Dear Parliamentarian Vol. 6 June '96
Dear Parliamentarian Vol. 6 June '96
Answers to your Parliamentary Questions
drvideo@comcast.net
"Dear Parlimentarian" is written by the author of Parliamentary Procedures Made Simple: The Basics, an 80 minute video that tells how to have better meetings.
NOTE TO THOSE WHO WRITE “DEAR Parlimentarian”: There have been many requests for answers to problems. If you have such a request, it may be a week before there is a reply. If you need an answer immediately, please tell where you are located and we will give you the name of a Parliamentarian in your area to call.
THE LETTERS THIS MONTH INCLUDE THESE PROBLEMS:
how to expunge something rectroactively --- Barbados Parliament several questions about voting procedures or wrong procedures in meetings several questions about bylaws lack of understanding about the process to amend nominations and elections meeting on-line
Dear Parlimentarian:
I had requested following information but to date have not had a response. Can you assist?
I need specific information.
If you can answer I would be grateful. If that answer comes in a book which I have to purchase, I'd be more than happy to do so. If someone else have the answer, to whom you can direct me, I'd be extremely happy.
I would like to find out whether there are precedents of remarks being expunged RETROACTIVELY from the official records of parliament.
AND/OR ...
Whether there had been attempts to do this which had not succeeded and why.
AND/OR ...
Are there any rulings or guidance on RETROACTIVE expunction.
Appreciate any assistance you can provide
Rgds/
Concerned Citizen
Dear Concerned,
I sent you an e-mail when you first wrote me. Before I can answer your question I need some more information for you. Robert’s Rules of Order has information about expunging from the minutes, but that may not be appropriate for what you are trying to do.
Could you tell me what country you are writing from and which parliament you are referring to? Many parliaments, just like American state legislatures, or the American Congress have their own rules concerning this and their own parliamentary authority that would be able to tell them what to do. If you could give me some guidance on this, then I can be of more help.
Sincerely,
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian,
I am writing from Barbados.
We had a situation here where the prime minister launched a personal attack on a citizen in parliament.
Opposition MP attempted to get the comments struck from the record in the same sitting but the Speaker of the House Assembly ruled that they were perfectly okay and he found nothing wrong with them.
The prime minister them came under intense public pressure during the next ten days after which he went back to parliament under "Personal Explanation" saying his "vehement" statements were made in a moment of anger and he asked that they be struck from the record. The Speaker then over-ruled his earlier decision and struck them from the record along with "all other adjectives that preceded the offending words" which were not identified.
The Standing Orders here remain silent on RETROACTIVE expunction from Hansard. The local and regional newspapers and electronic media have widely reported the comments which cannot now be found anywhere in the official record of parliament - possibly opening the newspapers to lawsuits from the injured party.
I therefore would like to know the experience elsewhere in handling such matters and whether there are any precedents and consequences of retroactive expunction.
I am informed about a similar case in Trinidad and Tobago (Rambachan v Attorney General) which was successfully contested in Court following the retroactive expunction of comments.
Do you know of rules, whether in or outside of the USA and preferably within the British Commonwealth, which permits or disallows retroactive expunction. I am interested in the thinking behind these.
Or if unsuccessful attempts were made to retroactively expunged comments.
Rgds/
Concerned Citizen
Dear Concerned,
Please let me know if you receive this e-mail. I have someone looking in Canada to see if we can give you somewhere to look for answers to this question.
I did find this book with a section on “Expunging from the Records” in India. The book is “PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE IN INDIA” , by A. R. Mukherjea, published by Oxford University Press 1967. On p189 at the bottom of the page is the beginning of a section entitled “Expunging”. Mr. Mukherjea begins the section this way: “In the Indian legislature rules the Chair is authorized to expunge expressions which are in the opinion of the Chair defamatory, indecent, unparliamentary or undignified. The portions so expunged are marked by asterisks, and an explanatory footnote is inserted in the printed proceedings.
I think you have two questions here. First, can remarks be expunged retroactively, and second, if they are expunged how is it done?
I also found this in Mr. Mukherjea’s book, “A resolution containing an imputation against Sir Robert Peel was moved and negatived. A motion for expunging the resolution from the journal was moved and carried. But the full text of the resolution and the debate thereon appeared in Hansard.”
I can answer the question about how expunging should be done from a procedural point of view, base upon parliamentary authorities in this country. In all the parliamentary authorities that I have investigated, it is normally done by a motion. After the motion is made, seconded and voted on (adopted) then “the secretary in the presence of the assembly, draws a single line through or around the offending words in the minutes, and writes across them the words, ‘Rescinded and Ordered Expunged’, with the date and his signature. In the recorded minutes the words that are expunged must not be blotted out or cut out so that they cannot be read, since this would make it impossible to verify whether more was expunged that ordered. If the minutes are published, the expunged material is omitted. “ (Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 1990 Ed.,p.303)
Perhaps looking at the decision of the court in the case that you referred to would be of better guidance. They surely have sited reasons for the decision made in the court case, and perhaps have sited some authorities or other precedents for the decision.
This question is more of a legal problem than a parliamentary problem. But as soon as I receive further information, I will forward it on to you.
Sincerely,
The Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian:
I just discovered the Robert McConnell web site. :)!!
We have a district convention tonight (6/11/96).
A question has come up about whether the Chairman of the Organization (who does not live in the district yet is an ex-off member of "all committees" "herein mentioned" re. by-laws.)
May the Chairman of the whole organization vote as a member of the convention assembly (in this district) ?
Note: If so, would this not allow him to vote as a member in each of the six districts--in effect giving him six votes rather than one like all other members? Would this be fair to the members in each individual district?
I understand that on such committees as finance, membership etc. where he may wish to attend and vote that he can do this, but does this apply specifically to a “district convention?"
Our by-laws do not make a distinction in the possible meaning of "meeting" vs. "convention" (which, of course, by some could be called nothing more than a "special meeting for a special purpose" or merely a "big meeting."
Thank you for your help.
Roger Heydt
P.S. I don't know if I will get an answer in time, but if not thanks for the web site anyway. I haven't even had time to look at all the "stuff" yet. But I will. I just found it last night. (Ah...never had occasion to look for it until now. I'm still a bit new at all this computer business so forgive me if any of this not o.k.) again thanks.
Dear Roger,
Does your district convention hire a parliamentarian for its meetings? If it does, you could ask the parliamentarian these questions, and he/she could help you find the answers.
I can’t give you a specific answer without seeing all your governing documents.
To find the answer to your questions, look in the National Bylaws, District Bylaws, and District Convention Standing Rules.
Generally, the chairman of the national organization can only vote in the district in which he is a member unless there are rules that give him that right in each district.
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian:
At our last union meeting our Business Manager, Vice-President and Recording Secretary were nominated unopposed. When elections were held there names were not on the ballot. I say that the President should have instructed the Recording secretary to cast one vote for each of these men. Then on the ballot say that elected by acclaim of the body. Is this correct.Is our election of these men valid.
willieiron@p.b.net
Dear John,
I find it very odd that members were nominated and not put on the ballot.
Robert’s says this: p.406 “When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by unanimous vote. Thus it is out of order in such a case to move that one person -- the secretary, for example, cast the ballot of the assembly.”
So the procedure was out of order to have the recording secretary to cast the ballots. Another ballot for those officers should have been taken.
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian,
I recently saw the minutes of a meeting in which the chair said "the floor is open". Three people "raised" their hands. BTW, this was all done via computer. In the mean time, the chair had asked if there was a motion to adjourn. Then the chair recognized the first person. This first person said "I was going to move for adjournment." According to the log, the meeting was then closed leaving the second and third person hanging.
My question(s) is; Should the chair recognized the other two people before closing? What should have been the proper procedure?
Thank you,
Respectfully,
Jeff Ford
Dear Jeff,
Yes. The two other people should have been recognized.
I think meetings over the computer are especially complicated and we need to work out procedures for these meetings.
In a regular meeting where all are in attendance, Robert’s says after the motion to adjourn is adopted, the chair should pause and look around the room to see if others want to speak. Robert says p. 237, that after a motion to adjourn has been adopted these following parliamentary steps are in order: 1. A person can rise to make an important announcement; 2. a member can rise to make a motion to reconsider a vote taken in the meeting (but not to take up); 3.a member can rise and move to reconsider the vote and enter on the minutes; 4. a member can rise and give previous notice that he will be making a motion at the next meeting; 5. a member rise and set the time for an adjourned meeting (the motion is “To Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn”); 6. to inform the assembly of business requiring attention before adjournment.
He also says that if a person was trying to get the attention of the chair when the chair adjourned, for any of the above reasons, he should tell to the chair after the meeting, and the chair should call the meeting back to order immediately and then let the member speak, and then adjourn the meeting. See Robert’s p. 237-239. (Please note that only the six procedures mentioned can be presented .)
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian:
I live in Wichita, Kansas.
There will be nominations from the floor for EACH of the slated officers. I'm unclear on what the "right" process for that will be. In the past, no one ever challenged the slate and so we elected viva voce (terminology?). Normally, the Nominations chair formally presents the slate of officers (6 total) to the Convention Assembled. Then, the chair asks if there are any nominations from the floor. Because there have never been any, someone would make a motion to accept the slate as presented by acclamation (I think this is how we did it). My question is ... if someone is going to nominate a different person for each office, how should it be done? One at a time? Can it be done as a package? How should debate be handled? One at a time or as a group? Our constitution provides for ballot voting when there is more than one nomination (there is also a weighting system to give more weight to certain delegates votes). I think that someone is proposing that all the other nominations will be presented and the written ballot will simply be a list of each office where every delegate votes for all offices at once (versus one at a time). Is this an acceptable practice for Roberts Rules (which is what we use)? If so, is it the ONLY way to do it? I would be more in favor of voting on each office, one-at-a-time. Under their method it is possible that a person might get elected for more than one office. Come to think of it ... wouldn't it be incorrect to have one person's name in nomination for TWO things? How would one go about making a proper motion to change the voting procedure? How should debate be handled in either case (one office at a time)? As you can see, I am quite confused. I should be honest and say that the issue at hand is sticky ... while we have a skilled Parliamentarian "on-duty" throughout convention, the power of the chair can be immense and is significant in this case. We're dealing with a situation where the current chair has not been renominated by the nominating committee as well as a few other current officers and her position is one of the most significant challenges being made.
I don't know if you can help me ... I'm sure that I can get some time with our Parliamentarian when I arrive but anything you can recommend to me before I leave and references to relevant sections of Roberts Rules would be helpful. Not sure I'm dealing with a simple "beginner" issue here. I will go to my local bookstore this evening and try to find a good copy of Roberts Rules. I have visited your web site. Found it interesting.
I appreciate your consideration.
Thank you.
Julie King
Dear Julie,
Make sure you buy the Scott Foresman 1990 Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. If none of the stores have the book in stock, call us a 1-800-532-4017 (for orders only) and we can ship one out over night or second day air.
Study the chapter on “Nominations and Elections” beginning on page 422. Also study your bylaws, convention standing rules under “Nominations and Elections”. The procedures concerning your organization should be outlined in that section. If not then Robert’s fills in where it leaves off.
1. Robert says the procedure of nominations from the floor is usually established by rule or custom. It can be done two ways:
A. “In some organizations all nominations from the floor are completed and nominations are closed for each office before voting for any office takes place.
B. “In other organizations, when nominations for one office have been completed, votes are cast for that office and the result is announced before the chair calls for nominations for the next office.” p. 427
2. Debate. I do not know of “debate” as such. In both the national organizations that I am a member and have attended the national conventions, nominees or their representatives are allowed so many minutes to tell the assembly what they want to do for the organization. This procedure is written in the bylaws of both organizations.
If there is no procedure or precedence or custom or rule concerning this, you could rise to a “parliamentary inquiry” (p.285) and ask if it would be appropriate to hear some comments from the candidates about their goals if elected to office or for those who are running for re-election to state what they have accomplished and their future plans if re-elected to that office. At one convention I recently attended, we kept balloting for one of the offices. No one was receiving a majority vote. A member of the assembly asked if we could hear the candidates speak again. They did speak again, and someone was elected on the next ballot.
Robert’s say if a person is elected to more than one office, he can choose the office. If he is not present, the members can vote on which office they would like him to serve.
For any procedure not defined by your bylaws and standing rules, then make a motion that sets the procedure. For example, make a motion that nominees have the opportunity to speak for so many minutes about their candidacy. Make another motion that says the members will vote on one office at a time since that is what you would like to see done. These are incidental main motions, they need a second, and are debatable and need a majority vote to be adopted.
Since your bylaws state that if two or more people are nominated for an office the vote must be taken by ballot, then you can not change that rule because it is in your bylaws.
I think that after you read the chapter in Robert’s on “Nominations and Elections”, you will know what to do. Definitely take Robert’s, your bylaws and standing rules into the meeting with you. If you are thoroughly informed and prepared you can make a good contribution to this meeting!!!!!
Best wishes,
Parlimentarian
Dear Julie,
Make sure you buy the Scott Foresman 1990 Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. If none of the stores have the book in stock, call us a 1-800-532-4017 (for orders only) and we can ship one out over night or second day air.
Study the chapter on “Nominations and Elections” beginning on page 422. Also study your bylaws, convention standing rules under “Nominations and Elections”. The procedures concerning your organization should be outlined in that section. If not then Robert’s fills in where it leaves off.
1. Robert says the procedure of nominations from the floor is usually established by rule or custom. It can be done two ways:
A. “In some organizations all nominations from the floor are completed and nominations are closed for each office before voting for any office takes place.
B. “In other organizations, when nominations for one office have been completed, votes are cast for that office and the result is announced before the chair calls for nominations for the next office.” p. 427
2. Debate. I do not know of “debate” as such. In both the national organizations that I am a member and have attended the national conventions, nominees or their representatives are allowed so many minutes to tell the assembly what they want to do for the organization. This procedure is written in the bylaws of both organizations.
If there is no procedure or precedence or custom or rule concerning this, you could rise to a “parliamentary inquiry” (p.285) and ask if it would be appropriate to hear some comments from the candidates about their goals if elected to office or for those who are running for re-election to state what they have accomplished and their future plans if re-elected to that office. At one convention I recently attended, we kept balloting for one of the offices. No one was receiving a majority vote. A member of the assembly asked if we could hear the candidates speak again. They did speak again, and someone was elected on the next ballot.
Robert’s say if a person is elected to more than one office, he can choose the office. If he is not present, the members can vote on which office they would like him to serve.
For any procedure not defined by your bylaws and standing rules, then make a motion that sets the procedure. For example, make a motion that nominees have the opportunity to speak for so many minutes about their candidacy. Make another motion that says the members will vote on one office at a time since that is what you would like to see done. These are incidental main motions, they need a second, and are debatable and need a majority vote to be adopted.
Since your bylaws state that if two or more people are nominated for an office the vote must be taken by ballot, then you can not change that rule because it is in your bylaws.
I think that after you read the chapter in Robert’s on “Nominations and Elections”, you will know what to do. Definitely take Robert’s, your bylaws and standing rules into the meeting with you. If you are thoroughly informed and prepared you can make a good contribution to this meeting!!!!!
Best wishes,
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian
I believe we met at the Louisville AIP Annual Session in 1994 and hope to see you again at the Annual Session in Irvine this August (my backyard).
I found your newsletter on the Internet and want to tell you how much I enjoyed the latest issue - June 1996. I copied it and reformatted (taking out paragraph returns and such) and want to use it for a chapter meeting sometime which is a chapter in AIP --the Orange County Parliamentarians in Anaheim, California. Since it is copyrighted by Robert McConnell Productions I want to be request permission to use it for one of our meetings. I will definitely give credit to you and company.
Sylvia
Dear Sylvia,
We did meet at the AIP Annual Session in Louisville.......
Yes please use the information on bylaws for your chapter meeting, and we would appreciate the credit. And you can tell them about our Home Page and the “Dear Parlimentarian” column.
I am continuing to write a series about bylaws. The next issue will be about the actual writing of them. Right now I am planning on attending the Annual Session in California and I hope to be bringing our NEW VIDEO that we are currently producing, to the meeting. This video, goes into great detail about all the Subsidiary Motions, Privilege motions, the most common used Incidental Motions, and the motions to “Reconsider, Take from the Table, Rescind and Amend Something Previously Adopted.” We will also have a more detailed meeting and an example of an adjourned meeting and what the procedure is for that meeting ALL on this new tape. It will be in several volumes because it is so loooooong. But anyone buying this tape will have a very thorough knowledge of motions and how to use them.
Do you think there is a need for a good book and video combination about writing bylaws and conducting a bylaw revision meeting? We are thinking of doing such a work if we can see a demand for it. We are also going to come out with some mini- tapes about “Amending”, “Committees and Executive Boards”, “Voting Procedures”. Do you have, or your chapter have any suggestions for parliamentary information they would like to see put on video? We would appreciate hearing from you.
Thank you for your interest in our Web Site and keep checking in for new information that we will be continually adding. “Dear Parlimentarian” is updated monthly. The newsletter takes a while and I promise to have another volume by August 1.
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian,
I am in the process of revising the bylaws for an incorporated not for profit organization. I have reviewed the Current Edtion of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 1990. As I read the Rules, the most probable justification for an Executive Session of the Board of Directors is to discuss a disciplinary matter. In light of State "Sunshine" laws, is there any other matters that may be discussed in Executive Session? Should this be covered in the bylaws or is it best left to the Rules?
For information, our organization is statewide and has approximately 250 members.
We have two meetings scheduled each year one of which is our "Annual Business Meeting".The Board of Directors meets immediately before each of these meetings and at other times at the call of the President.
Bill Hess, Florida
Dear Bill,
The “Sunshine” laws are to ensure the citizens that governmental bodies will have “public” or “open meetings”. Are you sure that your organization falls into that category? First see if that law applies to you. If you call the Secretary of State some one in that office will be able to answer your question.
Second, does your organization allow non-members to attend its meetings? If it does, then there may be times that the members would want to go into “executive session”. However, since Robert’s provides for that by a motion and a majority vote, I would leave it to the rules instead of putting it in the bylaws.
Since you are revising your bylaws, I would include a section under membership about discipline, how it is to be handled and how to remove someone from membership.
Another hint about Bylaws Revision, take your time!!!! Carefully research about Bylaws. These need to be carefully thought out and allow the membership to have input about the revision by directing any suggestions to the committee for consideration. By doing this the committee can incorporate those ideas or at least know what objections or changes may come from the membership during the bylaw revision meeting (s). ( I am currently working on another newsletter about the actual writing of bylaws. It should be posted in August.)
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian:
I saw your Web page and thought it was well-designed and helpful. I've got some questions I was hoping you might answer if you have time. It might be helpful to skim my entire message in order to better understand it.
Our organization's constitution, like many, references Robert's Rules as the authority for any matters not specifically covered by it. My first question has to do with counting abstentions when determining whether or not a majority (in this case, 2/3 majority) vote has been attained.
I know that abstentions are not usually counted when determining what constitutes a majority. However, our constitution says that to overturn certain decisions requires a "two-thirds vote of the members present and voting." Would that imply that abstentions would count in this case, so that abstaining was essentially the same as voting no (since the majority must be calculated based on all the members who are voting, not subtracting those who abstain)? Or does abstaining mean that you are not a "member present and voting?"
Later, in a different section (this one applying to amending the constitution), it says "a two-thirds majority of affirmative votes of the members present and voting is required for adoption [of an amendment]." It wouldn't surprise me if the different phrasing was somewhat unintentional, but do you see any different implication by the use of the word "affirmative?" I would assume it just means "yes" votes, even though that's not totally logical (since that means its literal meaning is that "a majority of the yes votes is required).
Here's the situation. An executive committee made a decision that was later modified by the membership. Out constitution gives the membership the right to overturn such decisions with a 2/3 vote. Technically, we probably should have simply nullified the decision of the executive committee and forced them to make a new one, but we didn't -- we changed the terms of it but left the overall decision intact. Then, months later, the membership voted to overturn the (modified) decision, by a vote of 8-3-2. 8 votes in the affirmative is only a 2/3 majority if you don't count abstentions. Our constitution does not specifically say whether abstentions are counted when overturning a past decision of the membership, but in other sections it uses the "members present and voting" phrasing mentioned above.
Do you think the decision should be overturned? In general, are there any restrictions on the ability of a body to reconsider decisions that were reached earlier, other than the 2/3 requirement?
Thanks so much for your help and opinions.
Chris Wiesner
cwiesner@princeton.com
Dear Chris,
First, let’s define the phrase “present and voting”.
It means this, only those votes are counted of the members present and voting. Robert’s says this “ a two-thirds vote -- when the term is unqualified --means at least two thirds of the votes cast by persons that are entitled to vote, excluding blanks or abstentions, at a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.” (p. 396) And on page 397 under the heading “Modifications of Usual Bases for Decision” Robert writes, “when not stated, [voting] is always the number of members present and voting...” So the phrase that your bylaws are using is the definition of “unqualified” which means abestions are not counted in the vote.
The phrase “present” means those present versus those not present which would then exclude absentee ballots or proxy voting. The phrase “voting” means those who chose to vote. Someone who abstains decides not to vote. How can you count a non-vote?
The word “affirmative” is a parliamentary term for “yes” vote and is usually the term used when taking a counted, rising, or ballot vote. In announcing one of those methods of voting, the chair in stating the result of the vote says, “There are two thirds in the affirmative and the motion is carried.”
I would recommend that you get the latest edition of Robert’s and read the chapter on “Voting” beginning on page 395.
The vote on the motion that you referred to was a legal vote. Members have the right to “Rescind” or “Amend Something Previously Adopted”. The time passed is not a factor but there are other factors involved. See Robert’s pp. 299-303 about these two motions and the restrictions that apply to these two motions. We are currently producing a new video that explains these motions and ALL the subsidiary and privileged motions, and the most commonly used incidental motions and the motions to Reconsider, Rescind, and Amend Something Previously adopted. Watch our Web Page for details to its release, hopefully sometime in August.
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian,
I hope that you will be able to help me with my dilemma. I am a Director of a non-profit organization. Yesturday, at our monthly Board meeting a controversial issue and and subsequent motion came about. My dilemma is this...
Our Board of Directors operates under the principle's of Roberts Rules of Order. When the main motion was made, I disagreed with the motion and wanted to Amend Main motion.
When I said this, I was told that I could not make an amendment to the motion without the permission of the member who made the motion, of which I did not have. I believed this to be incorrect as I had taken a short seminar in parlimentary procedure several years ago, but I did not have my motions chart available, and therefore could not prove that is was incorrect.
After the meeting had adjourned and I came home I located my chart, and as you are aware, I COULD HAVE MADE AN AMENDMENT to the original motion.
This is where is get's complicated... Because I was denied the right to make an amendment to the motion, I voted with hesitation in favor of the motion. I then made a subsequent motion to reduce the effects and consequences of the previously passed motion. The issue is, had I been able to amend the motion, the outcome of the vote may have been different. If the amendment had not been passed by the majority, I would not have supported the original motion. My question to you, in light of this information is the passed motion valid? Or can I challenge this and have another vote on the issue?
As the decision of the Board has already been announced it really cannot be changed, but what can change is my assent to the motion, and in short, that is all that I wish to be changed.
I hope you can be of assistance.
Thank you.
Jason
jbazinet@eagle.wbm.ca
Dear Jason,
As you have learned ANYONE can make the motion to amend. What members have to understand is this: That after a motion is stated by the chair it now belongs to the ASSEMBLY and not to the maker of the motion. There is only one time a member can ask the maker of the motion to modify his motion and the maker of the motion gives his permission. This is only when it HAS NOT YET BEEN STATED BY THE CHAIR! See Robert’s pages 38- 41.
I would suggest that you get this information out to the members. Our first video PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE MADE SIMPLE; THE BASICS has a section on the motion to amend. It is very simple and easy to understand. We are coming out with a more advanced video about all the motions to be released in August. It has a very thorough section on “primary” and “secondary” amendments. We will be releasing much later this year or early next year a short video entitled, “ALL ABOUT AMENDING.”
Now just because something has been announced does not mean it can’t be “Rescinded” or “Amended” . For procedures explaining this process see Robert’s pp. 309 to 329. Another helpful motion that you need to know is the motion to “Reconsider the Vote”. Since you voted on the prevailing side , you could have moved to “Reconsider the Vote” on the motion at that meeting. However, now your only choice is to “Rescind the Action” or “To Amend Something Previously Adopted”. There are rules and limitations concerning both. (New video includes these motions too) After reading the section I just mentioned. if you still have questions please write back.
Another idea that you might consider, is to have a parliamentarian come and give a workshop on proper meeting procedures to your group. If you are interested, let me know and I will see if there is someone in your area that would do this.
Parlimentarian
Dear Parlimentarian, Your Parliamentary Procedure Resource.
We have a video ParliamentaryProcedure Made Simple" based on "Robert's Rules of Order."
For more info, request our FREE REPORT by e-mail at drvideo@comcast.net or see our web page.