Weldon Merritt

[I thought I had posted the following several hours ago, but somehow it didn't show up. So I am posting it now.] I don't know how it could be made any more clear that we have already tried to make it. But I'll give it one last shot. First, rules of order are defined as "rules [that]relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." 2:14. Second, "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote ...." 2:25. Note that the word is "identifiable," not "identified." So the bylaws need not say anything like "this is a rule of order." It is sufficient that the rule clearly "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings [or] to the duties of officers in that connection." Finally, re your request for "support that a bylaw stating previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a rule of order," you won't find any such specific statement in RONR. But clearly, the vote requirement for adopting a motion does "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings." So does that mean such a bylaws provision cab be suspended by a 2/3 vote? In this particular instance, no. Why? Because one of the exceptions to the suspendability of a rule of order is that "[r]ules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, ... because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules ... requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." 25:10 (italics in original) If you still are not convinced (particularly in light of RONR Senior Author Dan Honemann's statement earlier in this thread that "a] bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order"), I don't know what will do it, and I don't intend to waste any more time in the attempt.

You have been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just refuse to accept the proof.

Except for rules of order contained within the bylaws, which (with a few exceptions) can be suspended, even when they are contained in the bylaws. Your continued refusal to accept that fact in the face of multiple persons (including the senior RONR author) telling you so does not make it any less so.

No. If the terms of any or all of the members expire, any unfinished business, including any motions that are on the table, fall to the ground. The only legitimate way for a matter to be carried over to the next term is if it has been referred to a committee with instructions to report at a later date in the new term.

Since the members' terms expire before the next meeting, the motion will fall to the ground and cannot be taken from the table. But it can simply be made again. Note that this will be true whether or not the two members are reappointed to a new term. It is the expiration of the current term that is relevant, not who might or might not be appointed to the new term. However, if a member is replaced mid-term, because of death, resignation, or removal, that will not cause the motion to fall to the ground, and it could be taken from the table. But based on your information, that does not seem to apply here.

The mover, at least, should have been "credited" in the minutes of the meeting where he or she made the motion. The seconder ordinarily should not be mentioned at all (just the fact that the motion was seconded). But if your organization has a custom of listing the seconder, then he or she also should have been "credited" in the previous meeting's minutes. No need to "credit" them again.

Presumably, the minutes of the meeting where the motion was made will show who made the motion. I think the minutes of the meeting where it was taken from the table would simply indicate that it was taken from the table, and the disposition of it after it was taken from the table. No need to again list who initially made the made motion, nor (IMO) even who moved to take it from the table.

Mr. Brown beat me to the punch with essentially the same thing I was going to say. But, I'll throw in two additional observations gratis. First, don't refer to "a 2/3 majority." A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast. A two-thirds vote is, well, two-thirds of the votes cast. Conflating the terms leads to confusion. Second, "RROO (The Modern Edition)" is not the Right Book. I don't have a copy to refer to, but as near as I can determine based on my Google search, it essentially is the original 1876 work by Henry M. Robert, revised by Darwin Patnode, Ph.D. The current official version or is Robert's Rules is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th edition). In this particular instance, the answer you got from you your book was correct, but that might not always be the case. I recommend you get the correct current version, and it's companion, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief (3rd edition), which you can view here.

No. The approval of the minutes has no bearing on whether motions (or resolutions, which are just "motions in fancy dress") are valid. A lack of approved minutes means that you have no official record of their adoption, but it certainly doesn't make them "null and void." So the minutes should be approved as soon as possible, and whatever is causing them to be provided late needs to be corrected ASAP.

Assuming each meeting of the council is indeed a separate session, and that there are no other rules affecting the motion, you are correct. Any member may make the motion. But since you are not a council member, your options are limited. It would up to a council member to raise a Point of Order and, if necessary, an Appeal.

What do you mean by "editorializing"? If you mean making comments when no motion is pending, no one (officer or not) should be doing that, except maybe a few introductory remarks leading to the making of a motion. If you are talking about debating a pending motion, the secretary, or any other officer, if a member of the assembly, has the same right to do that as any other member. The requirement to remain neutral applies to the chair, not all officers.

True; but it seems to me that 41:11 makes it clear that even if a motion to approve the minutes is made, a vote on approval is not taken.

I agree with both Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Brown as to the general principle that an officer does not have to resign one position to be nominated for another. But I'm wondering why neither asked why anyone was being nominated for president. If there is a vice president, then that officer automatically and instantly became the president the moment the president's resignation was effective, unless the bylaws specifically say otherwise. (Not just something like, "all vacancies will be filled by election," but something like, "all vacancies including in the office of president.") So absent that specificity in the bylaws, the vacancy to be filled would be in the office of vice president, not president.

Thanks, Josh. That's exactly what I was looking for. I was looking under Point of Order and under Voting, but I didn't think to look under Appeal.

I recall reading in RONR that a Point of Order should not be used for the chair's erroneous announcement of the result of a voice vote, but a Division of the Assembly should be used instead. However, I can't find that in either the 11th or 12th editions. I suppose I could be mistaken, but I don't think so. I'm probably just overlooking it somehow. Can anyone point me to the right provision?

RONR does cover who is allowed to vote. Members are allowed to vote. I suspect that the reason Mr. Martin said that your question is "outside the scope of RONR" is that it involves aa legal interpretation regarding when appointees actually become members. Is it when the governor appoints them, or when they are confirmed by the legislature?

If the position is defined in your bylaws, the only way to remove the position is to amend the bylaws.

No. If your bylaws do not prohibit nominations from the floor, the chair must call for them.

Mr. Brown's answer is a bit more accurate than mine. When I said, "Assuming the vote is not one that requires something more than an unqualified majority," I had in mind votes such as a majority of those present or a majority of the entre membership. But of course, a two-thirds vote also is "something more than an unqualified majority," and both my example and Mr. Brown's meet the requirement for either a majority or a two-thirds vote.

Assuming the vote is not one that requires something more than an unqualified majority, the abstentions are ignored. To give an extreme example, if there are 100 member present, 99 of whom abstain, and one votes in the affirmative, the motion is adopted just as surely as if all 100 had voted in the affirmative.

I have it on reliable authority (the editor) that a correction will be printed in the next NP.

Nathan, everything that you say you want the assembly to be able to do can be accomplished with well-written bylaws. But very little of it could be assured by relying on some sort of "unwritten rule." It seems to me that there are three possibilities regarding contemplated requirements for holding office: Requirements deemed absolutely essential. Put those in the bylaws, with no suspension allowed. Requirements deemed important, but not essential. Put those in the bylaws, but with a provision allowing suspension by some specified voting threshold. Totally irrelevant requirements. Don't put them in any written rule. (But individual members are free to take them into account in their voting.) And of course, it's up to each organization to decide for itself where on that spectrum any proposed requirement falls. The answer may vary greatly among different organizations.

I doubt that there is any such thing as "informal law." As a Supreme Court Justice once said (Unfortunately, which justice and in wat case, I don't recall), "The unwritten law isn't worth the paper it isn't written on." I fully concur with Dr. Kapur.

I will not venture an opinion on the "realness" of the English constitution, but I can say with a pretty high degree of confidence that so far as RONR is concerned, if it's not written, it's not a rule. At best, it's a custom, which, in the event a conflict with a written rule (and a Point of Order citing the written rule), "the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with." RONR (12th ed.) 2:25.

I don't necessarily think that there should be no qualifications for office, but I do think organization should carefully consider what, if any, qualifications, they want to require. The more qualifications you impose, the smaller the pool of eligible candidates.