Weldon Merritt

That's interesting, but you haven't properly responded to Mr. Honemann's request for the rule that says the members must "recuse" themselves.

So if your organization insists on having them despite the advice in RONR, your rules should also spell out the relationship.

I agree with Mr. Martin. I think it would be permissible to argues that the pending motion is inconsistent with a prior action of the assembly, but not that individual members' current positions are inconsistent with their prior positions. Members (and assemblies) have the right to change their positions. I will note that if the new motion actually conflicts with a prior motion that is still in effect, that would be grounds for raising a Point of Order, unless the new motion is couched as a motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted.

Special meetings may be called only if the bylaws provide for them. and if provided for, the bylaws should prescribe how and by whom they may be called. So the answer to that part of your question will be found in your bylaws. What could (and arguably should( have been done, even with no quorum, was to Fix the time to Which to Adjourn, to set a date and time (and location if necessary) for another meeting with hopes that a quorum could be obtained then. That would not be a special meeting, but a continuation of the same meeting. But, unfortunately, it's too late for that now. So either a special meeting can be called (if allowed by the bylaws) or you will have to wait for the next regular meeting.

OK. Fair enough. But I found the responders' comments (even Mr. Elsman's actual opinion) helpful.

I actually would be OK with that being the policy, if it were consistently enforced. But since it is not, I still contend that if anyone chooses to respond at all to such a question, it is fine to remind the questioner that the final arbiter of an ambiguous bylaw is the society itself, but there are better and less dismissive ways of doing so. BTW, looking back at my original question, I think it fairly can be read as a question about RONR, and not just about bylaws interpretation. I.e., based on what RONR says about dues, how much detail about the dues has to be in the bylaws rather than in the standing rules?

Maybe so. But I believe that there are better and less dismissive ways of conveying that thought. It seems to me that saying, "It's your rule; you tell us," is rather uncharitable :in itself. And apparently I am not alone in thinking so.

I agree. But it's one thing to tell them that the society ultimately must make its own determination while also giving them the benefit of our own views. It's quite another respond with the a dismissive comment telling them, in effect, "Go away and don't bother us."

Thanks, Atul. And I suspect there are still others.

I don't find this argument persuasive. Monty dues would mean that a member pays X amount per month, not X the first month, 11/12X the second month, 5/6X the third month, etc. I'm nit so sure that this is "the most common understanding." But IMO that interpretation would make the administration more difficult, not easier. The treasurer would have to keep track of each member's renewal date, whereas with proration, once the initial prorated dues are collected, all members' dues would become due on the same date each year. For the proposed bylaws I am considering the due date is specified (in another section() as January 1. Yes, you are. And I suspect I am nit alone it finding it to be snarky and not at all helpful. When someone posts a question here, it is because they want our opinions. It is true that when we are taking about another organization's rules, it is that organization's interpretation, not ours, that matters. And it may be a good idea to remind them of that fact and that our opinions are just that opinions and not gospel. But if all you can says is "it's your rule, you tell us," then why respond at all? I my instance, I already had what I thought was the probable correct interpretation, but I wanted to run it by the forum to see if anyone thought I was way off base. So far, everyone who has responded except you has bolstered my interpretation. You have a contrary interpretation. While I am not convinced by your interpretation, it does gives me enough pause to think that it may be prudent to amend the proposed bylaws to make it clear that prorating the dues is allowed (or required). That is helpful; your snarky remark is nit.

Thanks, Atul. The annual meeting will be considering both new bylaws and new standing rules, and I am thinking about moving an appropriate amendments (or amendments). I was just trying to figure out if both would need to be amended, or if amending the standing rues also would be sufficient. I suppose amending both would make it very clear But for various reasons, I am thinkng that I would rather just propose amending just the standing rue.

Actually, it's not *yet) my organization's rule. It may be, if adopted, and I want to see if anyone disagrees with my interpretation.

Oops! That's quite a typo. Mea culpa!

That's what I think, too. I just wanted to see if anyone has a contrary opinion.

I know that the authority for collection of dues must be in the bylaws, but the bylaws may provide for the dues amount to be set in the standing rules. Suppose the bylaws have the following provisions in different paragraphs in the dues section Annual dues will be as provided in the standing rules Honorary members will pay no dues. Dues for student members as defined in the [parent organization's] Bylaws will be one-half the dues amount for regular members. Clearly, with those provisions, the standing rules may set the dues amounts so long as honorary members are not to be charged and student member dues are half of whatever amount is set for regular members. But may the standing rules provide for prorated dues based on the month in which a member joins? Or would proration have to be authorized in the bylaws?

You very well may be right. But I agree with Mr. Brown that we really need more information.

Then they don't have to be. Lesson learned, I hope. Don't just take someone's word for something, no matter how much of an "elder" they may be. Find out ofr yourslef for yourself. NO, you still had two nominees, the original one and the new one. Reopening nominations was not a problem, but treating the new nominee as the sole nominee was. IMOI, yes. Even if your bylaws don't require a ballot vote when you have only one nominee, the fact is that you had two nominees. IMO, the election as held was null and void.

In my view, any rule, policy, or whatnot that is adopted by an organization and is intended to have ongoing effect until it is amended or rescinded (and is not a bylaw or a special rule of order) is effectively a standing rule regardless of the name given to it by the organization. See "standing rule" definition at RONR 33:5" "rules (1) which are related to the details of the administration of a society rather than to parliamentary procedure, and (2) which can be adopted or changed upon the same conditions as any ordinary act of the society."

Yes, I don't recall if I said so in the previous post, but after all of the discussion there, I agree with that. And, of course, with your response to my last question here (which I was already pretty sure would be the answer).

Based on the plain language of the applicable provisions, I think I will have to agree (much as I wish the answer were different). It just seems to me that there should be some way for another member to propose a different method of voting and have it considered rather than having to gamble on the first method proposed being defeated. And filling a blank seems to be the best way to do it. Fortunately, the likelihood of the situation occurring probably is small. But it would be nice to have a good way too handle it if it does occur. Mr. Honemann, do you agree that even if filling a blank would not otherwise be in order, the rules could be suspended to allow it?

If your bylaws don't provide foe a specific c time at which the new officers take office (such as "at the close of the meeting at which they are elected") then they take office immediately upon election. So you are the president, and have been since your election. So you should convene and preside at the coming meeting. As an aside, although not directly related to your question, there is no such category as "old business" in RONR. There is a category for "Unfinished Business and General Orders," wit7h every specific rules about how something becomes ither unfinished business or a general order. But when there is a periodic replacement t of members (i.e., and election), no business is carried over to the next meeting, so you shouldn't have any unfinished business or general orders anyway.

Thank you. Just wanted to make sure I was understanding correctly.

This seems to be different from your original opinion. Have you changed your opinion or did I misunderstand your original opinion (or your current one)?

I don't know about anyone else, But I think Mr. Gerber's suggested method makes the most sense.

Mr. Honemann, I found your comments in my previous thread very helpful, and I am hoping you will add your insight here, too.