Weldon Merritt

The minutes of a meting should reflect only what happened at that meeting. In most cases, "information" presented at a meeting would not be included even in the minutes of the meeting where it was presented, unless it was somehow included in the wording of a motion or, in rare instances, was part of a committee report. But under no circumstances should information discovered after the meeting be included in the minutes.

Hold the elections as scheduled, and include a blank for write-in votes for the position. In fact, there should be a blank for write-ins even for the positions for which you do have nominees. If someone gets a majority of the votes cast for that position (which cold be as few as a single vote if no one else gets any(, and does not decline, he or she is elected). If no one gets a majority, keep voting until someone does, or at least until it is obvious that you can't fill the position. The fact that the bylaws require a certain number of council members does not prevent the council from acting with fewer, as long as you meet any quorum requirements. The above assumes, of course, that you bylaws don't prohibit write-in votes. If they do, then you indeed have a dilemma for which I have no advice.

Based on the above, and assuming there are no other provisions related to the immediate past president, you have a bylaws interpretation problem. By ordinary dictionary definitions, the president who resigned is the immediate past president. But the quoted provision does not seem to me to give him an automatic position. First, he has to be appointed by the board of directors. (But appointed to what? Presumably to the board, but that's not at all clear.) It might be argued that the word "shall" manes that the board has no discretions and must appoint him; but then why involve the board at all? Then even if he is appointed by the board, the appointment must be approved by the membership. So I have doubts that he is entitled to any automatic position. But ultimately, that's a bylaws interpretation question that only your organization can answer. See RONR (12th ed.) 56:68 for some principles of interpretation. Once our organization makes an interpretation, the bylaws should be amended at the earliest opportunity to clarify the intent. And while you're at it, I (and just about every other frequent responder on this forum) recommend that you eliminate any official role for the immediate past president. One of our late colleagues, Dr. John Stackpole, had an excellent list (which I have saved) of the reasons why giving the IPP an official position is a bad idea. I won't post the list now, but will be happy to share it with you if you would like to see it. The upshot is that giving the IPP an official position is fraught with potential problems that were not anticipated when the position was created.

If he is basing his claim on RONR, he is off base. RONR has nothing to say about the past president, so you will have to look for your own rules. So what, if anything, do your bylaws say about the (immediate) past president? Please quote exactly; don't paraphrase.

I won't get into whether such a discussion would or would not be useful or productive. But I certainly see no reason it would need to be discussed in a committee of the whole. Perhaps you are confusing a committee of the whole with the organization's assembly. While the membership of both bodies is the same, they are, from a parliamentary standpoint, separate bodies with different powers and functions.

How did the committee of the whole get into the conversation?

No, you are not correct. Censure may be a form of discipline, but it also can be sued to express the assembly's opinion about anyone. In either case, it has no actual effect beyond expressing the assembly's displeasure (unless, in the case of a member, thee bylaws provide that it does have another effect).

Finally, I get some useful advice! Thank you Dan. Your answers are pretty much in line with my thinking, but I was wondering if anyone had a different view.

That's really helpful!😒

I pretty much agree. But the provision that amendments may be submitted by "any committee" must mean something. At the least, it must man that a standing committee may submit amendments that relate somehow to its area of concern. I am less confident in the case of a special committee, which usually has a more limited charge than does a standing committee.

Suppose the amendment article in the bylaws provides that amendments may be proposed by, among others, “any committee.” Given that provision (with no restricting language), could a standing committee propose any amendments regardless of subject, or only amendments relating to its own structure or function? Could a special committee propose any amendments regardless of subject, only amendments related to its structure or function, or no amendments at all (assuming proposing amendments was not included as a specific duty of the committee)? In either event, if a committee proposed an amendment that it was beyond the scope of the committee’s function, and the amendment was nevertheless properly noticed, would a point of order that the amendment is not in order because it was not properly submitted in accordance with the bylaws be well-taken? (If it matters, assume that the organization has a bylaws committee to which proposed amendments must be submitted, that the amendment was timely submitted to the committee, and that the committee recommends adoption.)

I haven't taken the course, so I can't speak from personal experience. I simply studied for the membership exam on my own and, as I recall, did pretty well on it. All I can say if that you have to become a member before you can become an RP. Which route you take depends a great deal on how well you feel you can study on your own. Or, you may be able to find a local unit or an individual member offering a course culminating in taking the exam.

Indeed there is! Becoming an RP takes a lot more work.

They may use RONR for the conduct of business, But RONR gives non-members no rights. So as far as RONR is concerned, you have no right to address the body in the first place. To reiterate, any rights you have must be grated by the body's own rules.

You will not find the answer in RONR, Whatever rights, if any, that you have will be governed by the governing body's own rules.

If, as I understand, the limitation is on the time allowed for debate, when that time expires, you vote. The only subsidiary motions that can be made are Lay on the Table (which seldom is actually in order) or a new motion to further extend the limits of debate. RONR (12 ed.) Sure. But as noted above, you vote when the time for debate expires, even if not explicitly stated.

I suspect we've all made dumb mistakes at one time or another.

Since when does Previous Question not require a second (under the normal rules)?

My thought is that if the amendments were not properly noticed as amendments to the bylaws, then the bylaws were not amended. And since the bylaws take precedence over the policies and procedures, the president is correct. This illustrates the wisdom of what I often refer to as "Seabold's Maxim" (after RONR author Dan Seabold, from whom I first heard it in a workshop he gave several years ago): "Say it once; say it clearly; and say it in the right place."

True. But it could be suspended for a particular meeting by a 2/3 vote, with no notice required. Unless it can somehow be interpreted as a protection of absentees, who might have an expectation that the issue could not be considered and therefore don't attend the meeting

As Dr. Kapur and Mr. Katz have said, you can do it. But I will now be the first to tell you why it is a bad idea to give the Immediate Past President any sort of official position. Or, more accurately. I will tell you what our esteemed late colleague, Dr. John Stackpole, had to say about it (since I can't improve on his reasons):

Oh, I think you probably are correct. But I still can't help wondering why anyone would think that RONR would address anything that specific.

The bylaws can't simply be ignored. But depending on what "process" you are talking about, it might be possible for the board to suspend the rules and do something not otherwise allowed in the bylaws. To tell you whether that would be possible for the the specific process you are talking about, we would need more information.

I've seen some strange questions on this forum, but this one takes the cake! It escapes me how anyone could think a book on parliamentary procedure would have anything to say about animals!

RONR places no specific limit on how often the chair may do this, but does advise that "unless a presiding officer is extremely sparing in leaving the chair to take part in debate, he may destroy members' confidence in the impartiality of his approach to the task of presiding." RONR (12th ed.) 43:29.