Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Burke Balch

Moderators
  • Posts

    894
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Burke Balch

Profile Information

  • Location:
    Fredericksburg, Virginia

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It sounds like this may be a homeowner's or similar communicty associaiton, and such entities are usually highly regulated by state law. In addition, besides the bylaws there are typically governing documents with titles like "Declarations," or "Covenants, Conditions and Restictions," that may be directly relevant to the "conflict of interest" issue raised in this thread. As Joshua Katz and Rob Elsman have pointed out, what Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised has to say on the matter does not seem directly relevant to the specific question. All that RONR (12th ed.) has to say with regard to conflicts of interest is in paragraphs 45:4-5: 45:4 Abstaining from Voting on a Question of Direct Personal Interest. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. 45:5 Voting on Questions Affecting Oneself. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63).
  2. 51:70 applies to minority reports regarding committees generally; the rules regarding Credentials Committees in conventions are more specific. At this point, I think we shall simply have to agree to disagree. If all that I and others have written and cited still has not proved persuasive, I doubt anything will. To be clear, with respect, I am convinced that all of the arguments suggesting that a substitute recommended in a minority report can supersede or evade the limits on amendments provided in 59:24 have been definitively refuted.
  3. This claim is refuted by the fact that the first sentence of 59:24, preceding the rules limiting the types of amendments that may be offered, on its face refers to the "report": "the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, 'Are there any questions on the report?' " The entirety of 59:24, not just "the last line," is, under the plain language of the paragraph, applicable to the credentials committee "report" -- which makes untenable the notion that action on the report can somehow be distinguished from action on the motion to adopt the roll in a manner that allows for preliminary action on the "report" including consideration of a substitute for the roll recommended by a minority report that is not subject to the amendment limitations set forth in 59:24. As has been pointed out by others in this thread, such a claim fails to take account of Principle of Interpretation 3, "A general statement or rule is always of less authority than a specific statement or rule and yields to it." 56:68(3) goes on to explain, "It is not practical to state a rule in its full detail every time it is referred to. General statements of rules are seldom strictly correct in every possible application. The specific statement of the rule that gives the details applying to the particular case must always be examined." The claim that the general rule pertaining to minority reports in 51:70 must somehow apply to consideration of the report of a convention Credentials Committee unless the paragraphs specifically applicable to the credentials committee report explicitly state that 51:70 does not apply is directly contrary to 56:68(3). It is enough under 56:68(3) that the rules specifically limiting amendments in 59:24 supersede the general rule in 51:70 to the extent of the conflict.
  4. I concede that the RONR references to adopting the "reports" of the three relevant convention committees can be confusing, since what is actually put before the convention for adoption are the three motions arising out of the reports: to adopt, respectively, the roll of delegates, the convention standing rules, and the program. If one considers the content of the report of the credentials committee, apart from the list of delegates and alternates whose adoption is moved, 59:23 says it consists of information concerning the time up to which registrations have been recorded along with "whatever statistical summary is customary in the paricular organization (frequently including a breakdown according to basis of voting membership . . . ) and always gives the total number of convention members entitled to vote and the number of registered alternates." Now, with the arguable exception of the time up to which regisrations have been recorded, the statistical summary is tied to the roll that is being submitted for adoption, and to change it (except, conceivably, in the case of correcting a counting or arithmetical error) requires an amendment of the roll. Certainly, some such amendments could result in changes in the number of delegates or alternates if, for example, an amendment were to be adopted adding to or subtracting from the number of delegates or alternates for a delegation. What sense, then, does it make to speak of amending the content of the report independently of amending the roll of delegates and alternates? In particular, what sense would there be in a minority report proposing a substitute for the credentials committee report wholly independent of the roll of delegates and alternates? That statement is simply incorrect. Even outside the specific context of a credentials committee, 51:69 (emphasis added) describes the sequence of considering the committee and minority reports: the minority report is received "immediately after the report of the committee. . . . As soon as the chair has stated the appropriate question on the committee report, he calls for the minority report . . . ." In the case of a report of a credentials committee, what is "the appropriate question on the committee report" the chair is to state? 59:23 gives the answer: "The committee chairman concludes the report by saying 'On behalf of the committee, I move that the roll of delegates hereby submitted be the official roll of the voting members of the convention.' " That becomes the immediately pending question. It is made at the conclusion of, and as a part of, the committee report, and thus is moved before any minority report is delivered. If the notion is that the minority report could recommend a substitute, it would have to be for that pending motion. I can see how the wording of the succeeding paragraph, 59:24, could lead to misunderstanding, because it refers to adopting the "report" as though it were equated with adopting the roll as just moved by the committee chairman. However, careful attention to the language of the paragraph in context helps avoid this misunderstanding. The paragraph begins, following the preceding paragraph's giving the language of the committee chairman's motion, by saying, "Unless there is debate or proposed amendment, the chair, before taking the vote on the adoption of the report, asks, 'Are there any questions on the report?" Amendment of what? Of the motion to adopt the roll of delegates the committee chairman has just made. If there is any doubt, the very next sentence of 59:24 describes the type of amendment that is in order: adding a name "to the roll of delegates as submitted." The paragraph goes on to say, "it is in order to move such amendments or even to move to substitute an entirely different set of delegates for any delegation in the reported list, but no such amendment is permitted to include more names than those of a single challenged delegate or delegation all of whom are challenged on the same grounds, together with any claimants involved." (Emphasis added.) In short, when using the locution "adoption of the report" and "adopting the Credential's Committee's report" the paragraph explicitly prohibits any one amendment from reaching more than, at most, the members of a single delegation. Therefore, if what is being suggested is some notion that there could be a substitute offered for the report that included proposing a substitute roll of delegates and alternates for multiple delegations, that would be explicitly prohibited by 59:24 even if one mistakenly assumed that an amendment was being offered to "the report" in some way distinct from being offered directly to the roll of delegates and alternates. J.J. says that 59:24 applies to the motion, and in that his statement is correct. However, the fact that 59:24 repeatedly refers to "the report" when forbidding amendments applying to more than one delegation should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of the notion that one can somehow avoid that prohibition by phrasing it as a substitute for "the report" rather than for "the roll of delegates". The bottom line, nevertheless, is that what is placed before the delegates on the temporary roll for adoption is the roll of delegates and alternates proposed by the committee, and not the language used by the committee chairman in giving the credentials committee report (the statistical summary) that precedes making the motion to adopt its proposed roll of delegates.
  5. With respect, I disagree that a bylaw provision simply authorizing a credentials committee minority report works any change in the governing rules for amendments to the roll of delegates submitted by the credentials committee majority in the parliamentary authority if that authority is RONR (12th ed.), nor do I agree that The relevant language in Principle of Interpretation 1 states, "When the meaning is clear . . . the society, even by a unanimous vote, cannot change that meaning except by amending its bylaws. An ambiguity must exist before there is any occasion for interpretation. . . . Again, intent plays no role unless the meaning is unclear or uncertain . . . " RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(1). When the bylaws provide that two or more members of specified committees may jointly issue a minority report that supersedes the default rules in RONR in two respects: 1) under Principle of Interpretation 56:68(4) it prevents a minority report unless at least two members of the committee agree to it, whereas 51:69 refers only to a "minority" which could include a minority of one; and 2) it establishes that two members have the right to issue a minority report, superseding the provision in 51:69 under which if there is an objection to receiving the minority report "A majority vote is required to receive a minority report . . . ." However, the bylaw provision says absolutely nothing about what amendments are in order to the roll of delegates whose adoption is moved on behalf of the credentials committee. To interpret it as doing so goes far beyond its plain meaning and clear language. As background, the following points made in this thread are undoubtedly accurate: 1) A substitute, whether proposed in a minority report by members of the credentials committee or by a delegate from the floor, is an amendment. 2) The more specific provisions in 59:24 that limit amendments to the roll of delegates to those covering at most the members of one delegation prevail, to the extent of conflict, over the rules applicable in general to committee minority reports contained in 51:70 that allow a motion to substitute a minority report. See Principle of Interpretation 56:68(3). Thus, a substitute proposed in a credentials committee minority report that covers more than one delegation is not in order. On the other hand, as has been suggested above, surely any individual members of the committee minority, or indeed any delegates, could separately move amendments to the roll submitted by the credentials committee (that is, approved by the credentials committee majority), each amendment being limited to no more than one delegation, that collectively parallel the recommendations in a minority report.
  6. I hope you will excuse me if I say I cannot recall providing that advice. Can you refresh my recollection by either quoting it if written or referring me to an oral presentation at which I might have been thought to have so opined?
  7. With respect, may I be advised of what I may have written or said that lead to the inference that I have stated that view?
  8. May I go back to the original issue? On any question, it may be possible to retake a vote. RONR (11th ed.) p. 285. For example, after after a vote has been taken by voice, it would be in order to move that it be taken by a counted vote. Would anyone suppose that, without suspending the rules, debate could be re-opened on the question after the body had voted to take a counted vote but before the counted voting had actually begun? It seems to me that the answer to this should be no different in a situation in which, after taking a voice vote, a motion is adopted to take a ballot vote. Now, in the case of a ballot that fails to decide an issue (which could be an election or could be a vote on some other motion, such as selecting a city for a convention), another ballot is required to follow. What would be the basis for assuming that debate on the question could be resumed between ballots? The book is clear that between ballots a candidate may withdraw. RONR (11th ed.), p. 441, ll. 5-8. Similarly, it states, "When for any reason it is desired to reopen nominations, this can be done by majority vote". Id. p. 289, ll. 7-8. Presumably privileged motions, such as to Recess, could be made and voted on. But I can see no other basis, without suspending the rules, for a motion to re-open debate between ballots, any more than to re-open debate between a voice vote and a counted vote.
  9. Perhaps it may best be understood as encouraging groups that intend to employ electronic meetings to structure them in ways that comport with the definition of deliberative assembly, in preference to ways that do not – although, through appropriate provisions in bylaws and special rules of order, they are of course free to structure electronic meetings–or, for that matter, any sort of meetings-- however they choose to do so, whether the consequent assembly fits within the RONR definition of deliberative assembly or not.
  10. I would be very glad to participate in a panel discussion/debate on the topic. But -- just as Mr. Merritt concedes that chat rooms are "very much slower" -- so also is this forum (which, perhaps, some might validly describe as a chat room). And some (not all) of the very reasons why a chat room is poor substitute for a deliberative assembly apply to debates/discussions here-- which is why I decline the challenge to debate the matter in depth here, but will be glad to do so--at a mutually convenient time-- in a context that itself allows simultaneous aural communication!
  11. Now, it seems, we come to it. The use of deaf meetings as an example is really a stalking horse to justify chat room meetings! In fact, the use of the term "aural" was adopted precisely to avoid any possible interpretation that chat rooms would be acceptably termed deliberative assemblies. So it seems we were very wise to use it!
  12. An electronic meeting with webcams using ASL certainly seems more realistic.
  13. Allow me to add another observation. The second paragraph on page 98, lines 11-19, if read in totality, is plainly directed at discouraging attempts to conduct meetings -- what the National Association of Parliamentarians calls "asynchronous" meetings -- by e-mail or chat rooms. The problem with those sorts of efforts -- which don't require all the participants to be participating at the same time, is, as the footnote on page 1 states, that "When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable." For example, when is debate to end and a vote be taken? How are amendments and other secondary motions to be handled? A new forest of rules would be required to cope with such problems. And we really need not undertake such an enterprise, because -- for those who insist on electronic meetings -- the technology and software required to enable "simultaneous" communication in ways that allow efficient seeking and granting of recognition, submission of written motions, voting by means less cumbersome than roll call, permitting viewing of other meeting participants (or at least the chair and the speaker) by webcam, and the like, are rapidly developing and, as they become more common, are becoming less and less expensive. So we need not sacrifice most of the well-established and proven rules of parliamentary procedure in order to conduct electronic meetings. That is the gravamen, in my opinion, of that paragraph. When one understands that context, it should not be interpreted as somehow designed to disenfranchise those with hearing disabilities.
  14. As one member of the authorship team, I thought a more senior member -- Dan Honemann -- gave a pretty definitive response when he pointed out that there is an "or" in the second characteristic of deliberative assembly on page 1. If a "group meets in a single room or area" then (presuming the other distinguishing characteristics apply) it is a deliberative assembly. One needn't look at the alternative phrase referring to "simultaneous aural communication among all participants" unless dealing with a group that is NOT meeting in "a single room or area." And since all the discussion in this thread, I believe, has referred to deaf people meeting in a single room or area, why would one challenge the conclusion that such a group is a deliberative assembly? The alternative language -- following the "or" -- is plainly intended to deal with the possibility of electronic meetings. It would be pretty silly for a group of deaf people to attempt to hold an electronic meeting by teleconference, wouldn't it? If they held an electronic meeting over the Internet, employing computer screens for communication then -- just as with any other group holding an electronic meeting -- the EM would have to be authorized in the bylaws and the group should adopt additional rules to for the conduct of the electronic meeting. Any bylaws provisions and any special rules of order accomplishing that purpose would supersede whatever language in RONR might be cited to the contrary. I fail to see how anything in RONR would prevent a group of deaf people, or a group including deaf people, from employing RONR's rules, together with suitable adaptive special rules of order, successfully to conduct deliberative meetings. If that's not disputed, then further debate seems to me to be of the "number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin" variety.
  15. Well! It should be obvious that in a meeting composed of people who are deaf, a series of variations in the standard rules would need to be made to provide reasonable accommodation to people with that disability. The method of seeking recognition obviously would need to rely on a visual cue-- say, a raised colored card-- rather than calling out "Mr. Chairman," for example. Presumably communication would use ASL, and, depending on the size of the assembly, there would therefore likely need to be a requirement that a speaker go to a place where he or she would be visible to the entire assembly. These variations would appropriately be embodied in special rules of order, which, as we all know, generally trump the parliamentary authority (but see RONR [11th ed.], p. 16n). So I wouldn't worry too much about the "aural" limitation as the much more practical limits would be other aspects of the standard rules, and all -- the "aural" limitation and the practical difficulties from applying the standard rules -- would be superseded by appropriate special rules of order.
×
×
  • Create New...