Usage of "Recommend"

[CosmicMiami]

I had a discussion regarding the usage of "recommendation." Here's the background.

Our by-laws state that "amendments to this document shall be proposed by the by-laws committee and must receive a recommendation from the Executive Board..." prior to being submitted to the membership for ballot vote.

There is some dispute as to the meaning of "recommendation." I made a motion to "recommend" an amendment. The amendment failed. The chair stated "is there a motion to not recommend?" I stated that because the motion to recommend failed, the by-law change was not recommended. He said that we must still vote to not recommend. I read the definition of recommend to our Board. They failed to see my point.

Looking for some guidance on this from some English professionals.

Thanks.

[John Briggs]

You need a legal professional - as well as a more intelligent Board, of
course.
--
John Briggs

[Eric Walker]

First, your by-laws need review and amendment: you should never have been
in this situation to begin with. They should say something on the order
of "proposed amendments to this document may only be originated by the by-
laws committee on a majority vote thereof; amendments so proposed must
then receive a majority vote of approval from the Executive Board . . . ."

Second, it should be clear from the context that "a recommendation" is a
specific act by the Board, and is thus either done or not done: it does
not need or want an invented separate act of disapproval. If, just for
the sake of discussion, a motion to not recommend were made, seconded,
and passed, exactly what effect would that have beyond the effect of
failing to pass a motion to recommend? Obviously, none; it is therefore
pointless.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Dr Nick]

Worse, what if it too failed?

Come on chaps, this isn't the EU.

[Eric Walker]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 21:09:27 +0100, Dr Nick wrote:

> Eric Walker <em...@owlcroft.com> writes:

[...]

>> First, your by-laws need review and amendment: you should never have
>> been in this situation to begin with. They should say something on the
>> order of "proposed amendments to this document may only be originated
>> by the by- laws committee on a majority vote thereof; amendments so
>> proposed must then receive a majority vote of approval from the
>> Executive Board . . . ."
>>
>> Second, it should be clear from the context that "a recommendation" is
>> a specific act by the Board, and is thus either done or not done: it
>> does not need or want an invented separate act of disapproval. If,
>> just for the sake of discussion, a motion to not recommend were made,
>> seconded, and passed, exactly what effect would that have beyond the
>> effect of failing to pass a motion to recommend? Obviously, none; it
>> is therefore pointless.
>
> Worse, what if it too failed?

Not worse for the proposition that such a vote is utterly pointless.


--
Cordially,
Eric Walker

[Stan Brown]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:39:24 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
> it should be clear from the context that "a recommendation" is a
> specific act by the Board, and is thus either done or not done: it does
> not need or want an invented separate act of disapproval. If, just for
> the sake of discussion, a motion to not recommend were made, seconded,
> and passed, exactly what effect would that have beyond the effect of
> failing to pass a motion to recommend? Obviously, none; it is therefore
> pointless.
>

And suppose the motion "to not recommend" also failed. What would be
the effect then? Would this board with its silly chairman have to
keep voting on the two motions alternately until one of them passed?

--
"The difference between the /almost right/ word and the /right/ word
is ... the difference between the lightning-bug and the lightning."
--Mark Twain
Stan Brown, Tompkins County, NY, USA http://OakRoadSystems.com

[micky]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 16:20:01 -0400, Stan Brown
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:39:24 +0000 (UTC), Eric Walker wrote:
>> it should be clear from the context that "a recommendation" is a
>> specific act by the Board, and is thus either done or not done: it does
>> not need or want an invented separate act of disapproval. If, just for
>> the sake of discussion, a motion to not recommend were made, seconded,
>> and passed, exactly what effect would that have beyond the effect of
>> failing to pass a motion to recommend? Obviously, none; it is therefore
>> pointless.
>>
>
>And suppose the motion "to not recommend" also failed. What would be
>the effect then? Would this board with its silly chairman have to
>keep voting on the two motions alternately until one of them passed?

If they both fail, it's clear that voting is no good. The two
people who made the motions should fight it out.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Well, maybe it is. I know the OP calls himself CosmicMiami, but maybe
that's just to put us on the wrong track.
--
athel

[John Briggs]

What if both votes are tied?
--
John Briggs

[Don Phillipson]

"CosmicMiami" <gwly...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:32c76362-ef16-4bc0...@googlegroups.com...

> I made a motion to "recommend" an amendment. The amendment failed. The
> chair
> stated "is there a motion to not recommend?" I stated that because the
> motion to
> recommend failed, the by-law change was not recommended. He said that we
> must
> still vote to not recommend. I read the definition of recommend to our
> Board. They failed to see my point.

No dictionary definition arbitrates this point. The usual rule
book is Roberts' Rules of Order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roberts_rules_of_order

--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

You want parliamentary professionals, but as I read _Robert's Rules of
Order_ (admittedly shallowly), the chair is correct, but stated it
wrong (as did you). The excutive board is required, by your by-laws
to make a recommendation about amendments proposed by the by-laws
committee. That recommendation may be a recommendation to adopt the
amendment, a recommendation to reject the amendment, or some other
recommendation (e.g., to refer it back to the by-laws committee for
further amendment). But you are required to agree on some
recommendation to present to the organization as a whole. You are
voting on the recommendation, not the amendment.

Your "motion to 'recommend'" was, in reality, a motion to recommend
adoption. It failed, so the board did not have an agreed-upon
recommendation, and the chair asked, in effect, if anybody wanted to
move a recommendation to reject.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |Society in every state is a blessing,
SF Bay Area (1982-) |but government, even in its best
Chicago (1964-1982) |state is but a necessary evil; in its
|worst state, an intolerable one.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Thomas Paine

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Mike L]

Unfortunately, it's then up to the Chair to vote, though it should by
convention be for the status quo.

--
Mike.

[John Briggs]

But that's not what the bylaws say. A recommendation is only required if
the amendments are, well, recommended. If they are not, they are not.
--
John Briggs

[John Briggs]

Which has to mean voting against both motions.
--
John Briggs

[Jerry Friedman]

Then it can be a tag-team match.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

He said that the by-laws state that amendments "must receive a
recommendation". It doesn't say that the amendments must be
recommended (or not). When I get, for example, a ballot for the board
meeting of a company I own stock in, it will come with recommendations
from the board, some of which will be recommendations that I vote for
the measure and some that I vote against it.

Looking at _Roberts Rules of Order_, 11th edition, I see (�51, p. 516)

When a committee reports on a resolution or other main question
which was referred to it or which the rules require to be
considered by it before coming before the assembly with the
committee's recommendataion, the form of the report and the type of
action depends on the nature of the case, as follows:

- _Recommending adoption, or rejection, or (when a majority of the
committee fail to agree) making no recommendation_. Such a
report in a small assembly can be given orally (provided that the
secretary records it in the minutes); for example, thus:

REPORTING MEMBER: The committee to which was referred the
resolution, "_Resolved_, that ...," recommends that the
resolution be adopted [or "not be adopted"].

Or:

The committee to which was referred...has been unable to
arrive at a recommendation.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |In the beginning, there were no
SF Bay Area (1982-) |reasons, there were only causes.
Chicago (1964-1982) | Daniel Dennet

evan.kir...@gmail.com

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

Doesn't the chair usually vote in committee?

> Which has to mean voting against both motions.

If the question is an amendment, the status quo would be to reject,
wouldn't it?

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |A burro is an ass. A burrow is a
SF Bay Area (1982-) |hole in the ground. As a
Chicago (1964-1982) |journalist, you are expected to
|know the difference.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | UPI Stylebook

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[John Briggs]

We're talking about a second, or casting vote, for the Chair in the
event of a tied vote.

>> Which has to mean voting against both motions.
>
> If the question is an amendment, the status quo would be to reject,
> wouldn't it?

But the question is a recommendation (if the question was an amendment,
the second vote against the amendment wouldn't be necessary. I still say
it isn't, and you appear to be agreeing with me...) - in the case of a
vote to recommend, the status quo is against; in the case of a vote to
not recommend, the status quo is still against.
--
John Briggs

[Evan Kirshenbaum]

§44 Tie Votes and Cases in WHich the Chair's Vote Affects the
Result.

If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly, he can vote
as any other member when the vote is by ballot. In all other
cases the presiding officer, if a member of the assembly, can (but
is not obliged to) vote whenever his vote will affect the
result--that is, he can vote either to break or to cause a tie;
...

The chair cannot vote twice, once as a member, then again in his
capacity as presiding officer.

The chair doesn't get a second vote.

>>> Which has to mean voting against both motions.
>>
>> If the question is an amendment, the status quo would be to reject,
>> wouldn't it?
>
> But the question is a recommendation

Sorry. Sloppy wording on my part. I meant that if the question is on
a recommendation for an amendment (as opposed, say, to preserving
something that would otherwise expire).

> (if the question was an amendment, the second vote against the
> amendment wouldn't be necessary. I still say it isn't, and you
> appear to be agreeing with me...) - in the case of a vote to
> recommend, the status quo is against; in the case of a vote to not
> recommend, the status quo is still against.

Again, the question isn't to recommend the amendment. The question is
to recommend that the membership take a particular action (i.e., adopt
or reject) with regard to the amendment. Since an amendment, by
definition, changes what's already there, preserving the status quo
requires not amending. So a vote to recommend preserving the status
quo would be for a recommendation to reject the amendment and against
a recommendation to adopt the amendment.

--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
Still with HP Labs |...as a mobile phone is analogous
SF Bay Area (1982-) |to a Q-Tip -- yeah, it's something
Chicago (1964-1982) |you stick in your ear, but there
|all resemblance ends.
evan.kir...@gmail.com | Ross Howard

http://www.kirshenbaum.net/

[CosmicMiami]

Interesting discussion. I like that the by-laws should be amended. I have always thought the wording was strange and ambiguous.

Thanks for the input.