Robert's Rules of Order and Parli Pro Questions (Yeah, it's long and it's boring)

[chefIL11]

I have to run meetings with an assembly according to Robert’s rules and parliamentary procedure. For the most part I understand it (and have grown to hate it). However, there are a few things I am unsure of.
This post is long, boring, and may be confusing so I apologize in advance. The following was typed off of shorthand notes, on little sleep, that were written with awful handwriting.

Before I ask my questions I would like to clarify that I understand that the constitution or bylaws of an organization prevails over Roberts rules and parliamentary procedure. With that said, there is nothing in our bylaws or constitution that covers anything related to my questions.

First, When a main motion comes before the members of the assembly, what is considered “discussion” opposed to"debate"? Initially, when the motion is brought up, the question: “is there any discussion?” is asked. During this discussion time, what is considered acceptable? Can voting members of the assembly share their opinions during this time or is it restricted specifically to question and answer with the motion’s author? Is there a line that one may cross that would require a motion to move into debate?

if a motion is vetoed, can and /or should the chair of the meeting (who also writes the agenda) place the vetoed motion under old business on the agenda of the next meeting for a possible override? Is the consideration to overturn the veto left strictly in the hands of voting members?

Given the situation where there is a public gallery and members of the public may watch the meeting… how can the actions of a member of the public be regulated? CAN the actions of the public be regulated according to Robert rules or Parliamentary procedure?
(in this situation a person watches the meeting from the public gallery and will call members to him to try to influence their vote. It is not a matter of changing the actions of members of the assembly since it was already requested that they stopped acknowledging his presence. However certain members will still walkover and talk to him during the meeting. He isn’t doing anything legally wrong but it is an annoyance and distraction to me as I run the meaning.)
In our bylaws we have no guidelines are rules which govern the public gallery.

If a voting member of the assembly is part of a group in which a main motion will directly impact, is the member still allowed to vote even though they did not draft or submit the motion? This member only takes the action of voting for the motion.
(An example of this may be a member of the assembly is part of the equestrian team and a resolution is brought before the entire assembly, which, if passed, would give money to the team for new uniforms. is the member of the assembly that is on the equestrian team still allowed to vote on this main motion?)
if they are not allowed to vote and do, what would be the action? A revote?
What about the situation in which a member is on an impacted group, votes in favor of a main motion but it is not until days later that the member was part of the group? Does the motion still pass or is it null and void?

In general, if a motion passes and days later it is found that the vote for the motion was taken illegally (such as someone voting for a fictitious character during a ballot vote of an election and it is overlooked that the name that was voted for was not an actual member), is it the responsibility of the chair to declare a misvote after already declaring the result? what happens in the situation?
Does the chair need to declare the Misvote during a time when a meeting is called to order or can it be decided and the motion voided as soon as the mistake is discovered? Can the chair even declare a misvote after-the-fact?

finally: When in debate, can the chair automatically make a decision to set a limit on the time an individual member may speak without taking a vote of the entire assembly? (an example would be to allow each member to speak with a limit of three minutes with the caveat that every member who wishes to speak must speak once before any member may speak second time) additionally, can the chair set in overall time limit for debate on an issue without taking a vote? an example would be that after members vote to go into debate, the chair declares: “entire debate will be limited to 10 minutes”

Thank you for all the help and if you are still reading this then congratulations on your impressive attention span!

[Polycarp]

My responses are based on memory of proper parliamentary procedure and on comments on how to run an effective meeting that were appended to the reference copy of Robert’s Rules. So you may get more accurate answers, and ones with cites to online editions of Robert’s. But with that caveat, here goes:

@chefIL11

First, When a main motion comes before the members of the assembly, what is considered “discussion” opposed to"debate"? Initially, when the motion is brought up, the question: “is there any discussion?” is asked. During this discussion time, what is considered acceptable? Can voting members of the assembly share their opinions during this time or is it restricted specifically to question and answer with the motion’s author? Is there a line that one may cross that would require a motion to move into debate?

In the absence of any prior specific distinctions between discussion and debate, how to deal with this is completely up to the person in the chair – subject to a voice-vote appeal to the membership from his ruling. Normal procedure is to permit the sharing of opinions by members during “discussion” but again this would be subject to ruling from the chair.

if a motion is vetoed, can and /or should the chair of the meeting (who also writes the agenda) place the vetoed motion under old business on the agenda of the next meeting for a possible override? Is the consideration to overturn the veto left strictly in the hands of voting members?

I have never encountered a body run by Robert’s Rules where someone had a veto power, so I don’t have a clue as to how it would deal with this. However, the chairman is entitled, like any other member, to call for a vote to override a veto; his putting this on the agenda would not be out of line. It’s important to note, however, that a person in the chair is supposed to maintain impartiality and not make substantive, divisive motions or speak for or against issues while in the chair; if the chairman wishes to do so, he should request another member (usually the vice-chairman) to take the chair and extend him the privilege of the floor. For the sake of avoiding the appearance of “railroading,” the chairman ought to arrange with another member before the meeting to move for the override vote. (However, if there’s automatic reconsideration of a vetoed measure, to see if the membership wishes to override, the chair is completely within his rights to do so.)

Given the situation where there is a public gallery and members of the public may watch the meeting… how can the actions of a member of the public be regulated? CAN the actions of the public be regulated according to Robert rules or Parliamentary procedure?
(in this situation a person watches the meeting from the public gallery and will call members to him to try to influence their vote. It is not a matter of changing the actions of members of the assembly since it was already requested that they stopped acknowledging his presence. However certain members will still walkover and talk to him during the meeting. He isn’t doing anything legally wrong but it is an annoyance and distraction to me as I run the meaning.)
In our bylaws we have no guidelines are rules which govern the public gallery.

It’s up to the chair to maintain proper order and decorum during a meeting, formally ruling (subject to appeal to the membership) on whether a given practice is proper when necessary. It might be a good idea to formulate such rules and have them in place.

If a voting member of the assembly is part of a group in which a main motion will directly impact, is the member still allowed to vote even though they did not draft or submit the motion? This member only takes the action of voting for the motion.
(An example of this may be a member of the assembly is part of the equestrian team and a resolution is brought before the entire assembly, which, if passed, would give money to the team for new uniforms. is the member of the assembly that is on the equestrian team still allowed to vote on this main motion?)

A member is not obliged to disqualify himself as being impacted by the results of a vote. It is sometimes considered common courtesy to recuse oneself or abstain in such circumstances, but nothing says that he must. And spending money in accord with the stated purposes of the organization is a legitimate topic in which every member is welcome to have an interest, even if the money will in some way benefit him/her individually.

if they are not allowed to vote and do, what would be the action? A revote?
What about the situation in which a member is on an impacted group, votes in favor of a main motion but it is not until days later that the member was part of the group? Does the motion still pass or is it null and void?

N/A, due to above answer.

In general, if a motion passes and days later it is found that the vote for the motion was taken illegally (such as someone voting for a fictitious character during a ballot vote of an election and it is overlooked that the name that was voted for was not an actual member), is it the responsibility of the chair to declare a misvote after already declaring the result? what happens in the situation?
Does the chair need to declare the Misvote during a time when a meeting is called to order or can it be decided and the motion voided as soon as the mistake is discovered? Can the chair even declare a misvote after-the-fact?

If an entire vote is illegal under the constitution/charter or bylaws of an organization, it’s up to the Chair to rule it null and void and if appropriate call for a revote, informing the membership as soon as reasonably practical after the discovery of the illegally-taken vote, an simply putting it on the agenda.

If a single member’s vote is improper in an otherwise-properly-held voting (e.g., your Mickey Mouse for Chairman example), merely that vote is declared invalid, not the entire results of voting. Chair declares the results, if appropriate, as though that vote had not been cast. In the unlikely event that voiding that single vote has an impact on the entire voting procedure, then the Chair rules in accordance with those results. (For example, the bylaws call for election by a simple majority of all valid votes cast, Smith gets 42 votes, Jones 41, and Mickey Mouse 1. Since neither Smith nor Jones got a majority, it’s held over for a revote or runoff. But someone points out that the Mickey Mouse vote is invalid. Smith therefore gets a majority of all votes cast, and the revote/runoff is unnecessary.)

finally: When in debate, can the chair automatically make a decision to set a limit on the time an individual member may speak without taking a vote of the entire assembly? (an example would be to allow each member to speak with a limit of three minutes with the caveat that every member who wishes to speak must speak once before any member may speak second time) additionally, can the chair set in overall time limit for debate on an issue without taking a vote? an example would be that after members vote to go into debate, the chair declares: “entire debate will be limited to 10 minutes”

Again handled by ruling by the Chair subject to appeal to vote by the house. However, the final example, unless done in response to the tacit “sense of the house” (we all gotta get home!), would be out of line, as imposing a restriction on what members have already decided they want to do. He might ask the house (which he can do from the chair), “Since you have voted to go into debate, do you wish me to impose a time limit of 10 minutes on the debate?” Possible discussion (“Mr. Chairman, I believe 10 minutes is too short but I’d be amenable to a 20-minute limit.”) and vote on the chair’s question.