DR Stockley

Thank you all for your advice. I think I'm going to suggest that the clause be changed to: Section 4: To insert "Any motion to adopt, amend or abolish a standing rule and /or special rule of order of the Post must be read at two consecutive meetings followed by a vote after the final reading. Notice of the proposed motion shall be posted on the post bulletin board and to any other media that is currently in use by the post for keeping the members informed of post news and activities." before submission to the membership. Thank you all again. I'll let you all know of the results.

Yes, Joshua, they do indeed do seem to do as they wish. Although, their actions are not always in their best interest. Of course, I've always been of the opinion that if don't show up to vote you really can't complain too much about the outcome.

Thank you, Richard. That would probably be good to consider. Frankly, I'm not too sure wording referring to"...federal, stale and local laws..." is necessary since we cannot, under our National Charter, do anything in violation of any law anyway.

Thank you for your opinion, Joshua. I think that the proposed amendment stems from a question of whether or not the club room was to be made a non-smoking area when state law did not mandate it. The non-prevailing side of the question seem to feel that the question, although hotly debated among the member present at the time, should have been postponed until they could muster the votes they needed. Their attempt to postpone the vote did not pass, however. It is my belief that this particular amendment is an attempt to appease those members and to give them a means to avoid being caught short on votes should other questions arise that may be closely contested. My concern is that once a clause such as this became part of the by-laws, it could be used to slow the normal workings of the organization. Of course, that may not come under the purview of RONR.

While serving on a committee to review and propose amendments to our post by-laws, the following clause was proposed for addition to them: Section 4: To insert "Any motion to change rules and regulations of XXX Post XXXX that fall outside of the purview of federal, state, or local law must be read at two consecutive meetings followed by a vote after the final reading. The Post Commander will be responsible for posting notification of motion following the first reading on post bulletin board and to any other media that is currently in use by the post." I'm of the opinion that the insertion of such a clause would apply to practically all motions made at regular meetings and thus restrict the memberships ability to conduct business in a timely fashion. Since amendments to the by-laws already require a reading at two consecutive meetings with all members in good standing to be notified by first class mail before the final vote being taken requiring a 2/3's vote to pass, I don't see the need for such a clause. This clause would, in my opinion, bypass the normal procedure for the passage of measures that normally require only a majority to adopt. I'm curious as to your opinion of whether this is compatible with parliamentary procedures according to Robert's.

The titles were determined at the time the organization was first chartered. It is doubtful that proposing they be changed at the 119th Annual Convention would meet with much acceptance, even if it came from somewhere higher than local post level.

Oh! I did resign my position as Judge Advocate so as to free myself to exercise my full membership rights. I did then introduce a resolution for a special rule to allow the Post Judge Advocate to exercise the full rights of membership as any other member which was unanimously adopted. This I did to insure that my successor doesn't find themselves frustrated and to make it easier for the organization to find someone willing to fill the position. However, I have declined to accept reappointment to the position feeling that I can best serve as a regular member.

While I'm not familiar with either of those two groups, if I'm correct in assuming that they are both auxiliary organizations of the American Legion, I would think that any prohibitions to duel memberships would be a matter covered under their national by-laws. I know that the national by-laws of our organization does not permit members from holding two elected offices at the same time. However, that is in relation to their membership in one organization and not subsidiary units.

In our organization the titles to elected offices are of a quasi-military nature. Commander equates to president, Quarter Master to Treasurer and so on. In actuality, the organization is closer to a pure democracy with all members having one vote and no members vote carrying more weight than any others. Unfortunately, issue sometimes arise when carrier military retirees are elected to positions and do not fully appreciate that the title of Commander is not the same as being "In Command" of a military unit.

True. Unfortunately, rank doesn't always convert to a completely democratic system.

You are undoubtedly correct. For if a member is not in good standing he would not be able to attend the meetings under our By-Laws.

Thank you all again for your advice. By now you have probably surmised that the organization of which I am a member is a Veterans organization. One which has existed for some 118 years. Unfortunately, at the post level most of the membership isn't particularly knowledgeable with regard to Parliamentary Law, nor are they inclined to take much stock in it if left to their own devices. A recent amendment to the National By-Laws which changed the Parliamentary Authority recognized by the organization from Demeter's to Robert's Rules has lead to an increased awareness of procedural matters. Alas! I must admit to, over the years, allowing the strict adherence to proper procedures to become somewhat lax. Thank you all again for all your advice. I will undoubtedly, be seeking more of your expertise in the future.

Our normal procedure for when a candidate is running unopposed is for a member to move that the adjutant cast one unanimous ballot for the candidate, second followed by a voice vote. If there are two or more candidates for the office, the election is handled by ballot.

We have for many years taped the our meetings to aid the Adjutant in taking accurate minutes. Of course, this practice was approved by the membership decades ago when I was the Post Adjutant (Secretary). Of course, owing to state law all parties have to be made aware that the making of audio recordings is being done. I'm not sure of whether a member recording, either openly or clandestinely, would be permitted under that same notification in the eyes of the law. However, I suppose that any restrictions to it would have to determined with the By-Laws rather than RONR.

Since your by-laws state that the Parliamentarian, usually an advisory position, it might be prudent to make a change to that rule by an amendment also.

Apparently, I'll have to resign my office of Post Judge Advocate since it prohibits me from exercising my rights as a member, which I deem more useful to the organization. Of course, even as just a regular member my knowledge of the National & Post By-Laws coupled with my limited knowledge of RONR will most likely come in useful. Frankly, we've probably become a bit too lax in procedure over the years so I suppose the switch from Demeter's to Robert's will force us to get back on the relatively straight and narrow.

He advised me that he already has the abbreviated version. Alas! It is not always easy to get him or the Jr & Sr Vices to read and understand as much about parliamentary procedures as I'd like. Frankly, ex-military officers and sergeants sometimes have problems understanding such things. They're too use to giving orders without parliamentary procedures getting in the way.

In my opinion it would fall on the organizations By-Laws to designate the order of succession regarding who will preside in the absence of both the president and vice-president from a meeting. In my organization, the by-laws provide for it with a Sr Vice & Jr Vice.

So, if I'm understanding this correctly, I, as Judge Advocate (Parliamentarian), would under RONR not be permitted to rise to a point of order, make any motions, second any motions or even engage in any discussions or debate on any motions. I would be restricted to merely awaiting for the Commander (Chair) to consult if he is unclear about any of the National, State or Post By-Laws and/or RONR. If that is correct and the presiding officer isn't well versed in the rules or is only acquainted with them as our average member, there is little point in having a parliamentarian. Frankly, it is doubtful that many of our members are willing to familiarize themselves with RONR recognize when there is a point of order to be raised.

Our post By-Laws limit speeches to 5 minutes for the first and 3 minutes for the second with a limit of two speeches in each debate. This I believe supersedes RONR's limit.

So my understanding is that any member in good standing, once he has the floor, may offer an amendment to a main motion once it has been stated by the chair and is pending before the membership present is correct. Thank you all again.

Thank you all for your replies and advice. While I knew that it seemed to go against rational thought, I was at a disadvantage not having even been informed of the switch from Demeter's until that moment. Of course, I have since obtained a copy of RONR, along with the latest version of the National By-Laws which instituted the change as I want to be well prepared for our next monthly meeting. Thank you all again. By the way, I was aware that it wasn't a rule in Demeter's but I was caught off-guard by not being aware of the change in the Parliamentary Authority.

My organization has recently switched from Demeter's to Robert's Rules of Order as the official Parliamentary Authority. Unfortunately, I was not familiar enough with RONR at our last meeting when it was stated that according to RONR that only the maker of the main motion or the person that seconded it was permitted to offer an amendment to it. Needless to say, this didn't strike me as possibly being correct. I immediately purchased the "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition" and have been studying it, but have not found anywhere that indicates that to be the case. If one of you more knowledgeable forum members could advise me of it is true that the only ones allowed to offer an amendment to a main motion is the ones that originally made the motion or seconded it and where I can find that in RONR, I be extremely grateful.