 |
Brainteaser Archive 1999 |
January 17, 1999 (Difficulty Level - 5)
Question: A committee member arrives at a regular committee
meeting (operating under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)
at which all members will be present. Before the meeting begins, the
member overhears that a motion will be made to reconsider an item adopted at the
previous meeting. At the previous meeting, the committee member voted for
adoption of the underlying motion (and does not want to discuss the matter
again). What action can the committee member take to dramatically
increase the chance that the motion to Reconsider will fail?
Answer: The committee member can choose not to attend the meeting (thereby changing the vote required to pass the motion to reconsider from a majority to two-thirds). The motion to reconsider has different characteristics when made in a standing or special committee. For one, the motion to reconsider can be made and taken up regardless of the time that has elapsed since the vote was taken. In addition, "unless all the members of the committee who voted with the prevailing side are present or have been notified that the reconsideration will be moved, it requires a two-thirds vote to adopt the motion to Reconsider." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), p. 324. (Based on "An Obscure Principle" by Jim Lochrie, Parliamentary Journal, January 1993)
January 25, 1999 (Difficulty Level - 2)
Question: A motion has been debated and amended several times
at the monthly meeting of a voluntary association. A member then rises and
states: "I make a friendly amendment that the motion be amended to add 'and
Assistant Treasurer' after the word 'Treasurer.' This should clear up the
confusion about the motion, and I am certain there will be no opposition from
the maker of the original motion." The maker of the motion
immediately stands and states, "I accept the friendly amendment."
The parliamentary authority is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). Is the proposed amendment adopted?
Answer: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) does not recognize the phrase "friendly amendment" (nor do any of the other major parliamentary authorities, for that matter). As used in some societies, a friendly amendment is a proposed change which becomes part of a motion simply by its acceptance by the maker of the original motion. Widespread use of friendly amendments violates fairness principles of parliamentary procedure in that it takes rights away from the majority and places control in the hands of two members--the proposer of the amendment and the maker of the original motion.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) provides as follows: "Until the chair states the question, the maker has the right to modify his motion as he pleases, or to withdraw it entirely. After the question has been stated by the chair, the motion becomes the property of the assembly, and then its maker can do neither of these things without the assembly's consent; but while the motion is pending the assembly can change the wording of the motion by the process of amendment before acting upon it. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), p. 39.
As to the brainteaser, it is not appropriate to simply adopt the amendment with only the involvement of the two members. The proper procedure would be for the presiding officer to ask if there is any objection by anyone to the amendment. If not, the proposed amendment can be adopted by unanimous consent. If any member objects to the proposed amendment, the chair should ask for a second and process the motion as any other formal amendment.
February 1, 1999 (Difficulty Level - 3)
Question: Sturgis Standard Code omits "several
troublesome motions reflecting nineteenth century customs" found in
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). What is the
suggested method in Sturgis for dealing with the following
"disapproved" motions:
- Postpone indefinitely
- Previous question
- Quasi-Committee of the Whole
Answer: Sturgis, p. 223-225.
- Postpone indefinitely - Handle as the motion to table
- Previous question - "I move to close debate."
- Quasi-Committee of the Whole - Treat as motion to consider informally.
February 7, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: The Chairman of a board is having difficulty
arranging a time that all members can discuss a matter. As a result, the chair
obtains the personal approval of the proposed action by telephone from every
member of the board.
According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), is the action proper? If not, what should be done to make the proposal an official act of the board?
Answer: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 48 (p. 476-77) "The personal approval of a proposed action obtained separately by telephone or individual interview, even from every member of a board, is not the approval of the board, . . . . If action on such a basis is necessary in an emergency, it must be ratified at the next regular board meeting in order to become an official act of the board."
February 14, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: The President-Elect of an organization has
upset numerous members with recent statements about what he will do as President.
According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition),
can the assembly now elect someone other than the President-Elect to the office of
President?
Answer: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 46 (p. 448) "Once a person has been elected president-elect, the assembly cannot alter its decision regarding the succession of that person to the presidency, unless he vacates office during his term as president-elect, or unless ground arises for deposing him from that office."
February 22, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
(1990 Edition), under what circumstances can a non-member of a society be
removed from a meeting?
Answer: "Nonmembers . . . can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting . . . . Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, or by the adoption of a rule on the subject, or by an appropriate motion as the need arises--a motion of the latter nature being a question of privilege. A motion to exclude all nonmembers (except absolutely necessary staff, if any) is often referred to as a motion to 'go into executive session.'" (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 60 (p. 639))
March 1, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
(1990 Edition), what are the three situations in which a main motion
requires greater than a majority vote?
Answer: (1) If the bylaws require more than a majority vote; (2) if the motion would have the effect of suspending a rule of order or a parliamentary right of members; or (3) if the motion would have the effect of changing something already adopted. (Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 10 (p. 100-101))
March 8, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: What is the distinction between a
"President-Elect" and a "President Elect," according to Demeter's
Manual?
Answer: "A president-elect (with hyphen) is the organization's newly elected president who has not yet been formally installed in office. A president elect (no hyphen) is an officer chosen at the previous election, and is the organization's pre-elected next president." Demeter, p. 255.
March 15, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised
(1990 Edition), what is the difference between "stating the
question" and "putting the question"?
Answer: By "stating the question," the chair formally places a motion before the assembly by stating "the exact motion and indicat[ing] that it is open to debate (and certain other parliamentary processes . . .) in the manner . . . appropriate to the case." By "putting the question," the chair puts the motion to a vote. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 4 (p. 31-44)
March 29, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: A close voice vote has been taken, and a member
then calls for a division. Another member is then recognized by the
presiding officer and moves to adjourn. Is the motion in order according
to Robert's Rules of Order
Newly Revised (1990 Edition)?
Answer: No. The motion to adjourn "[t]akes precedence over all motions except the privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn; but it is not in order while the assembly is engaged in voting or verifying a vote, or before the result of a vote has been announced by the chair, except that, in case of a vote taken by ballot, a motion to Adjourn is in order after the ballots have been collected by the tellers and before the result has been announced." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 4 (p. 31-44)
April 20, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: The Chairman of an organization operating under Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) relinquishes the chair in
order to speak on a controversial motion. After further debate, the motion
is postponed until next month's meeting. When the motion comes back on for
discussion the following month, should the Chairman preside?
Answer: No. Whether at the same meeting or another one, a presiding officer who has spoken to a motion should not return to the chair until the matter is resolved. "The presiding officer who relinquished the chair then should not return to it until the pending main question has been disposed of, since he has shown himself to be a partisan as far as that particular matter is concerned." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 42 (p. 390)
April 27, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: If there is no specific rule on the subject,
can the chairman of a meeting exclude nonmembers from the meeting if the
nonmembers are causing no disruption, according to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)?
Answer: No. "Nonmembers . . . can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting of a society, or from all of its meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, or by the adoption of a rule on the subject, or by an appropriate motion as the need arises--a motion of the latter nature being a question of privilege. A motion to exclude all nonmembers (except absolutely necessary staff, if any) is often referred to as a motion to "go into executive session." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 60 (p. 639)
May 3, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: A nominating committee wishes to nominate one
of its own members for president of the organization. Is this appropriate
according to Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)?
Answer: Yes. "Members of the nominating committee are not barred from becoming nominees for office themselves. To make such a requirement would mean, first, that service on the nominating committee carried a penalty by depriving its members of one of their privileges; and second, that appointment or election to the nominating committee could be used to prevent a member from becoming a nominee." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 45 (p. 425)
May 10, 1999 (Difficulty level = 5)
Question: Debate on a particularly controversial motion
has been limited by means of the motion to limit debate to one hour. After
thirty minutes of debate, it is apparent that more information is needed before
a final decision can be made. A member attempts to postpone the motion
until the next week's meeting but is ruled out of order by the
President. Based solely on these facts (and according to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition),
why?
Answer: The motion to postpone to a certain time "cannot be moved after the adoption of a motion to close debate on the main question at a definite hour or of a motion to limit the total time allowed for debate; but it remains in order if only a limitation on the length of speeches is in force." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 14 (p. 178)
May 17, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: The parliamentary authority of your
organization is Robert's
Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). According to the Bylaws
of the organization, the Treasurer is an ex-officio member of the
Finance Committee. Can the Treasurer speak and/or vote at Finance
Committee meetings?
Answer: Yes. The term ex-officio simply describes how membership on the body came about (by virtue of an office or title held in the society or outside group), and does not define rights of membership. Unless the Bylaws restrict participation, an ex-officio member has all rights of membership, including the right to speak and to vote. "In the executive board of a society, if the ex-officio member of the board is under the authority of the society (that is, if he is a member, officer, or employee of the society), there is no distinction between him and the other board members." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 48 (p. 475)
May 31, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: You are a member of an organization with a
parliamentary authority of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition).
Your elected board of directors recently held an important meeting and you wish
to see a copy of minutes. Are you entitled the minutes?
Answer: No, unless the bylaws of your organization or state law permit or require such right of access. "[T]hese [board] minutes are accessible only to the members of the board unless the board grants permission to a member of the society to inspect them, or unless the society by a two-thirds vote (or a vote of a majority of the total membership, or a majority vote if previous notice is given) orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 48 (p. 477)
June 14, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: Your organization is planning to rewrite its
bylaws for purposes of clarity as well as to make substantial changes. The
bylaws committee plans to submit a revision. What vote is required to
adopt the revision if your parliamentary authority is Sturgis' Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure?
Answer: Majority. "A revised set of bylaws requires only a majority vote for adoption." Sturgis, p. 197.
June 21, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: One of the basic headings in the order of
business is often erroneously referred to as "Old Business."
What is the proper title for this portion of the program, and how does an item
get placed in this heading according to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)?
Answer: "The heading of Unfinished Business and
General Orders includes items of business in the four categories that are
listed below:"
a) Question pending when the previous meeting adjourned;
b) Any questions that were unfinished business at the previous meeting and
not reached;
c) Any questions set as general orders for the previous meeting and not
reached; and
d) Matters postponed to the present meeting.
Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 40 (p. 353)
June 28, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: You are the member of a committee in an
organization that follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition).
You disagree with the committee's recommendations and wish to speak against the
committee report when it comes to the floor and to bring forward issues that you
feel the committee did not give enough weight to during discussion. Can
you speak against the committee report, and can you discuss the issues the
committee overlooked?
Answer: Yes, you can can speak against the committee report. However, you cannot make reference to what occurred during the committee's discussion of the issue. "But in debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 50 (p. 519-520).
July 6, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: Prepare a teller's report under Robert's Rules of
Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) for the following election:
There are 1,000 members of the association. 500 delegates are present at the convention. Only 400 delegates are present at the meeting during the election. A quorum is present.
There were 3 official candidates for Secretary: Jim Jones, who received 30 votes, Tim Turner, who received 125 votes; and Bob Blue, who received 165 votes. A number of delegates do not like any of the candidates. As a result, 10 ballots that were returned are completely blank. Mickey Mouse (the cartoon character) received 20 votes.
Was any candidate elected on this ballot?
Answer:
Tellers' Report for Election
Number of Votes cast . . . . . . . . .340
Necessary for Election . . . . . . . .171
Bob Blue received . . . . . . . . . . . 165
Tim Turner received . . . . . . . . . .125
Jim Jones received . . . . . . . . . . 30
Illegal votes
Mickey Mouse (ineligible) . . . . . . . 20
No, a candidate was not elected on this ballot.
July 12, 1999 (Difficulty level = 5)
Question: Two organizations have identical members, issues, and discussions. The only difference between the two organizations is their parliamentary authority. The following identical election took place in both meetings: For the office of president, Sue Smith received 50 votes, Bob Brown received 44 votes, Vicki Vail received 2 votes, and Mickey Mouse (yes, the cartoon character) received 4 votes. One organization declared Sue Smith the new president. The other organization had a second balloting, which Bob Brown won.
Based upon this information, which organization uses which major parliamentary authority and why does it make a difference?
Answer: The first organization uses as its parliamentary authority Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), in which illegal votes cast by legal voters (i.e., for Mickey Mouse) are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for computing a majority. Under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), Sue Smith did not receive a majority (51 votes) of the 100 ballots cast and reballoting is necessary.
The second organization uses as its parliamentary authority Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure in which only legal votes are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for computing a majority. Under Sturgis, Sue Smith received a majority of the 96 legal ballots cast.
July 26, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: Your organization uses Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) as its parliamentary authority. A main motion is under consideration. The previous question is moved, seconded, and adopted. Are you permitted to obtain the floor at this point and move that the vote on the main motion be taken by ballot?
Answer: Yes. Motions relating to methods of voting and the polls are incidental motions and "can be moved until, but not after, the question on another motion has been stated. They can be moved while an order for the Previous Question is in effect on the votes to which they apply." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 30 (p. 279).
August 2, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: What should be in the first paragraph of your organization's minutes if Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) is the parliamentary authority?
Answer: (1) The kind of meeting (regular, special, etc.); (2) the name of the society; (3) the date and time of meeting (and place if varies); (4) the fact that the chairman and secretary were present or their substitutes; and (5) whether the minutes of the previous meeting were read and approved. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 47 (p. 459).
August 9, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: The bylaws of your organization (which uses Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) as a parliamentary authority) provides that the officers shall "be elected by ballot." The same person has held the office of Treasurer for 12 years and is unopposed for re-election. The organization is 100% behind her election. Can the ballot be taken by a voice vote if there is unanimous consent? Can a motion be made to suspend the bylaws to allow such an election?
Answer: No, a ballot vote must be taken. "The assembly cannot make valid a viva voce election if the bylaws require the election to be by ballot. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 45 (p. 435). In addition, bylaws rarely can be suspended and cannot be in such an instance. See Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 2 (p. 17).
August 16, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: You are planning the annual convention for your organization (which uses Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)). What should be the first item of business following any preliminary ceremonies (welcome, pledge, introductions, etc.) on the first day of the convention?
Answer: "The official organization of the convention is brought about by the separate consideration and adoption of the reports of three committees mentioned above--the Credentials Committee, the Committee on Standing Rules, and the Program Committee, in that order." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 58 (p. 603).
August 23, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), list the basic bylaws of an organization.
Answer: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 55 (p. 564-574):
I. Name
II. Object
III. Members
IV. Officers
V. Meetings
VI. Executive Board (or Board of Directors)
VII. Committees
VIII. Parliamentary Authority
IX. Amendment of Bylaws
August 30, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: You are attending the monthly meeting of an organization that uses Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) as its parliamentary authority. A main motion is made and seconded. Another member is recognized in debate who says, "This is the dumbest idea I can imagine. I think we should kill it and move to lay the main motion on the table." Is the motion to lay on the table in order? Why or why not?
Answer: "In ordinary assemblies, the motion to Lay on the Table is out of order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 17 (p. 208).
September 6, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: The motion on the floor at a meeting following Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) is that the "national headquarters building be sold for $100,000." An amendment is proposed to strike "$100,000" and to insert "$125,000." A motion to create a blank as to the dollar amount is proposed and passes. Other dollar figures made to fill the blank are $90,000 and $110,000. What order should these figures be voted on in order to fill the blank?
Answer: "[W]henever a logical order is apparent, to arrange the proposed entries so that the one least likely to be acceptable will be voted on first, and so on. New supporters may then be gained with each succeeding vote until a majority in favor of one entry is reached. . . . In the case of such a motion--to accept a sum of money in settlement--the amounts being considered should be arranged and voted on in order from the smallest to the largest." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 12 (p. 162-163).
As a result, the figures should be voted on in the following order: $90,000; $100,000; $110,000; $125,000.
September 13, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: The motion on the floor at a meeting following Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) is that "delegates to the state convention be instructed to vote for the dues increase." Is a motion to amend by inserting the word "not" between the words "convention" and "be" in order? Is a motion to amend by inserting the word "not" between the words "instructed" and "to" in order?
Answer: Not in order as to "not be instructed." In order as to "instructed not to vote."
"Thus, in the motion that 'our delegates be instructed to vote in favor of the increase in Federation dues,' an amendment to insert 'not' before 'be' is out of order because an affirmative vote on not giving a certain instruction is identical with a negative vote on giving the same instruction. But it would be in order to move to insert 'not' before 'to' ('instructed not to vote in favor'), since this would change the main motion into one to give different instructions (see, however, the second paragraph on p. 102)." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 12 (p. 134).
September 20, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: What is a "proviso"?
Answer: A bylaws amendment takes effect immediately unless another time is specified for its becoming effective. "While the amendment is pending, a motion can be made to amend the enacting words of the motion to amend by adding a clause such as this: '. . . with the proviso that [or, '. . . provided, however, that'] this amendment shall not go into effect until after the close of this annual meeting.'" Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 56 (p. 590).
September 27, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: A motion is pending that will require a two-thirds vote for adoption. An amendment is then proposed from the floor. According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), what vote is required to adopt the amendment?
Answer: Majority. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 12 (p. 131).
October 4, 1999 (Difficulty level = 5)
Question: Your organization follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). The pending motion is a secondary amendment to strike out words from a primary amendment to strike. What will be the difference in effect depending on whether the primary amendment is a motion to strike out words or a motion to strike out a paragraph?
Answer: "If the primary amendment is to strike out certain words, then words struck out of the primary amendment will remain in the resolution regardless of the final vote on the primary amendment. But if the primary amendment is to strike out a paragraph, then words stuck out of that paragraph in the process of secondary amendment are out of the resolution regardless of the final vote on the primary amendment." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 12 (p. 144).
October 11, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: Which motion is not debatable, but is amendable, and requires a two-thirds vote for adoption?
Answer: Limit or Extend Limits of Debate. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) tinted page 45.
October 18, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: You walk into a convention of an organization that follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). A member obtains the floor and proposes an amendment to a main motion just made. The presiding officer turns to the maker of the original motion and asks if the proposed changes are acceptable. What are the circumstances?
Answer: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) does not recognize the concept of "friendly amendments" as typically used by many organizations. Under RONR 1990, the maker of a motion only retains control over the motion (to withdraw or modify it at will) up to the time the motion is stated by the chair. In the situation described above, a member made a main motion (which may or may have not been seconded) and another member obtained recognition before the stating of the motion by the chair.
October 25, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: In an organization following Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), at what times should the presiding officer stand?
Answer: (1) Calling the meeting to order; (2) declaring it adjourned; (3) putting a question to a vote; (4) explaining the ruling on a point of order; (5) speaking in debate on an appeal or a point of order submitted to the assembly. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 46 (p. 442).
November 1, 1999 (Difficulty level = 5)
Question: In Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), what is the name of the (rarely used) proceedings in which the full assembly gives detailed consideration to a matter under consideration, members can speak to the main question or any amendment as often as they can get the floor, the presiding officer remains in the chair, and any motion except an amendment that is adopted puts an end to the proceedings?
Answer: Quasi Committee of the Whole (Consideration as if in Committee of the Whole). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) § 51 (p. 530-532).
November 7, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure recognizes a process (not used in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)), by which a motion that has been adopted can be repealed automatically from the adoption of a later motion that conflicts in whole or in part. This process is known as repeal by _______________.
Answer: Repeal by implication. Sturgis Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, p. 28.
November 15, 1999 (Difficulty level = 3)
Question: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) generally permits an individual to speak to any debatable motion two times on the same day. Name a motion which if debatable permits members to only speak once, but the presiding officer may speak to the motion twice.
Answer: (1) Appeal or (2) point of order submitted to a vote. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §23, §25 (p. 256).
November 22, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) states that the minimum essential officers for the conduct of business in a deliberative assembly are a ______________ and a __________________.
Answer: The "presiding officer, who conducts the meetings and sees that the rules are observed, and a secretary, or clerk, who makes a written record of what is done--usually called 'the minutes.'" Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §3 (p. 21).
November 29, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: You are attending the regular monthly meeting of an organization that follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). A motion is being debated when a member moves to adjourn. The chair takes the vote on the motion to adjourn and announces that the "ayes have it." Before actually declaring the meeting adjourned, a member obtains the floor and moves that "when the meeting adjourns, it adjourn to meet here next Thursday at 7:00 p.m." Is the motion in order?
Answer: Yes. The privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn "can be moved even after the assembly has voted to adjourn, provided that the chair has not yet declared the assembly adjourned." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §22 (p. 243).
December 6, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: Your convention follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). In what order should the following committee reports be adopted at the beginning of the convention: Program, Standing Rules, Credentials?
Answer: "[T]he Credentials Committee, the Committee on Standing Rules, and the Program Committee, in that order." Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §58 (p. 603).
December 13, 1999 (Difficulty level = 4)
Question: You are at a convention that earlier in the same day passed an important main motion. A member moves during the afternoon to rescind the motion passed that morning. Another member raises a point of order and states that the motion to rescind is out of order in that the motion can be dealt with by the motion to reconsider. Is the point of order well taken if your parliamentary authority is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition)?
Answer: No, the point of order is not well taken. The motion to rescind is not in order if "it has previously been moved to reconsider the vote on the main motion, and the question can be reached by calling up the motion to Reconsider." Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §34 (p. 302). In the present case, no motion to reconsider was previously moved, and either the motion to reconsider or the motion to rescind would be in order.
December 20, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: According to Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition), one type of deliberative assembly is a meeting of an unorganized group which is announced as open to everyone interested in a particular problem or purpose, and which is called with a view to appropriate action to be decided on and taken by the meeting body. What is this type of assembly?
Answer: A mass meeting. Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §2 (p. 5).
December 27, 1999 (Difficulty level = 2)
Question: Your organization follows Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition). A motion is made at a monthly meeting and heated discussion follows. A member then rises and points out that the motion was never seconded and is therefore out of order. Is the point of order well taken?
Answer: No. "After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded -- even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement -- the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption. Rules of Order Newly Revised (1990 Edition) §4 (p. 36).
