jstackpo

Here’s a link to Henry’s home-town (Annapolis, MD) newspaper with a piece about him.

https://www.capitalgazette.com/opinion/ac-ce-column-vandekamp-20190115-story.html

 I particularly liked the description of him as the “guardian” of RONR.  Rather like a movie superhero ( see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film) ).

Many of us thought of him in the same way.

"Multiple reports?"    Well, yes and no.  There can be only one "Majority Report" consisting of the text adopted by a majority vote of the committee members.  That will be THE Committee Report.

The minority (or any number of sub-minorities)  can write a report but the group to which the committee is reporting is NOT obliged to officially listen (or even pay the slightest attention) to minority reports - see page 527ff.

I have no idea how the US congress does such things -- I'm not sure all of them know either.

It is logically impossible for there to be two (or more!) majorities giving reports.

Think of "comprise" as an non-affectionate "embrace" and your grammar will cure itself.

Unfortunately (for you, but not for us, to be blunt about it) interpretation of bylaws, particularly when there are possibly ambiguous or conflicting provisions, is left entirely up to the membership of the association.  See pp. 588ff.  We are not in a position to offer our (necessarily personal)  opinions of "meaning".  You might contact a professional parliamentarian at the NAP or AIP to assist you.

A specific parliamentary point about those "suspended" members: do the suspension rules (if any) say just what the members are suspended from, and hence what membership privileges or rights they still have available to them?  If not, it would be best to amend your bylaws to spell that out.  See footnote page 6. 

(Other folks may be more helpful!  Stay tuned.)

20 minutes ago, Guest Jdeck said:

Let me say this, first most of us don't know what we're doing when it pertains to Ronr.

Here's a starter suggestion:

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

Membership required? No, although that is a bit unusual. 

RONR notes, page 174 and elsewhere - check the index, that non-association members can be appointed to standing and special committees, including as chair, but the assembly has to approve (majority vote) such appointments before the non-members can participate in the committee's work.

Mr. (or Ms) Question:  Please raise your new questions in a new thread / topic, rather than piggy-backing (even if it is similar) on another thread.  Makes for less confusion that way.

Just cut and paste to a new topic and we can all have a shot at answering.

Suspicions realized!!...

 IPP is a Bad Idea:

And here's some reasons why the position is a bad idea:

In my personal view, setting up an "official" Immediate Past President (IPP) position is not a particularly good idea.  The most telling argument is the real possibility of a close and bitter race for the presidency, with the current president running (for a second term) against an "outsider".  And the outsider - the "reform candidate", perhaps - wins but is still stuck with the thorn of the IPP on the Board in a position to snipe at the new president.  And perhaps attempt to undermine the new president's plans.  Not to mention vote against them.

If the erstwhile president is a "good guy" the new president can (usually, depending on the bylaws) appoint him to a pre-existing committee - or even have him chair one, which might put him on the Board - as the new president sees fit.  That way the IPP's experience and value can be put to good use, when needed, without the danger of setting up an adversarial situation which would require a bylaw amendment to get out of.

Here's some more reasons

1) The President resigns and wants nothing to do with the organization.
 
2) The President simply doesn't run for election again because he's had enough, and never shows up at a board meeting.
 
3) The President is booted out of office for being incompetent, or for something more nefarious.
 
4) The President dies.
 
5) The President resigns and moves (wants to help but isn't around).

6) Even worse is the bylaw assignment of the IPP to chair a committee - such as nominating.  Then he dies/quits/leaves town, &c.  You are then stuck with an unfillable (by definition) vacancy.

Note that except for item 4, the IPP may well be part of the quorum requirement for meetings, even though he never shows up.

Our suggestion is to amend your bylaws to eliminate the position.

55 minutes ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

[I am the Secretary in question]

Gonna stay in the job much longer?

2 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

Only one each?

And to be sure we state it correctly, secondary amendments to the substitute (or the Main Motion) can be made any number of times, just not all at once or as "tertiary" amendments.  You dispose of one before going on to the next one somebody may have.

2 hours ago, Caryn Ann Harlos said:

(and our organization has a custom of including more details in the minutes and often include things that the members request as it gives needed context for the wider membership)

Hmm, take a look at pages 468ff about minutes, while you have the book open.  Keep up your present practice and two (or more) things are almost sure to happen -- if they haven't already...

1)   You will end up with (pointless) arguments about exactly what people said because they think that the secretary got the words wrong.

2)  You will have a lot of turnover in the secretary position as volunteers decide that there is too much work transcribing things, and then debating about them later.

A third possibility is that folks will come late (or not at all) to meetings to avoid sitting through long recitations of those minutes. I know I used to.

Minutes should be minimalist:  "what was done, not what was said"  Put the other (entirely valuable, to be sure) stuff in a newsletter. .

9 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

extended

How far?  

Granted, the breach would end when the (I am assuming) improper amendment was nullified (or whatever other continuing breach was closed and the problem resolved), but that could be a looong time in the future.  "It is never too late", page 251.  No statute of limitations there.

You mean the silly smiling moon, I presume.  😉

Anyone (presumably someone who didn't like the amendment) could raise a point of order at any later time that absentee rights -- i.e., their right to get written notice of bylaw amendments -- were violated and hence the motion was improper, null, and void.  See page 251, paragraph e).  This is a "continuing breach" so there is no requirement that the point of order be timely

Why take the chance?  Just do it right.

Not really.  The unhappy member had his chance to complain, perhaps by raising a point of order during the debate on the motion.  That would have gone in the minutes. As DH notes, "present" is not a proper form of voting except in a roll-call vote, and even then it doesn't represent any sort of "complaint".

A few specifics...

29 minutes ago, Guest David Shallcross said:

override the policy and procedure at the executive board

Unless your bylaws give the board exclusive control over such matters, a board is properly subservient to the wishes of the general membership, as expressed in adopted motions. So no parliamentary problem there.

32 minutes ago, Guest David Shallcross said:

stacked the votes of the general meeting with supporters

That is more politely known as "getting out the vote", presuming all those supporters were members of the association.

34 minutes ago, Guest David Shallcross said:

without the screening procedure of the board

I presume those screening procedures were what was overridden in the first vote you spoke of so they are within their rights

You don't like what happened?  Next meeting get your voters out  in sufficient number to rescind the endorsement and reset the screening system to something more to your liking.  This is all just democracy in action, hardball democracy to be sure, but it matches the temper of the times.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

a direct textual reference,

Here is something mighty close if not expressed as a simple direct fact:  page 403 footnote in defining a "majority of the entire membership", as distinct from a "fixed membership".

The chair and his buddy can't overturn the motion on their own.  One of them - or any other member - next meeting could move to rescind the motion.  That would place the decision in the hands of the committee, where it belongs.

I would think (following in the footsteps of my English teacher dad) that a rule that read "May attend ... except [special situation]"  means that someone may NOT attend when the special situation applies. Otherwise what is the meaning of "exception"?

Here's the exact quote from the NAP Bylaws, Article VII, Section 3.C:

2 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

"except when in executive session". NAP has such a bylaw provision.

Seems to me that rule swings the pendulum too far the other way.  I am sure (if it wasn't so early in the morning) I could think of a situation where the Board, or Execom, would want a non-member to show up at an Executive Session -- to give testimony, for example.

Was the motion in question one of the type that requires written notice for its introduction, e,g. (probably) a bylaw amendment?

Was the "subgroup" membership notified of the business meeting at all?  If "Yes", then it is the subgroups problem -- one of the requirements laid on a member is to show up for meetings. You cannot nullify a vote because some members don't show up at a meeting, The presence or absence of a particular item on an agenda makes no difference, unless you have a rule REQUIRING advance notice of all business to come up in a meeting.

Something for you, Mr or Ms User, to worry about is whether the bylaw "allowing" rule would prevent the execomm from excluding general member at all.  I'm thinking of Executive Sessions (page 95) where sensitive matters might be discussed that belong exclusively in the Execomm.  Best to amend the bylaws and remove the "right to attend" rule -- the execomm can still then allow members to attend, but only on an individual basis, and can kick them out when appropriate.

Raising a point of order is indeed your last line of defense, in a parliamentary context.  Well, an appeal of the subsequent chair's ruling is the last last recourse.

Since you are part of a "municipal body", there may be rules in the ordinances about procedure in your meetings not included in Roberts or superseding RONR's rules -- you might check there to see what else you might do. Meanwhile, here is a suggestion for a (belated) New Years or early Valentines Day gift for your chair or your colleagues

Get him/them a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link:

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

RONR won't tell you how to handle the situation of your "mystery mayor", but this small book might be a place for you to start your journey into parliamentary procedure: 

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

However, it is quite likely that your municipality has adopted special rules that supersede RONR's rules, in some situations.  You will have to  check that possibility  in your home-town ordinances.

We can tell you what RONR says, but not what your town rules say.  Don't hesitate to ask.