Gary Novosielski

Actually, in Tomm's other thread, that's exactly what I said, but he didn't copy/paste it for some reason. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34403-timeliness-of-appeal/?do=findComment&comment=203253

Are you suggesting that such a rule would be suspendible?

Oh, I've got that already!

It is not up to the chair to decide. If either of the criteria is met¹, the motion is adopted. You clipped that part off. ____________________ ¹Or, of course if both are met.

Do we all get a certificate?

Well, I'm certainly not going to quibble with your quibble with his quibble. 😵

No. A rule about removing officers is not a rule of order, and is not suspendible. Rules of order are those that relate to the orderly conduct of business during a meeting. It is, however, a reasonable interpretation that by citing RONR as your parliamentary authority in your bylaws, your bylaws cannot be said to be truly silent on any issue for which there are applicable rules found in RONR.

Whoops, yep. Got carried away. Fixed it. And thanks.

The board can adopt such a Special Rule of Order because it affects their own board meetings. They cannot pass a rule that affects membership meetings because boards are subordinate to the membership. The rules for passing a Special Rule of Order require: a. previous notice, and a 2/3 vote, or b. a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the body that is meeting), either of which will suffice. In a small board where every member usually attends, and votes, a majority of the entire membership is usually just as easy to achieve as a majority vote, and easier than a 2/3 vote. But it's not easy to achieve when several members are absent or abstain, or in large groups with a fairly low quorum and where attendance is usually low. In fact, if half or fewer of the members attend it is impossible to achieve a majority of the entire membership because the entire membership includes absent members.

So do I, which is why it's hard to imagine a majority would agree to putting that person on the committee. Sometimes RONR tends to rely on the wisdom of the assembly.

It's hard to believe that the two could be equivalent, especially given the critical difference noted in RONR relating to and/or until the election of their successors. The two words do not mean the same thing.

Then are you agreeing that the standard language for adopting RONR is incorrect? It seems to me that the scope of negation here is just one word. Would it be clearer to say "... and in which they are inconsistent neither with these bylaws nor with any special rules the society may adopt"? I'm fine with the current wording, by the way.

Apparently you ended up doing the right thing for the wrong reason. Even without a quorum, subsidiary and incidental motions relating the the conduct of the meeting are allowed, and an Appeal from a ruling of the chair would qualify as one of these. However, the chair was wrong to rule the Point of Order not well taken. And the assembly would have been wrong to sustain that ruling if it had the opportunity to do so.

They're prohibited. It would take a bylaws amendment to allow them.

Nope.

No, I have to disagree on this one. For clarity, let's define the word "cromulent" to mean "not inconsistent". So we have: “The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are cromulent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt.” That's the desired behavior. In order for the rules to govern, they must be cromulent both with the bylaws and with the special rules. Being uncromulent (inconsistent) with even one of the two means RONR does not govern. So and is correct. Using or would require a rule to be listed in both places to ensure it would supersede RONR.

No, it's not correct. (Surprise.) This guy is batting about zero so far. You might save time when he makes such wild claims by handing him a copy of RONR 11th Ed. and ask him to show you what page these imaginary rules are on. In any case, the fact that the minutes may or may not have properly recorded this bylaws amendment does not affect the validity of what was actually adopted at that meeting. At worst, it means that the minutes might need to be corrected, but that's all. And minutes do not have to record the fact that a motion was seconded. The presumption is that if it was considered at that meeting, it was seconded or, even if it wasn't, that nobody cared enough about it to raise an objection at the time.

Did I miss something? How did electronic meetings get mixed up in this?

I agree, but the language requires only that the rules not be inconsistent with rules that the society has adopted, not with those that it has not. Even so, I'd stick with the existing recommended language because it is not inconsistent with the desired interpretation.

Stranger things have happened.

Okay, that does remove a step from the process. 🙄

There is no fence. Personal attacks are prohibited. The duty of the chair is to enforce this rule, not to be the primary lawbreaker. But it is also the duty of every member to call to order anyone who engages in personal attacks.

I think one would have to try very hard to misinterpret the clear rule in RONR. I suspect the lawyer didn't bother to consult the actual text. Sadly, many lawyers presume that they know more than they actually do, when it comes to parliamentary procedure. It's important to realize that a lawyer, parliamentarian, or individual member may offer opinions, but the presiding officer is the one who issues rulings. Did the chair rule on this issue, or was the lawyer's pronouncement simply accepted? What should happen in cases like this is that the chair (after seeking input from other knowledgeable persons) rules on a matter, often responding to a Point of Order raised by a member. If any two members dispute the correctness of the ruling (especially if they have Robert's Rules with them 🙂) they can move and second a motion to Appeal from the Decision of the Chair and if they get majority agreement, can overrule the chair's decision.

For future reference, if a motion is defeated, those who voted No are the ones who prevailed, regardless of what the threshold was.