RunasSudo/PointsOfOrder
1
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Activity

Edition 0.4.2

Browse Source 
Add discussion of:
- meeting in camera
- starring agenda items
Expand comparative notes on procedural motions
Refer to Magner (1994) for additional context
Correct/update many legal citations
New cover
This commit is contained in:
RunasSudo 2023-09-23 23:20:05 +10:00
parent cb76d80cf8
commit 3a06654a53
Signed by: RunasSudo
GPG Key ID: 7234E476BF21C61A
18 changed files with 513 additions and 337 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

1
.gitignore vendored
View File

@ -1,2 +1,3 @@
__pycache__
_build
*.log

4
STYLE.txt
View File

@ -64,8 +64,8 @@ author–date style of referencing, as in ‘Smith 2020, pp. 1–4’. Use ‘op
if and only if referring to the entire source. Separate multiple sources using
a semicolon. Conclude the footnote with a full stop.
Use the abbreviations ‘p.’/‘pp.’ (page/s), ‘¶’/‘¶¶’ (paragraph/s) and ‘§’/‘§§’
(section/s).
When referring to works other than legislation, use the abbreviations ‘p.’/
‘pp.’ (page/s), ‘¶’/‘¶¶’ (paragraph/s) and ‘§’/‘§§’ (section/s).
When referring to a range of pages, show all digits on both endpoints of the
range.

BIN
_static/cover.jpg
View File

Binary file not shown.
Side by Side Swipe Overlay

Before

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 79 KiB

After

Width:  |  Height:  |  Size: 51 KiB

20
_static/custom_html.css
View File

@ -86,6 +86,26 @@ a, a.reference, a.footnote-reference {
padding: 2px;
}
/* Admonitions */
div.admonition {
padding-top: 20px;
padding-bottom: 20px;
background-color: #f6f6f6;
}
div.admonition p.admonition-title {
font-family: 'Source Sans Pro', sans-serif;
font-weight: 600;
font-size: 1.2rem;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
p.admonition-title::after {
content: "";
}
/* Sidebar */
div.sphinxsidebarwrapper p.caption {

617
altering-flow.rst
View File

File diff suppressed because it is too large Load Diff

19
committees.rst.bak
View File

@ -1,19 +0,0 @@
Committees
==========
TODO
Referring matters to a committee
--------------------------------
MOVED
.. _committee-debate:
Committee debate in large meeting
---------------------------------
TODO
.. rubric:: Footnotes

4
conf.py
View File

@ -18,11 +18,11 @@ import os
# -- Project information -----------------------------------------------------
project = 'Points of Order'
copyright = '2021 Lee Yingtong Li'
copyright = '2023 Lee Yingtong Li'
author = 'Lee Yingtong Li'
# The full version, including alpha/beta/rc tags
release = '0.4.1'
release = '0.4.2'
version = release

5
epub-copyright.xhtml
View File

@ -12,13 +12,12 @@
</head><body>
<p>Edition 0.1 first published 2018<br/>
Edition 0.2 first published 2021<br/>
Edition 0.4.1 first published 2021</p>
Edition 0.4.2 first published 2023</p>
<p><a href="https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder">https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder</a></p>
<p>Copyright © 2021 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
<p>Copyright © 2023 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
<ul><li>the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/">Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence</a></li>
<li>the <a href="https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html">GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3</a></li></ul></p>
<p>Authored in <a href="https://www.sphinx-doc.org/">Sphinx</a></p>
<p>Cover image courtesy of Breather Products Inc., licensed under the <a href="https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/">Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication</a></p>
<p>A catalogue record for this work is available from the National Library of Australia.</p>
</body>
</html>

22
extension.py
View File

@ -69,6 +69,16 @@ class POHTML5Translator(HTML5Translator):
logger.warning('footnote defined out of sequence: expecting {}'.format(self.footnote_order[0]), location=node)
self.footnote_order = None # Ignore future errors
def visit_download_reference(self, node):
# Set URI (for epub/mobi output)
if self.builder.name != 'html':
node['refuri'] = 'https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder/_downloads/' + node['filename']
# Remove code literal
node.children = node.children[0].children
super().visit_download_reference(node)
class POStandaloneHTMLBuilder(StandaloneHTMLBuilder):
default_translator_class = POHTML5Translator
@ -140,6 +150,18 @@ class POLaTeXTranslator(LaTeXTranslator):
super().depart_reference(node)
def visit_download_reference(self, node):
# Set URI
node['refuri'] = 'https://yingtongli.me/pointsoforder/_downloads/' + node['filename']
# Remove code literal
node.children = node.children[0].children
super().visit_reference(node)
def depart_download_reference(self, node):
super().depart_reference(node)
class POLaTeXBuilder(LaTeXBuilder):
default_translator_class = POLaTeXTranslator

65
holding-meetings.rst
View File

@ -48,10 +48,27 @@ The notice must contain, at a minimum:
* the time and place of the meeting\ [#fn12]_
* the general nature of the business to be transacted\ [#fn7]_
* a reference to whose authority the notice is given under\ [#fn8]_
* a reference to whose authority the notice is given under\ [#fn8]_ – for example, ‘By order of the Board’
The reference to ‘general nature’ means that, unless the rules otherwise provide, it is not necessary to exactly describe every particular motion or matter that will be considered.\ [#fn16]_
.. comment
The traditional wording for giving notice of a meeting goes something along the lines of:
*Notice is hereby given*\ [#fn44]_ *that the annual general meeting of ACME Ltd will be held at 12:00 pm on 31 July 2021, at 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney NSW 2000. The business at the meeting will be as follows: …*
[#fn44] What does ‘Notice is hereby given’ even mean? The fact that the document gives notice of the meeting should be self-evident, and how else is notice given if not ‘hereby’! See also :mref:`‘Plain English’ <plain-english>`.
A more modern alternative might be:
*The annual general meeting of ACME Ltd will be held:*
* *Time: 12:00 pm*
* *Date: 31 July 2021*
* *Venue: 42 Wallaby Way, Sydney NSW 2000*
*The business at the meeting will be: …*
Notice defines the scope of the meeting
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ -125,9 +142,9 @@ If proxy voting is permitted, the rules do permit proxies to be counted towards
If certain members are prohibited by the rules from voting on a matter, those members do not count towards the quorum during that matter.\ [#fn26]_
Some rules, including the former *Companies Act 1981* (Cth),\ [#fn27]_ provide that a quorum is required ‘at the time when the meeting proceeds to business’. Under such a rule, a meeting that commences with a quorum may validly continue even if quorum is later lost.
Some rules, including the former *Companies Act 1981* (Cth),\ [#fn27]_ provide that a quorum is required ‘at the time when the meeting proceeds to business’. Under such a rule, a meeting that commences with a quorum may validly continue even if quorum is later lost.\ [#fn45]_
However, in the absence of such a rule, the general rule is that the quorum must be present at all times throughout the meeting,\ [#fn28]_ and any business conducted without a quorum present will be invalid.\ [#fn29]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn31]_ As soon as it is discovered that quorum has been lost, the Chair should close (or, if permitted under the rules, adjourn) the meeting.\ [#fn30]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn32]_
However, in the absence of such a rule, the general rule is that the quorum must be present at all times throughout the meeting,\ [#fn28]_ and any business conducted without a quorum present will be invalid.\ [#fn29]_ As soon as it is discovered that quorum has been lost, the Chair should close (or, if permitted under the rules, adjourn) the meeting.\ [#fn30]_
.. index:: Chair
@ -136,9 +153,9 @@ However, in the absence of such a rule, the general rule is that the quorum must
Chair
-----
Every meeting must be presided over at all times by a *presiding officer*, who exercises procedural control.\ [#fn34]_ The presiding officer is generally known as the *President* or, more generally, *Chair* (or *Chairman*, *Chairwoman* or *Chairperson*).
Every meeting must be presided over at all times by a *presiding officer*, who exercises procedural control.\ [#fn34]_ The presiding officer is generally known as the *President* or, more generally, *Chair* (or *Chairman*, *Chairwoman* or *Chairperson*). When addressing the presiding officer directly, they are traditionally addressed *Mister Chair* or *Madam Chair*, though the author prefers the simple *Chair*.\ [#fn43]_
In this book, we use the term *Chair* to refer to the person who chairs a meeting, and, when necessary to make a distinction, the term *chair* to refer to the ‘seat’ (physical or metaphorical) occupied by the Chair.\ [#fn33]_
In this book, we use the term *Chair* to refer to the person who chairs a meeting, and, when necessary to make a distinction, the term *chair* to refer to the seat or office occupied by the Chair.\ [#fn33]_
Who is the Chair?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ -191,7 +208,7 @@ To this end, the Chair should avoid participating in debate (except in occasiona
Failure to discharge duties
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
If the Chair fails to discharge their duties correctly, it is open to members to raise a :mref:`point of order <point-of-order>`, move :mref:`dissent <dissent>` or, if absolutely necessary, move to :ref:`replace the chair <no-confidence>`.
If the Chair fails to discharge their duties correctly, it is open to members to raise a :mref:`point of order <point-of-order>`, move :mref:`dissent <dissent>` or, if absolutely necessary, move to :mref:`replace the chair <no-confidence>`.
One would hope that the situation would never become so severe as to require even further escalation, but it could be that the Chair improperly refuses to accept these recourses. Courts have held that, without authority from the rules, the Chair ‘cannot refuse to put motions which are in order under those rules’.\ [#fn41]_
@ -206,41 +223,41 @@ If it comes to be that the Chair improperly purports to adjourn the meeting and
.. [#fn3] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05.
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3.
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶2.05; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.2; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *Hooper v Kerr, Stuart & Co Ltd* (1900) 83 LT 729.
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.4; *Symes v Weedow* (1893) 14 ALT 197; *Campbell v Higgins* (1957) 3 FLR 317.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.2; *R v Fulton* `(1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100 <http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VicLawRp/1876/83.html>`_.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *Hooper v Kerr, Stuart & Co Ltd* `(1900) 83 LT 729 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.selden/lwtrpt0086&i=805>`_.
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.4; *Symes v Weedow* `(1893) 14 ALT 197 <https://heinonline.org/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/ausianlati14&i=200>`_; *Campbell v Higgins* (1957) 3 FLR 317.
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.9; *Wishart v Foster* (1961) 4 FLR 72.
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.1.
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *R v Fulton* (1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100.
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.16; *Colhoun v Green* [1919] VLR 196.
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.3; *R v Fulton* `(1876) 2 VLR (Eq) 100`_.
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.16; *Colhoun v Green* `[1919] VLR 196 <http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VicLawRp/1919/18.html>`_.
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.17; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10.
.. [#fn18] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.10.
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.11; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25.
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.15; *Browne v La Trinidad* (1887) 37 Ch D 1; *Wilson v Manna Hill Mining Co Pty Ltd* [2004] FCA 912.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.12; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.30; *Re Railway Sleepers Supply Co* (1885) 29 Ch D 204; *Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs* (1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35; *Ayres v Chacos* (1972) 19 FLR 468; *Labouchere v Wharncliffe* (1879) 13 Ch D 346.
.. [#fn39] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.15; *Browne v La Trinidad* `(1887) 37 Ch D 1 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1887/191.html>`_; *Wilson v Manna Hill Mining Co Pty Ltd* `[2004] FCA 912 <https://www.judgments.fedcourt.gov.au/judgments/Judgments/fca/single/2004/2004fca0912>`_.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.12; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.30; *Re Railway Sleepers Supply Co* `(1885) 29 Ch D 204 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1885/120.html>`_; *Ex parte McCance; Re Hobbs* `(1926) 27 SR (NSW) 35 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWStRp/1926/82.html>`_; *Ayres v Chacos* (1972) 19 FLR 468; *Labouchere v Earl of Wharncliffe* `(1879) 13 Ch D 346 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1879/316.html>`_.
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.10; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.25.
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.19; *Bell Resources Ltd v Turnbridge Pty Ltd* (1988) 13 ACLR 429; *McPherson v Mansell* (1994) 16 ACSR 261; *McKerlie v Drillsearch Energy Ltd* (2009) 74 NSWLR 673.
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.7; *Machell v Nevinson* (1724) 11 East 84n; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395.
.. [#fn10] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.7; *Machell v Nevinson* `(1809) 103 ER 936 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1809/9.pdf>`_; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1988) 41 IR 395.
.. [#fn21] Eagle-eyed readers may note that ‘agenda’ is plural in Latin. In English, it is effectively universally used as a singular noun. Each individual item contained in the agenda is typically referred to as an *agenda item* rather than, as the Latin would suggest, an ‘agendum’.
.. [#fn20] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶3.2.
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Merchants of the Staple of England v Bank of England* (1887) 21 QBD 160, 165.
.. [#fn22] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Merchants of the Staple of England v Bank of England* `(1887) 21 QBD 160 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpKQB/1887/173.html>`_, 165.
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Re Liverpool Household Stores* (1890) 59 LJ Ch 616.
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.4; *Re Liverpool Household Stores Association* `(1890) 59 LJ Ch 616 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924064811684&view=1up&seq=630&skin=2021>`_.
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.8.
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.10.
.. [#fn27] |CompAct|_, Sch. 3, reg. 42.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11; *Henderson v Louttit* (1894) 21 R (Ct of Sess) 674; Ball v Pearsall (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11, ¶5.13.
.. [#fn31] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where an inquorate meeting can continue to transact certain procedural business – namely, to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess or take measures to obtain a quorum, as well as relevant subsidiary or incidental motions, questions of privilege, or motions to call for the orders of the day: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:7.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11.
.. [#fn32] This differs to the practice in the Australian Parliament, and in North American meetings under *Robert's Rules*, where a quorum is presumed to be present, and business transacted without a quorum is not invalid until the lack of quorum is noticed by, or brought to the attention of, the Chair: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.13; :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:12; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 272.
.. [#fn34] Even in small, informal meetings where procedural control moves fluidly from person to person, there must at all times, unless all are unanimous, be some person responsible for ‘enabl[ing] the wish or decision of the meeting to be ascertained’: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.1; *Colorado Constructions Pty Ltd v Platus* [1966] 2 NSWR 598.
.. [#fn33] The distinction is necessary, for example, in the motion :subref:`LeaveChair <vacate-chair>`.
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11; *Re Hartley Baird Ltd* [1955] Ch 143.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11; *Henderson v Louttit* `(1894) 31 SLR 555 <https://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/1894/31SLR0555.html>`_; *Ball v Pearsall* (1987) 10 NSWLR 700.
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11, ¶5.13. This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where an inquorate meeting can continue to transact certain procedural business – namely, to fix the time to which to adjourn, adjourn, recess or take measures to obtain a quorum, as well as relevant subsidiary or incidental motions, questions of privilege, or motions to call for the orders of the day: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:7.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.11. This differs to the practice in the Australian Parliament, and in North American meetings under *Robert's Rules*, where a quorum is presumed to be present, and business transacted without a quorum is not invalid until the lack of quorum is noticed by, or brought to the attention of, the Chair: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶5.13; :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶40:12; :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 272.
.. [#fn34] Even in small, informal meetings where procedural control moves fluidly from person to person, there must at all times, unless all are unanimous, be some person responsible for ‘enabl[ing] the wish or decision of the meeting to be ascertained’: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.1; *Colorado Constructions Pty Ltd v Platus* `[1966] 2 NSWR 598 <https://nswlr.com.au/view-pdf/1966-2-NSWR-598>`_.
.. [#fn43] See, for example, Anna Burke, who as Speaker of the Australian House of Representatives preferred the address ‘Speaker’ (as opposed to ‘Madam Speaker’).
.. [#fn33] The distinction is necessary only occasionally; for example, in the motion :subref:`LeaveChair <vacate-chair>`.
.. [#fn35] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶6.10.
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.10.
.. [#fn41] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.5; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171.
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶62:8–9.
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶¶6.85, 11.20; *Shaw v Thompson* (1876) 3 Ch D 233; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171; *Catesby v Burnett* [1916] 2 Ch 325; *National Dwellings Society v Sykes* [1894] 3 Ch 159.
.. [#fn40] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶¶6.85, 11.20; *Shaw v Thompson* `(1876) 3 Ch D 233 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1876/209.html>`_; *Wishart v Henneberry* (1962) 3 FLR 171; *Catesby v Burnett* [1916] 2 Ch 325; *National Dwellings Society v Sykes* `[1894] 3 Ch 159 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1894/119.html>`_.
.. |CompAct| replace:: *Companies Act 1981* (Cth)
.. _CompAct: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A02466

2
introduction.rst
View File

@ -37,7 +37,7 @@ It is also suitable, if desired, to be referred to in an organisation's rules as
Copyright
---------
Copyright © 2021 Lee Yingtong Li
Copyright © 2021, 2023 Lee Yingtong Li
You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:

12
meetings.rst
View File

@ -14,7 +14,7 @@ The importance of the words ‘in the name of the entire body’ cannot be overs
For example, in the case of a body which its not its own legal entity, such as the committee of an unincorporated association, all members of the committee will be liable for decisions of meetings of the committee – even if they were absent from the meeting.\ [#fn3]_
With this power comes proportionately great responsibility – the necessity of ensuring the proceedings of a meeting are fair to the participants – and this is where meeting procedure steps in. Meeting procedure ensures that participants at the meeting are treated fairly. The right of members to speak and make their voices heard is preserved, while decisions are made democratically according to the principle of majority rule – ‘the minority have their say, the majority their way’.
With this power comes proportionately great responsibility – the necessity of ensuring the proceedings of a meeting are fair to the participants – and this is where meeting procedure steps in. Meeting procedure ensures that participants at the meeting are treated fairly. The right of members to speak and make their voices heard is preserved, while decisions are made democratically according to the principle of majority rule – ‘the minority have their say; the majority their way’.
Defining some terms
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
@ -108,6 +108,10 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
* Citrine W. *The ABC of chairmanship*. 4th ed. Citrine N, Cannell M, editors. London: Fabian Society; 1982 [reprinted 2016].
.. _francis:
* Francis RD, Armstrong AF. *The meetings handbook: formal rules and informal processes*. London: Anthem; 2012.
.. _horsley:
* Lang AD. *Horsley's meetings: procedure, law and practice*. 7th ed. Sydney: LexisNexis; 2015.
@ -116,6 +120,8 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
* Magner ES. *Joske's law and procedure at meetings in Australia*. 11th ed. Sydney: Thomson Reuters; 2012.
* Magner ES. *Joske's law and procedure at meetings in Australia*. 8th ed. Sydney: Law Book Company; 1994.
.. _pitchforth:
* Pitchforth R. *Meetings: practice and procedure in New Zealand*. 4th ed. Auckland: CCH New Zealand; 2010.
@ -146,6 +152,10 @@ The following :ref:`authorities on meeting procedure <authorities>` are cited wi
.. rubric:: Older authorities, primarily for historical context
.. _curry:
* Curry TPE, Sykes JR, Heslop PL. The conduct of meetings. 21st ed. Bristol: Jordan & Sons; 1975.
.. _palgrave:
* Palgrave RFD. *The chairman's handbook*. 12th edition revised. London: Sampson Low, Marston & Company; 1896. https://archive.org/details/cu31924031476066.

15
miscellanea.rst
View File

@ -25,7 +25,7 @@ There are a number of principles and *canons* of constructions which aid courts
.. index:: presumption against surplusage
* Where possible, a resolution should be constructed to give effect to all parts, and not to render any part inoperative or surplus (the *presumption against surplusage*).\ [#fn6]_
* If possible, a resolution should be constructed to give effect to all parts, and not to render any part inoperative or surplus (the *presumption against surplusage*).\ [#fn6]_
.. index:: generalia specialibus non derogant
@ -73,10 +73,12 @@ Historically, there have been 2 primary approaches to gender-neutral pronouns: e
The use of the singular ‘they’ to refer to an unknown or arbitrary person is grammatically correct, has been attested to since 1375, and was used by Shakespeare himself.\ [#fn20]_ Revisionist grammatical objections to the use of the singular ‘they’ should be rejected in the strongest terms.\ [#fn21]_
.. _plain-english:
Plain English
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The practice of the procedure at meetings is liable to produce in observers of the same a certain ambience of formality and proximity to the law, in the presence whereof a person (or persons) who hitherto might not have been legally trained is (are) wont to engage in one (1) or more courses of conduct, which conduct includes (but is not limited to) conduct which is inexplicable, verbose and occasionally wholly semantically incorrect, the aforedescribed undertaking ostensibly being made to emulate the *je ne sais quoi* of lawyers.\ [#fn13]_
The practice of the procedure at meetings is liable to produce in observers of the same a certain ambience of formality and proximity to the law, in the presence whereof a person (or persons) who hitherto might not have been legally trained is (are) wont to engage in one (1) or more courses of conduct, which conduct includes (but is not limited to) conduct which is inexplicable, verbose and occasionally wholly semantically incorrect, the aforedescribed undertaking ostensibly being made to emulate the *lingua legisperitorum*.\ [#fn13]_
In other words, people sometimes, with good but misguided intentions, introduce ‘legalese’ into meeting procedure, in an attempt to sound ‘more correct’. Ironically, the legal field itself has been moving away from ‘legalese’ towards using plainer English since the 20th century.\ [#fn14]_
@ -91,7 +93,7 @@ The legalese expression ‘not less than X’ is not as vehemently targeted by a
Other legalese words to consider avoiding include:
* ‘shall’ (consider ‘must’ or ‘will’)
* pronomial adverbs like ‘hereby’,\ [#fn18]_ ‘thereafter’, ‘wherein’, etc.
* pronominal adverbs like ‘hereby’,\ [#fn18]_ ‘thereafter’, ‘wherein’, etc.
* ‘notwithstanding’ (consider ‘despite’ or ‘in spite of’)
* ‘where’ (when, in plain English, we would write ‘if’ or ‘when’)
* and many others!
@ -116,11 +118,11 @@ For more information on plain English writing, see the Office of Parliamentary C
.. [#fn19] The second approach eliminates a useful feature of the English language, and frequently makes sentences seem repetitive, while the first seems verbose and uninclusive of people who use pronouns other than ‘he’ or ‘she’.
.. [#fn20] Baron D. ‘A brief history of singular “they”’. *Oxford English Dictionary*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2018 [cited 2021 Feb 27]. https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/; ‘Using “they” and “them” in the singular’. *Lexico*. Oxford: Oxford University Press; c2021 [cited 2021 Feb 27]. https://www.lexico.com/grammar/using-they-and-them-in-the-singular.
.. [#fn21] We acknowledge there is some controversy surrounding the singular ‘they’ when used with a view of erasing a person's specific pronouns, particularly in the case of transgender people. We emphasise that, when referring to a particular person, that person's specific pronouns should identified and used.
.. [#fn13] The author hopes it was clear this paragraph is satire! The author acknowledges he is not the writer of the world's plainest English, but he hopes it is not this bad!
.. [#fn13] Hopefully it was clear this paragraph is satire! The author acknowledges he is not always the writer of the world's plainest English, but he hopes it is not this bad!
.. _plain-english-manual:
.. [#fn14] *Plain English manual*. Canberra: Office of Parliamentary Counsel; 2016. https://www.opc.gov.au/publications/plain-english-manual. p. 5.
.. [#fn15] And what happens if the words and figures disagree? The traditional wisdom is that the words will prevail: :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 440; *Saunderson v Piper* (1839) 132 ER 1163; somewhat paradoxical, given one would generally think that the figures should be more attention-grabbing to the casual eye.
.. [#fn15] And what happens if the words and figures disagree? The traditional wisdom is that the words will prevail: :ref:`Lewison et al. 2012 <lewison>`, p. 440; *Saunderson v Piper* `(1839) 132 ER 1163 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1839/645.pdf>`_; somewhat paradoxical, given one would generally think that the figures should be more attention-grabbing to the casual eye.
.. [#fn16] :subref:`PEM <plain-english-manual>`, p. 20.
.. _cutts:
@ -144,3 +146,6 @@ For more information on plain English writing, see the Office of Parliamentary C
.. _PropertyNT: https://legislation.nt.gov.au/en/Legislation/LAW-OF-PROPERTY-ACT-2000
.. |PEM| replace:: *Plain English manual*
.. |AIRRegVic| replace:: *Associations Incorporation Reform Regulations 2012* (Vic)
.. _AIRRegVic: https://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/in-force/statutory-rules/associations-incorporation-reform-regulations-2012

6
order-of-business.rst
View File

@ -192,7 +192,7 @@ All business of the meeting having concluded, the Chair should formally declare
.. [#fn35] See e.g. *indigenous.gov.au*. Canberra: Australian Government; [cited 2021 Feb 11]. ‘Welcome to Country or Acknowledgement of Country’. https://www.indigenous.gov.au/contact-us/welcome_acknowledgement-country.
.. [#fn1] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.10.
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.11. Renton goes on to suggest that if no challenge is raised at this point, the right is waived. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.8, disagrees, citing *Henderson v Bank of Australasia* (1890) 45 Ch D 330; as does :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.35, citing *Werner v Boehm* (1890) 16 VLR 73.
.. [#fn2] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.11. Renton goes on to suggest that if no challenge is raised at this point, the right is waived. :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.8, disagrees, citing *Henderson v Bank of Australasia* `(1890) 45 Ch D 330 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1890/105.html>`_; as does :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶3.35, citing *Werner v Boehm* `(1890) 16 VLR 73 <http://www6.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/vic/VicLawRp/1890/5.html>`_.
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.12.
.. [#fn4] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.13.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.3.
@ -208,7 +208,7 @@ All business of the meeting having concluded, the Chair should formally declare
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.20; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.14.
.. [#fn13] In North America, *Robert's Rules* takes the opposite view, where a motion is neither necessary nor desirable, and the minutes are automatically confirmed once no more corrections are forthcoming. This is on the basis that the only allowable way to object to the minutes is to offer a correction: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶41:11.
.. [#fn11] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.14; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.12.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15; *Re Cawley & Co* (1889) 42 Ch D 209; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 27–28.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15; *Re Cawley & Co* `(1889) 42 Ch D 209 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1889/100.html>`_; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 27–28.
.. [#fn16] This differs to the practice in North America under *Robert's Rules*, where confirmed minutes may be later amended in the same way as any ordinary resolution: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶48:15.
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.21; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶18.15.
.. [#fn32] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.24.
@ -222,7 +222,7 @@ All business of the meeting having concluded, the Chair should formally declare
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.41.
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.32.
.. [#fn26] |CorpAct|_, s. 249L(1)(c).
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶10.20–21; *Re Willaire Systems plc* [1987] BCLC 67; *Totally and Permanently Incapacitated Veterans' Association of New South Wales Ltd v Gadd* (1998) 146 FLR 161; *NRMA Ltd v Scandrett* (2002) 171 FLR 232.
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶10.20–21; *Re Willaire Systems plc* (1986) 2 BCC 99054; *Totally & Permanently Incapacitated Veterans' Association of NSW Ltd v Gadd* (1998) 146 FLR 161; *NRMA Ltd v Scandrett* (2002) 171 FLR 232.
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶2.43–44; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶4.18.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.45.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.46.

13
preamble.tex.txt
View File

@ -24,7 +24,7 @@
}}
% Fonts
\setmainfont{EB Garamond}
\setmainfont{Crimson}
%\setsansfont{IBM Plex Sans}[BoldFont={* Medium},BoldItalicFont={* Medium Italic}]
\setsansfont{Source Sans Pro}[BoldFont={* Semibold},BoldItalicFont={* Semibold Italic}]
\usepackage{newunicodechar}\newfontface{\libserif}{Liberation Serif}\newunicodechar{¶}{{\libserif ¶\hspace{0.1ex}}} % use filled in ¶
@ -55,6 +55,7 @@
% Footnote style
\usepackage[hang,bottom]{footmisc}
\setlength{\footnotemargin}{0.4cm}
\def\sphinxfootnotemark[#1]{\ifx\thepage\relax\else\protect\spx@opt@BeforeFootnote\protect\footnotemark[#1]\fi} % Same definition as footnotehyper-sphinx but this is required for some reason
% Header/footer style
\fancypagestyle{normal}{
@ -69,7 +70,7 @@
\begingroup\footnotesize
Edition 0.1 first published 2018 \\
Edition 0.2 first published 2021 \\
Edition 0.4.1 first published 2021
Edition 0.4.2 first published 2023
\vspace{1cm}
@ -77,17 +78,15 @@
\vspace{\fill}
Copyright © 2021 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
Copyright © 2023 Lee Yingtong Li. You may use this book, at your option, under either of the following licences:
{\parskip=0pt\begin{itemize}
\item the \sphinxhref{https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/}{Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence}
\item the \sphinxhref{https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.en.html}{GNU Free Documentation License, version 1.3}
\end{itemize}}
Authored in \sphinxhref{https://www.sphinx-doc.org/}{Sphinx} and typeset using \LaTeX{} in EB Garamond 11pt and Source Sans Pro
Authored in \sphinxhref{https://www.sphinx-doc.org/}{Sphinx} and typeset using \LaTeX{} in Crimson 11pt and Source Sans Pro
\ifpolulu
Cover image courtesy of Breather Products Inc., licensed under the \sphinxhref{https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/}{Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication}
Printed by Lulu Press
%Printed in Australia by Finsbury Green for Lulu Press
\fi
@ -151,4 +150,6 @@
\sphinxrestorepageanchorsetting
}
\def\sphinxhline{} % Need this for some reason, Sphinx bug?
\makeatother

2
standing-orders.rst.bak
View File

@ -1,2 +0,0 @@
Standing orders, etc.
=====================

27
transacting-business.rst
View File

@ -264,7 +264,9 @@ If the substantive motion is proposed to be amended (see :mref:`‘Amendments’
:ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn52]_ and :ref:`Puregger (1998) <puregger>`\ [#fn75]_ recommend, and the author agrees, that the mover may exercise the right of reply at their choice at any of these 3 times.
Some authorities also suggest that the right of reply is forfeit if the mover speaks in the debate on an amendment.\ [#fn52]_ :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn52]_ further recommends that the Chair may, at their discretion, rule this to be the case when appropriate.
:ref:`Curry et al. (1975) <curry>` extend this principle to certain procedural motions, providing that the mover of a substantive motion may reply to a motion to :ref:`adjourn the debate <adjourn-debate>` or :ref:`meeting <adjourn-meeting>` while the substantive motion is being considered.\ [#fn83]_
Some authorities suggest that the right of reply is forfeit if the mover speaks in the debate on an amendment.\ [#fn52]_ :ref:`Lang (2015) <horsley>`\ [#fn52]_ recommend that the Chair may, at their discretion, rule this to be the case when appropriate.
.. index:: motion; voting on
@ -503,7 +505,7 @@ In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege*
.. [#fn6] Some authorities reserve the term *substantive motion* only for motions after they have been amended: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 38; :ref:`Lang 2015 <renton>`, ¶10.24; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 38.
.. [#fn1] In North America, *Robert's Rules* calls these *original main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2.
.. [#fn36] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.2.
.. [#fn16] Some authorities prefer to classify motions to confirm minutes, adopt reports, etc. as substantive motions, as they are moved when no other motion is pending: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3. In North America, *Robert's Rules* would refer to these as *incidental main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, §5.
.. [#fn16] Some authorities prefer to classify motions to confirm minutes, adopt reports, etc. as substantive motions, as they are moved when no other motion is pending: :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.3. In North America, *Robert's Rules* would refer to these as *incidental main motions*: :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶6:2.
.. [#fn7] Even more traditionally, motions begin with the longer phrase ‘*Be it resolved that*’.
.. [#fn81] However, even in the Australian House of Representatives, the indicative mood is routinely used instead in motions expressing an opinion (rather than ordering an action), for example, ‘That this House *is* of the opinion that …’: :ref:`Elder et al. 2018 <horp>`, p. 297.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.5.
@ -517,12 +519,12 @@ In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege*
.. [#fn65] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1.
.. [#fn2] ‘Move’, in this sentence, has the meaning ‘propose’, so if it helps in understanding the grammar, think instead ‘I propose that the expenditure be approved’. This also explains the use of the subjunctive mood: one would not typically say ‘I propose that the expenditure *is* approved’.
.. [#fn48] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.17.
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron & Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109, 117–18; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
.. [#fn37] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron & Waggon Co* `(1879) 11 Ch D 109 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpCh/1879/93.html>`_, 117–18; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
.. [#fn39] Some rules even require a motion to be seconded before the *mover* can speak in favour of it. The author, as well as :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12, and :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 40, believe this to be an undesirable practice ­– how can one know whether to second a motion before the mover has a chance to explain it?
.. [#fn49] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.22. It appears that this practice was originally defended on the basis that members of the House of Commons typically did not need to actually speak to second a motion (but would do so by, for example, raising their hat): :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 50.
.. [#fn38] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.12.
.. [#fn73] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 40; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.23.
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.10; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Co* (1879) 11 Ch D 109.
.. [#fn50] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.10; *Re Horbury Bridge Coal, Iron and Waggon Co* `(1879) 11 Ch D 109`_.
.. [#fn51] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.16; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
.. [#fn74] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.15; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 42; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶¶4.31, 4.33.
.. [#fn44] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.14; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 41
@ -532,26 +534,27 @@ In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege*
.. [#fn46] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.35.
.. [#fn42] :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶7.10.
.. [#fn47] :ref:`Renton 2005 <joske>`, ¶4.34.
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.10; *Toohey v Melville* (1892) 13 LR (NSW) 132.
.. [#fn43] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶7.10; *Toohey v Melville* `(1892) 13 LR (NSW) 132 <https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/nsw/NSWLawRp/1892/33.html>`_.
.. [#fn45] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`; pp. 28–29.
.. [#fn76] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57.
.. [#fn77] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 57; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶4.25.
.. [#fn52] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.26.
.. [#fn70] Some authorities that suggest the right of reply may only be exercised before the first amendment is voted go on to explain that the right is forfeit if not then exercised as, if the amendment is agreed to, it is no longer the mover's original motion: :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 95.
.. [#fn75] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 53.
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12; *R v Rector of Birmingham* (1837) 1 A&E 254.
.. [#fn83] :ref:`Curry et al. 1975 <curry>`, p. 30.
.. [#fn53] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.12; *R v Rector of Birmingham* `(1837) 112 ER 467 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1837/833.pdf>`_.
.. [#fn55] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.2.
.. [#fn54] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 53.
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16.
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1989) 41 IR 395, 414.
.. [#fn25] It is a common misconception that Chairs always have a casting vote. At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, the Chair of a meeting does not have a casting vote: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶10.25; *Bishop of Chichester v Harward* (1787) 99 ER 1300.
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *Johnson v Beitseen* (1988) 41 IR 395, 414.
.. [#fn25] It is a common misconception that Chairs always have a casting vote. At common law, unless the rules provide otherwise, the Chair of a meeting does not have a casting vote: :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; :ref:`Magner 2012 <joske>`, ¶10.25; *Bishop of Chichester v Harward* `(1787) 99 ER 1300 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1787/75.pdf>`_.
.. [#fn29] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14.
.. [#fn31] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.90.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council; ex parte Corris* [1990] 2 QB 363, 371.
.. [#fn30] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.14; *R v Bradford City Metropolitan Council; Ex parte Corris* [1990] 2 QB 363, 371.
.. [#fn28] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.16.
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 62.
.. [#fn78] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 42, 67–68.
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.5; *Bland v Buchanan* [1901] 2 KB 75.
.. [#fn56] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.5; *Bland v Buchanan* `[1901] 2 KB 75 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/UKLawRpKQB/1901/44.html>`_.
.. [#fn24] *Constitution of Australia*, s. 23.
.. [#fn82] Some authorities regard amendments as a form of procedure distinct to motions: *Council meeting procedures handbook*. 2nd edition. Adelaide: Local Government Association of South Australia; 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 2]. https://www.loxtonwaikerie.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0032/351959/Meeting-Procedures-Handbook-2013.pdf. While this may explain some specifics of amendment procedure, the author believes that, on balance, viewing amendments as a form of subsidiary motion is the more helpful approach.
.. [#fn19] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 33.
@ -562,7 +565,7 @@ In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege*
.. [#fn13] *Amending forms manual*. 15th ed. Canberra: Office of Parliamentary Counsel; 2019. https://www.opc.gov.au/sites/default/files/s05pu518.v81.pdf.
.. [#fn61] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.18; *Walkley v District Council of Northern Yorke Peninsula* (1987) 27 APA 381.
.. [#fn79] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.23, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, pp. 45–46; :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 59.
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.40; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 50–51.
.. [#fn62] :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 50–51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.40.
.. [#fn57] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51.
.. [#fn58] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12.
.. [#fn59] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶10.22; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 51; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶5.12, citing ‘Some authorities’; :ref:`Palgrave 1896 <palgrave>`, p. 51.
@ -574,7 +577,7 @@ In North America, local authorities additionally refer to *points of privilege*
.. [#fn34] :ref:`Natzler et al. 2019 <may>`, ¶20.35.
.. [#fn68] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.4.
.. [#fn66] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3.
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1; :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54.
.. [#fn67] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 91; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.1; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54.
.. [#fn69] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶9.3; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶7.5.
.. [#fn71] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92; :ref:`Puregger 1998 <puregger>`, p. 54–55.
.. [#fn72] :ref:`Citrine 1982 <citrine>`, p. 92.

12
voting.rst
View File

@ -39,7 +39,7 @@ In Parliament, it is required that, on a division (poll, etc.) members must vote
Voice vote
^^^^^^^^^^
In Parliament, and in some organisations, voting is performed ‘on the voices’ (‘*viva voce*’).
In Parliament, and in some organisations, voting is performed ‘on the voices’ (*viva voce*).
In a voice vote, the Chair directs those in favour of the question to say ‘Aye’, then those against to say ‘No’.\ [#fn3]_:superscript:`,`\ [#fn4]_ The Chair then announces the result according to which side they believe had greater numbers.
@ -288,11 +288,11 @@ Again, an in-depth discussion of these systems is beyond the scope of this book.
.. [#fn5] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.8.
.. [#fn6] :ref:`Robert et al. 2020 <ronr>`, ¶¶45:47–54. The roll call is not attested to in any Australian authority consulted, but has been experienced by the author and is presented here for completeness.
.. [#fn7] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.6.
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Holmes v Keyes* [1958] Ch 570.
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Anthony v Seger* (1789) 1 Hag Con 13 .
.. [#fn12] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Holmes v Keyes* [1958] Ch 670.
.. [#fn13] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.3; *Anthony v Seger* `(1789) 161 ER 457 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1789/2525.pdf>`_.
.. [#fn16] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6.
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v D'Oyley* (1840) 113 ER 763.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v Archdeacon of Chester* (1834) 1 A&E 342.
.. [#fn14] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v D'Oyly* `(1840) 113 ER 763 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1840/252.pdf>`_.
.. [#fn15] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.6; *R v Archdeacon of Chester* `(1834) 110 ER 1236 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1834/722.pdf>`_.
.. [#fn17] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶15.9.
.. [#fn8] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶14.7.
.. [#fn9] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶¶14.8–9; :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶8.13.
@ -302,7 +302,7 @@ Again, an in-depth discussion of these systems is beyond the scope of this book.
.. _renton1:
.. [#fn20] Renton NE. *Guide for meetings and organisations*. 8th ed. Vol. 1, ‘Guide for voluntary associations’. Sydney: Thomson; 2005b. ¶11.27.
.. [#fn23] :ref:`Renton 2005 <renton>`, ¶2.78; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4.
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *R v Owens* (1850) 28 LJQB 316; *Fanagan v Kernan* (1881) 8 LR Ir 44; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
.. [#fn24] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *R v Owens* `(1859) 121 ER 34 <http://www.commonlii.org/uk/cases/EngR/1859/704.pdf>`_; *Fanagan v Kernan* `(1881) 8 LR Ir 44 <https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.35112103754273&view=1up&seq=70&skin=2021>`_; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.
.. [#fn25] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.3.
.. [#fn26] :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4.
.. [#fn27] :ref:`Renton 2005b <renton1>`, ¶11.8; :ref:`Lang 2015 <horsley>`, ¶6.4; *National Australia Bank Ltd v Market Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq)* (2001) 161 FLR 1.