Gary Novosielski

You move to go into executive session for the purpose of making a point of order regarding a continuing breach initiated in executive session. But I don't think that in this case the breach actually did occur in executive session, since the call was not sent or drafted in executive session. Furthermore I do not believe that raising a point of order about the nature of the breach would expose anything that occurred during the meeting.

Well yeah: Get rid of the President. That's got to be easier than going to court.

Yes, but it's not any part of the process in RONR §63. It's just a hearing that has the proper notice and the opportunity to provide evidence. It resembles a Trial in some ways, except there apparently are no charges or specifications--although it is supposed to be "for cause", and it resembles the review, as the final step in the discipline in 63, but the entire process is nowhere near as detailed and has few if any safeguards for the accused. "Sentence first--verdict afterwards." --The Red Queen But it is, as the kids say, what it is.

But Section 63 does not apply in your case. Your bylaws clearly state that they can be removed at any time by a vote of the full state committee. That supersedes any process in RONR. It's ironic that these two are proposed to be removed by the chair for whistleblowing about the improper action of the chair, who should be the one being disciplined for voting twice. No good deed goes unpunished in some quarters.

I would think it would be, but I don't know what your rules say. Where did she say this power was documented, when you asked? If the rules in RONR apply, the members can vote to form committees for pretty much any reason they like, but I don't know if the rules in RONR apply. What do your bylaws say about committees? And if the chair claims that nobody else could establish committees, how did she allow the motion and put the question to a vote? It makes no sense.

What exactly (verbatim) do your rules say about removal of officers? In what body does this "hearing" take place? What sort of meeting has been called? Is it a meeting of a board-like coödinating committee, or of the full general membership? Presuming this is a special (not regular, scheduled) meeting, what did the written call of the meeting say, with respect to what business would be conducted at that meeting? Has this hearing been ordered as a result of some vote in an appropriate body, or did the president just decide that "we're havin' us a hearin'"? And most important: How do the rest of the party members feel about this action? If there was a vote on whether what the president was doing was proper, would a majority be on your side, or are you the lone protector of the flame of justice?

It wasn't me! It was the one-armed man!

Yes, your assessment of total nonsense is correct. RONR has no such prohibition, and although I know of several public bodies which have a public comment or public hearing segment, it is not called "privilege of the floor". (My understanding of that term means that former legislators often retain the right to go onto the floor of their former house chamber, and it has nothing to do with public comment.) As far as RONR is concerned, members of the body are certainly allowed to answer questions for members of the public. They are not forced to, and may or may not know the answer. But if they do, and they wish to, there is no rule in RONR stopping them. But I also know of public bodies where the members are instructed not to provide answers to the public and simply say that someone will get back to them. I don't know of any who were instructed to use the excuse that Robert's Rules doesn't allow it, but it would not surprise me.

Yeah. "Funny" I should mention it. Everything I mention, it turns out was not as described originally.

<deleted>

I think that is a bit of a stretch. If the assembly adopts an agenda and then promptly votes to Adjourn, the general and special orders not reached in the agenda will come up under unfinished business or under special orders, respectively, at the next meeting. That is not the case if the agenda is rescinded. In my view, an unqualified adjournment is tantamount to setting the remainder of the agenda down gently, backing slowly away from it, and leaving.

Well, certainly not 50%, as that is less than a majority. But, like Mr. Katz, I wonder why the board is choosing its own successors.

Exactly. And that is my presumption regarding the authorization of Special Rules of Order. The fact that it was pasted by amateurs is of no consequence. Amateurs are perfectly capable of having intent. The language in the preamble either vitiates Article XIII, in which case RONR is not your parliamentary authority because it is not mentioned in the preamble, or it does not, in which case all of Article XIII is in full force and effect. Given a conflict between language in a preamble, vs. language in the body of a document, there is just no contest. But as Mr. Honemann points out, we are not the ones you must convince. My arguments may not persuade you since I am not a member of your party; and your arguments may not persuade me because, well, because I am not a member of your party. Actually I have. I was a founding member, a bylaws author, and the first Chair of a state political party with such provisions, and a delegate on the xNC for several years. I would not welcome any requirement to have bylaws changes filed with the state government. In fact that's a strong argument for placing changeable rules within Special Rules of Order where appropriate. I am no longer a resident of that state, nor a member of that party. My leaving did not involve rigged elections, wolves, foxes, or falling unicorns, but I would think that their presence would, at least my view, constitute good reason to part ways with a political group.

Well, in the first place, write-ins are mandatory if the rules in RONR apply. RONR has no mechanism to accept or decline a nomination. If someone nominates you, you are nominated.

They would be wrong though. Although their opposition to some intermediate value might be logical, it will avail them not if they choose to claim such an amendment was improper. The concept of scope of notice is often framed in terms of what might motivate a member to attend, but that's not the whole rule. In this case those members, presumably having informed themselves on the scope of the notice should realize that to promote their view it will be necessary for them to attend, as they cannot rely on the scope to protect them from changes that, though they find them undesirable, are nevertheless more moderate changes than the notice called for.

Sure it could mean that. The way it's written it would be hard to dispute most any interpretation. Best practice would be to amend it to say what it means, whatever that may be.

The Board of Directors can make motions in a Board of Directors meetings, but not at Membership meetings. They can make recommendations, which the Membership may consider, accept, reject, amend, or ignore. So in effect that agenda item should be construed to mean, "the Board of Directors has voted to recommend that the extra money in the budget be allocated to the Capital Expenditures Fund." And someone in the membership meeting will need to make a motion to that effect.

One quibble. The call of the meeting must contain a specific description of the business to be conducted but this is not the same thing as Previous Notice.

Well, you can't lay anything on the table which was not currently pending, so technically there is nothing on the table at this point, and nothing need be done unless you want to actually move those questions for some reason.

Well, I'm persuaded by the fact that an unqualified motion to Adjourn (now) is an incidental main motion, and as such requires a majority vote. I suspect that if the motion is merely to change the time of adjournment in the agenda, before that time is reached, that is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. But a motion to adjourn now is not necessarily an attempt to amend the agenda--it's just to quit. Now. I think there is a strong case to be made that a main motion to Adjourn immediately should neve require more than a majority.

If you're asking whether the chair gets two votes: No! One person, one vote. No exceptions. Now, the committee's task is not complete, so they will need to keep working at it until they can agree on people who can get a majority vote.

Well, most bylaws that have term limits say how long of a break is required. Yours don't, so we don't know what was intended. The US Constitution limits a president to two terms, and there is no break long enough to allow a third one. But if we interpret your bylaws to limit only consecutive terms, not lifetime terms, we need to determine what was meant by consecutive. Unless that word is defined in the bylaws, we're left to consult the dictionary definition. One of them says: Following one after another without interruption; successive. So, does a year off constitute following one after another without interruption, or not? The thing is, we in this forum cannot do this interpretation for you. Ambiguous bylaws must be interpreted by each organization for itself.

Well, it doesn't actually say they can ever return, does it? As Mr. Honemann points out that language can be interpreted to say that once they have served two consecutive terms, they may no longer serve. But if we interpret that language to intend to limit only the number of consecutive terms, and not lifetime terms, consecutive means consecutive. If someone serves two consecutive terms, does not run for reëlection, but then runs again at the very next opportunity presumably a year later, that term would not be consecutive, and so would be allowed. Are elections held every year with staggered terms, or do all the directors' two-year terms expire at once? I should note that we in this forum cannot interpret ambiguous language in your bylaws for you. Ultimately each society interprets its own bylaws, and has the power to amend them so that they are clear, such as the language Mr. Honemann suggested--instead of saying limited to two, say may not serve three consecutive terms. That's not ambiguous. Officers can serve all sorts of combinations of terms, except for three in a row.

Except apparently they didn't. The language you quoted still says Society.

It depends on the exact wording of the bylaw. If you quote it exactly we might be able to help. Or maybe not, if it's ambiguous.