dandy and quite useful handbook for procedure in that
complex setting. On the other hand, if one is running a meeting
of say, a five- member body with a few members of the public in
attendance, a simplified version of the rules of parliamentary
procedure is in order.
Hence, the birth of Rosenberg's Rules of Order.
What follows is my version of the rules of parliamentary
procedure, based on my decades of experience chairing meetings
in state and local government These rules have been simplified
for die smaller bodies we chair on in which we participate,
slimmed down for the 21st Century, yet retaining the basic tenets
of order to which we have grown accustomed. Interestingly
enough, Rosenberg's Rules has found a welcoming audience.
Hundreds of cities, counties, special districts, committees,
boards, commissions, neighborhood associations and private
corporations and companies have adopted Rosenberg's Rules in
lieu of Robert's Rules because they have found them practical,
logical, simple, easy to learn and user friendly.
This treatise on modern parliamentary procedure is built on a
foundation supported by the following four pillars:
1. Rules should establish order. The first purpose of rules
of parliamentary procedure is to establish a framework
for the orderly conduct of meetings.
2. Rules should be clear. Simple rules lead to wider
understanding and participation. Complex rules create
two classes: those who understand and participate; and
those who do not fully understand and do not fully
participate.
3. Rules should be user friendly. That is, the rules must
be simple enough that the public is invited into the body
and feels that it has participated in the process.
4. Rules should enforce the will of the majority while
protecting the rights of the minority. The ultimate
purpose of rules of procedure is to encourage discussion
and to facilitate decision making by the body. In a
democracy, majority rules. The rules must enable the
majority to express itself and fashion a result, while
permitting the minority to also express itself, but not
dominate, while fully participating in the process.
Establishing a Quorum
The starting point for a meeting is the establishment of a quorum.
A quorum is defined as the minimum number of members of the
body who must be present at a meeting for business to be legally
transacted. The default rule is that a quorum is one more than
half the body. For example, in a five- member body a quorum is
three. When the body has three members present, it can legally
transact business. If the body has less than a quorum of members
present, it cannot legally transact business. And even if the body
has a quorum to begin the meeting, the body can lose the quorum
during the meeting when a member departs (or even when a
member leaves the dais). When that occurs the body loses its
ability to transact business until and unless a quorum is
reestablished.
The default rule, identified above, however, gives way to a
specific rule of the body that establishes a quorum. For example,
the rules of a particular five - member body may indicate that a
quorum is four members for that particular body. The body must
follow the rules it has established for its quorum. In the absence
of such a specific rule, the quorum is one more than half the
members of the body.
The Role of the Chair
While all members of the body should know and understand the
rules of parliamentary procedure, it is the chair of the body who
is charged with applying the rules of conduct of the meeting. The
chair should be well versed in those rules. For all intents and
purposes, the chair makes the final ruling on the rules every time
and the chair states an action. In fact, all decisions by the chair
are final unless overruled by the body itself
Since the chair runs the conduct of the meeting, it is usual
courtesy for the chair to play a less active role in the debate and
discussion than other members of the body. This does not mean
that the chair should not participate in the debate or discussion.
To the contrary, as a member of the body, the chair has the full
right to participate in the debate, discussion and decision - making
of the body. What the chair should do, however, is strive to be
the last to speak at the discussion and debate stage. The chair
should not make or second a motion unless the chair is convinced
that no other member of the body will do so at that point in time.
The Basic Format for an Agenda Item Discussion
Formal meetings normally have a written, often published
agenda. Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood
agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and
the agenda constitutes the body's agreed -upon roadmap for the
meeting. Each agenda item can be handled by the chair in the
following basic format:
First, the chair should clearly announce the agenda item number
and should clearly slate what the agenda item subject is. The
chair should then announce the format (which follows) that will
be followed in considering the agenda item.
Second, following that agenda format, the chair should invite the
appropriate person or persons to report on the item, including any
recommendation that they might have. The appropriate person or
persons may be the chair, a member of the body, a staff person,
or a committee chair charged with providing input on the agenda
item.
Third, the chair should ask members of the body if they have any
technical questions of clarification. At this point, members of the
body may ask clarifying questions to the person or persons who
reported on the item, and that person or persons should be given
time to respond.
Fourth, the chair should invite public comments, or if
appropriate at a formal meeting, should open the public meeting
for public input. If numerous members of the public indicate a
desire to speak to the subject, the chair may limit the time of
public speakers. At the conclusion of the public comments, the
chair should announce that public input has concluded (or the
public hearing, as the case may be, is closed).
Fifth, the chair should invite a motion. The chair should
announce the name of the member of the body who makes the
motion.
Sixth, the chair should determine if any member of the body
wishes to second the motion. The chair should announce the
name of the member of the body who seconds the motion. It is
normally good practice for a motion to require a second before
proceeding to ensure that it is not just one member of the body
who is interested in a particular approach. lleweveF, a s
fiet a- abbselutefe , and the ehair- eafi-pfeeeed-ivith
eensiEl
seaenA This e
Seventh, if the motion is made and seconded, the chair should
make sure everyone understands the motion.
This is done in one of three ways:
1. The chair can ask the maker of the motion to repeat it;
2. The chair can repeat the motion; or
3. The chair can ask the secretary or the clerk of the body
to repeat the motion.
Eighth, the chair should now invite discussion of the motion by
the body. If there is no desired discussion, or after the discussion
has ended, the chair should announce that the body will vote on
the motion. If there has been no discussion or very brief
discussion, then the vote on the motion should proceed
immediately and there is no need to repeat the motion. If there
has been substantial discussion, then it is normally best to make
sure everyone understands the motion by repeating it.
3
Ninth, the chair takes a vote. Simply asking for the "ayes" and
then asking for the "nays" normally does this. If members of the
body do not vote, then they "abstain." Unless the rules of the
body provide otherwise (or unless a super majority is required as
delineated later in these rules), then a simple majority (as defined
in law or the rules of the body as delineated later in these rules)
determines whether the motion passes or is defeated.
Tenth, the chair should announce the result of the vote and what
action (if any) the body has taken. In announcing the result, the
chair should indicate the names of the members of the body, if
any, who voted in the minority on the motion. This
announcement might take the following form: "The motion
passes by a vote of 3 -2, with Smith and Jones dissenting. We
have passed the motion requiring a 10 -day notice for all future
meetings of this body."
Motions in General
Motions are the vehicles for decision making by a body. it is
usually best to have a motion before the body prior to
commencing discussion of an agenda item. This helps the body
focus.
Motions are made in a simple two -step process. First, the chair
should recognize the member of the body. Second, the member
of the body makes a motion by preceding the member's desired
approach with the words "I move ..."
A typical motion might be: "1 move that we give a 10 -day notice
in the future for all our meetings."
The chair usually initiates the motion in one of three ways:
1. Inviting the members of the body to make a motion,
for example, "A motion at this time would be in order."
2. Suggesting a motion to the members of the body, "A
motion would be in order that we give a 10 -day notice
in the future for all our meetings."
3. Making the motion. As noted, the chair has every right
as a member of the body to make a motion, but should
normally do so only if the chair wishes to make a
motion on an item but is convinced that no other
member of the body is willing to step forward to do so
at a particular time.
The Three Basic Motions
There are three motions that are the most common and recur
often at meetings:
The basic motion. The basic motion is the one that puts forward
a decision for the body's consideration. A basic motion might be:
"I move that we create a five- member committee to plan and put
on our annual fundraiser."
The motion to amend. If a member wants to change a basic
motion that is before the body, they would move to amend it. A
motion to amend might be: "I move that we amend the motion to
have a 10- member committee." A motion to amend takes the
basic motion that is before the body and seeks to change it in
some way.
The substitute motion. If a member wants to completely do
away with the basic motion that is before the body, and put a new
motion before the body, they would move a substitute motion. A
substitute motion might be: "I move a substitute motion that we
cancel the annual fundraiser this year."
"Motions to amend" and "substitute motions" are often confused,
but they are quite different, and their effect (if passed) is quite
different. A motion to amend seeks to retain the basic motion on
the floor, but modify it in some way. A substitute motion seeks to
throw out the basic motion on the floor, and substitute a new and
different motion for it. The decision as to whether a motion is
really a "motion to amend" or a "substitute motion" is left to the
chair. So if a member makes what the member calls a "motion to
amend," but the chair determines that it is really a "substitute
motion," then the chair's designation governs
A "friendly amendment" is a practical parliamentary tool that is
simple, informal, saves time and avoids bogging a meeting down
with numerous formal motions. It works in the following way: In
the discussion on a pending motion, it may appear that a change
to the motion is desirable or may win support for the motion
from some members. When that happens, a member who has the
floor may simply say, "I want to suggest a friendly amendment to
the motion." The member suggests the friendly amendment, and
if the maker and the person who seconded the motion pending on
the floor accepts the friendly amendment, that now becomes the
pending motion on the floor. If either the maker or the person
who seconded rejects the proposed friendly amendment, then the
proposer can formally move to amend.
Multiple Motions Before the Body
There can be up to three motions on the floor at the same time.
The chair can reject a fourth motion until the chair has dealt with
the three that are on the floor and has resolved them. This rule
has practical value More than three motions on the floor at any
given time is confusing and unwieldy for almost everyone,
including the chair.
When there are two or three motions on the floor (after motions
and seconds) at the same time, the vote should proceed first on
the last motion that is made. For example, assume the first
motion is a basic "motion to have a five- member committee to
plan and put on our annual fundraiser." During the discussion of
this motion, a member might make a second motion to "amend
the main motion to have a 10- member committee, not a five -
member committee to plan and put on our annual fundraiser."
And perhaps, during that discussion, a member makes yet a third
motion as a "substitute motion that we not have an annual
fundraiser this year." The proper procedure would be as follows:
First, the chair would deal with the Hurd (the last) motion on the
floor, the substitute motion. After discussion and debate, a vote
would be taken first on the third motion. If the substitute motion
passed, it would be a substitute for the basic motion and would
eliminate it. The first motion would be moot, as would the
second motion (which sought to amend the first motion), and the
action on the agenda item would be completed on the passage by
the body of the third motion (the substitute motion). No vote
would be taken on the first or second motions.
Second, if the substitute motion failed, the chair would then deal
with the second (now the last) motion on the floor, the motion to
amend. The discussion and debate would focus strictly on the
amendment (should the committee be five or 10 members). If the
motion to amend passed, the chair would then move to consider
the main motion (the first motion) as amended. If the motion to
amend failed, the chair would then move to consider the main
motion (the first motion) in its original format, not amended.
Third, the chair would now deal with the first motion that was
placed on the floor. The original motion would either be in its
original format (five- member committee), or if amended, would
be in its amended format (1 0-member committee). The question
on the floor for discussion and decision would be whether a
committee should plan and put on the annual fundraiser.
To Debate or Not to Debate
The basic rule of motions is that they are subject to discussion
and debate. Accordingly, basic motions, motions to amend, and
substitute motions are all eligible, each in their turn, for full
discussion before and by the body. The debate can continue as
long as members of the body wish to discuss an item, subject to
the decision of the chair that it is time to move on and take
action.
There are exceptions to the general rule of free and open debate
on motions. The exceptions all apply when there is a desire of the
body to move on. The following motions are not debatable (that
is, when the following motions are made and seconded, the chair
must immediately call for a vote of the body without debate on
the motion):
Motion to adjourn. This motion, if passed, requires the body to
immediately adjourn to its next regularly scheduled meeting. It
requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to recess. This motion, if passed, requires the body to
immediately take a recess. Normally, the chair determines the
length of the recess which may be a few minutes or an hour. It
requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to fix the time to adjourn. This motion, if passed,
requires the body to adjourn the meeting at the specific time set
in the motion. For example, the motion might be: "I move we
adjourn this meeting at midnight." It requires a simple majority
vote.
Motion to table. This motion, if passed, requires discussion of
the agenda item to be halted and the agenda item to be placed on
"hold." The motion can contain a specific time in which the item
can come back to the body. "I move we table this item until our
regular meeting in October." Or the motion can contain no
specific time for the return of the item, in which case a motion to
take the item off the table and bring it back to the body will have
to be taken at a future meeting. A motion to table an item (or to
bring it back to the body) requires a simple majority vote.
Motion to limit debate. The most common form of this motion
is to say, "I move the previous question" or "I move the
question" or "I call the question" or sometimes someone simply
shouts out "question." As a practical matter, when a member
calls out one of these phrases, the chair can expedite matters by
treating it as a "request" rather than as a formal motion. The chair
can simply inquire of the body, "any further discussion ?" If no
one wishes to have further discussion, then the chair can go right
to the pending motion that is on the floor. However, if even one
person wishes to discuss the pending motion further, then at that
point, the chair should treat the call for the "question" as a formal
motion, and proceed to it.
When a member of the body makes such a motion ( "I move the
previous question "), the member is really saying: "I've had
enough debate. Let's get on with the vote." When such a motion
is made, the chair should ask for a second, stop debate, and vote
on the motion to limit debate. The motion to limit debate requires
a two - thirds vote of the body.
NOTE: A motion to limit debate could include a time limit. For
example: "I move we limit debate on this agenda item to 15
minutes." Even in this format, the motion to limit debate requires
a two - thirds vote of the body. A similar motion is a motion to
object to consideration of an item. This motion is not debatable,
and if passed, precludes the body from even considering an item
on the agenda. It also requires a two- thirds vote.
Majority and Super Majority Votes
In a democracy, a simple majority vote determines a question. A
tie vote means the motion fails. So in a seven - member body, a
vote of 4 -3 passes the motion. A vote of 3 -3 with one abstention
means the motion fails. If one member is absent and the vote is
3 -3, the motion still fails.
All motions require a simple majority, but there are a few
exceptions. The exceptions come up when the body is taking an
action which effectively cuts off the ability of a minority of the
body to take an action or discuss an item. These extraordinary
motions require a two - thirds majority (a super majority) to pass:
Motion to limit debate. Whether a member says, "I move the
previous question," or "I move the question," or "I call the
question," or "I move to limit debate," it all amounts to an
attempt to cut off the ability of the minority to discuss an item,
and it requires a two- thirds vote to pass.
Motion to close nominations. When choosing officers of the
body (such as the chair), nominations are in order either from a
nominating committee or from the floor of the body. A motion to
close nominations effectively cuts off the right of the minority to
nominate officers and it requires a two- thirds vote to pass.
Motion to object to the consideration of a question. Normally,
such a motion is unnecessary since the objectionable item can be
tabled or defeated straight up. However, when members of a
body do not even want an item on the agenda to be considered,
then such a motion is in order. It is not debatable, and it requires
a two - thirds vote to pass.
Motion to suspend the rules. This motion is debatable, but
requires a two - thirds vote to pass. If the body has its own rules of
order, conduct or procedure, this motion allows the body to
suspend the rules for a particular purpose. For example, the body
(a private club) might have a rule prohibiting the attendance at
meetings by non -club members. A motion to suspend the rules
would be in order to allow a non -club member to attend a
meeting of the club on a particulate date or on a particular agenda
item.
Counting Votes
The matter of counting votes starts simple, but can become
complicated.
Usually, it's pretty easy to determine whether a particular motion
passed or whether it was defeated. If a simple majority vote is
needed to pass a motion, then one vote more than 50 percent of
the body is required. For example, in a five - member body, if the
vote is three in favor and two opposed, the motion passes. If it is
two in favor and three opposed, the motion is defeated.
If a two- thirds majority vote is needed to pass a motion, then
how many affirmative votes are required? The simple rule of
thumb is to count the "no" votes and double that count to
determine how many "yes" votes are needed to pass a particular
motion. For example, in a seven - member body, if two members
vote "no" then the "yes" vote of at least four members is required
to achieve a two - thirds majority vote to pass the motion.
What about tie votes? In the event of a tie, the motion always
fails since an affirmative vote is required to pass any motion. For
example, in a five- member body, if the vote is two in favor and
two opposed, with one member absent, the motion is defeated_
Vote counting starts to become complicated when members vote
"abstain" or in the case of a written ballot, cast a blank (or
unreadable) ballot. Do these votes count, and if so, how does one
count them? The starting point is always to check the statutes.
In California, for example, for an action of a board of supervisors
to be valid and binding, the action must be approved by a
majority of the board. (California Government Code Section
25005.) Typically, this means three of the five members of the
board must yote affirmatively in favor of the action. A vote of 2-
1 would not be sufficient. A vote of 3 -0 with two abstentions
would be sufficient. In general law cities in California, as another
example, resolutions or orders for the payment of money and all
ordinances require a recorded vote of the total members of the
city council. (California Government Code Section 36936.)
Cities with charters may prescribe their own vote requirements.
Local elected officials are always well- advised to consult with
their local agency counsel on how state law may affect the vote
count.
After- ult t
no -. Y nu"eF two is te
ef "these present" then you ifeat abstentions one wa5-. liewever-,
if the roles a fthe body say "t yee eeuat the vetes c these
'!present and o•
And if !be rules ef !be body are silent on the subjeet; then [lie
a
Fetes that are "present and vetin -,—'
AeeE)rdtn- LWhere there is a no statutory super majority
reouirement, the general rule and the default rule is to proceed
under the "present and voting rule" with regard to how to count
abstentions. Utirider the "present and voting" system, you would
NOT count abstention votes on the motion Members who
abstain are counted for purposes of determining quorum (they are
"present "), but you treat the abstention votes on the motion as if
they did not exist (they are not "voting"). ,
these "
establishing-
abstention votes eetjust like "ne" votes.
How does this work in practice?
Here are a few examples.
Assume that a five- member city council is voting on a motion
that requires a simple majority vote to pass, and assume further
that the body has no specific rule on counting votes.
Accordingly, the default rule kicks in and we count all votes of
members that are "present and voting." If the vote on the motion
is 3 -2, the motion passes. If the motion is 2 -2 with one
abstention, the motion fails.
Assume a five- member city council voting on a motion that
requires a two - thirds majority vote to pass, and further assume
that the body has no specific rules on counting votes. Again, the
default rule applies. If the vote is 3 -2, the motion fails for lack of
a two - thirds majority. If the vote is 4 -1, the motion passes with a
clear two - thirds majority. A vote of three "yes," one "no" and
one "abstain" also results in passage of the motion. Once again,
the abstention is counted only for the purpose of determining
quorum, but on the actual vote on the motion, it is as if the
abstention vote never existed - so an effective 3 -1 vote is clearly
a two - thirds majority vote.
4PPt43rits any abstention has •h f .7 cs . -f'
.. „
- - -. _...._C...., Jr ..... .......a
Now, exactly how does a member cast an "abstention" vote? Any
time a member votes "abstain" or says, "I abstain," that is an
abstention. However, if a member votes "present" that is also
treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying,
"Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is
abstain. ") In fact, any manifestation of intention to vote either
"yes" or "no" on the pending motion may be treated by the chair
as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable
ballot is counted as an abstention as well.
Can a member vote "absent" or "count me as absent ?" Interesting
question The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better
approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left
his /her chair and is actually "absent." That, of course, affects the
quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to
abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais.
The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of
explanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of
parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion,
debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And
so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only
to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed.
A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other
garden- variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply
only to the motion to reconsider.
First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be
made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A
motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body,
however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two -
thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at
another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain
members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may
be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the
original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or
she may make the motion to reconsider (any other members of
the body - including a member who voted in the minority on the
original motion - may second the motion). If a member who
voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it
must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If
a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then
the item could be brought back to the body again and again,
which would defeat the purpose of finality.
If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is
back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The
6
0
a.
hauP :
"present:"
.tom
under this
Fequking
speei€ie
a .., a.:_a_ vote s t�
Fule, we must eaun! the memb
4PPt43rits any abstention has •h f .7 cs . -f'
.. „
- - -. _...._C...., Jr ..... .......a
Now, exactly how does a member cast an "abstention" vote? Any
time a member votes "abstain" or says, "I abstain," that is an
abstention. However, if a member votes "present" that is also
treated as an abstention (the member is essentially saying,
"Count me for purposes of a quorum, but my vote on the issue is
abstain. ") In fact, any manifestation of intention to vote either
"yes" or "no" on the pending motion may be treated by the chair
as an abstention. If written ballots are cast, a blank or unreadable
ballot is counted as an abstention as well.
Can a member vote "absent" or "count me as absent ?" Interesting
question The ruling on this is up to the chair. The better
approach is for the chair to count this as if the member had left
his /her chair and is actually "absent." That, of course, affects the
quorum. However, the chair may also treat this as a vote to
abstain, particularly if the person does not actually leave the dais.
The Motion to Reconsider
There is a special and unique motion that requires a bit of
explanation all by itself; the motion to reconsider. A tenet of
parliamentary procedure is finality. After vigorous discussion,
debate and a vote, there must be some closure to the issue. And
so, after a vote is taken, the matter is deemed closed, subject only
to reopening if a proper motion to consider is made and passed.
A motion to reconsider requires a majority vote to pass like other
garden- variety motions, but there are two special rules that apply
only to the motion to reconsider.
First, is the matter of timing. A motion to reconsider must be
made at the meeting where the item was first voted upon. A
motion to reconsider made at a later time is untimely. (The body,
however, can always vote to suspend the rules and, by a two -
thirds majority, allow a motion to reconsider to be made at
another time.)
Second, a motion to reconsider may be made only by certain
members of the body. Accordingly, a motion to reconsider may
be made only by a member who voted in the majority on the
original motion. If such a member has a change of heart, he or
she may make the motion to reconsider (any other members of
the body - including a member who voted in the minority on the
original motion - may second the motion). If a member who
voted in the minority seeks to make the motion to reconsider, it
must be ruled out of order. The purpose of this rule is finality. If
a member of minority could make a motion to reconsider, then
the item could be brought back to the body again and again,
which would defeat the purpose of finality.
If the motion to reconsider passes, then the original matter is
back before the body, and a new original motion is in order. The
6
matter may be discussed and debated as if it were on [lie floor for
the first time.
Courtesy and Decorum
The rules of order are meant to create an atmosphere where the
members of the body and the members of the public can attend to
business efficiently, fairly and with full participation. At the
same time, it is up to the chair and the members of the body to
maintain common courtesy and decorum. Unless the setting is
very informal, it is always best for only one person at a time to
have the floor, and it is always best for every speaker to be first
recognized by the chair before proceeding to speak.
The chair should always ensure that debate and discussion of an
agenda item focuses on the item and the policy in question, not
the personalities of the members of the body. Debate on policy is
healthy, debate on personalities is not The chair has the right to
cut off discussion that is too personal, is too loud, or is too crude.
Debate and discussion should be focused, but free and open In
the interest of time, the chair may, however, limit the time
allotted to speakers, including members of the body.
Can a member of the body interrupt the speaker? The general
rule is "no." There are, however, exceptions. A speaker may be
interrupted for the following reasons:
Privilege. The proper interruption would be, "point of privilege."
The chair would then ask the interrupter to "state your point."
Appropriate points of privilege relate to anything that would
interfere with the normal comfort of the meeting. For example,
the room may be too hot or too cold, or a blowing fan might
interfere with a person's ability to hear.
Order. The proper interruption would be, "point of order."
Again, the chair would ask the interrupter to "state your point."
Appropriate points of order relate to anything that would not be
considered appropriate conduct of the meeting. For example, if
the chair moved on to a vote on a motion that permits debate
without allowing that discussion or debate.
Appeal. If the chair makes a ruling that a member of the body
disagrees with, that member may appeal the ruling of the chair. If
the motion is seconded, and after debate, if it passes by a simple
majority vote, then the ruling of the chair is deemed reversed.
Call for orders of the day. This is simply another way of
saying, "return to the agenda." If a member believes that the
body has drifted from the agreed -upon agenda, such a call may
be made. It does not require a vote, and when the chair discovers
that the agenda has not been followed, the chair simply reminds
the body to return to the agenda item properly before them. If the
chair fails to do so, the chair's determination may be appealed.
Withdraw a motion. During debate and discussion of a motion,
the maker of the motion on the floor, at any time, may interrupt a
speaker to withdraw his or her motion from the floor. The motion
is immediately deemed withdrawn, although the chair may ask
the person who seconded the motion if he or she wishes to make
the motion, and any other member may make the motion if
properly recognized,
Special Notes About Public Input
The rules outlined above will help make meetings very public -
friendly. But in addition, and particularly for the chair, it is wise
to remember three special rules that apply to each agenda item.
Rule One: Tell the public what the body will be doing
Rule Two: Keep the public informed while the body is doing it
Rule Three: When the body has acted, tell the public what the
body did.
2217941.1