Kim Goldsworthy

"Across the board" is not part of the bylaws The board may set dues, with a single limit, namely the act of increasing. The dues may float. The due may vary. The rules may ratchet. -- Whatever the board sets, is set. But no increases. But all the decreases it wishes. *** Judges give pardons. Governors give pardons. Presidents give pardons. Congress is not empowered to pardon. They are the legislative branch. Only the executive branch and judicial branch dole out pardons or its equivalent. *** The "ex post facto" limit may be a wall preventing a state house from overturning a completed election. You cannot unelect someone by passing a law after the winner wins. However, if the winner has net yet taken office, the state house could change the law -- fast -- to change the election method to a method of governor appointment. ***

In general, non-voting members of a body do not count toward the quorum. So, if Robert's Rules applies, and you have 3 voting officers and 5 voting at-large members. = 8 voting members of the E.C. A quorum is "more than half" of the membership. -- "More than half of eight" would be five for your quorum. *** I would re-question your statement that the chair cannot vote. -- Often it is the case that this is assumed, and that there is no customized rule actually taking away the right to vote. So I'd like you to cite your rule, which defines you chair as a member of your E.C. and as a non-voting party inside the E.C. For example: Maybe your chair cannot vote during a general membership meeting, but can vote otherwise.

Yes. Per your #3 item, the board may set dues. Although an act of any INCREASE has an additional burden on the board, #3 does not impose that same burden on LESSENING dues for any individual, or class of individuals.

>> . . .a request was made by the Parish Council (who elect their officers) to have the candidates step out ... You can request all you want. But you cannot take away a right of membership, of which one such right is "to attend meetings". The nominees who are members of the body which is meeting, may decline the offer to "step outside".

Robert's Rules of Order talks about "scope" of one's previous notice. Where you have zero deadline, but you wish to adopt an amendment with a deadline, the notice's time, or length, or breadth, or depth (etc.) will establish the scope of possible amendments. So, I think you do have a possible range of scope. *** What is that range of scope? Probably somewhere between (a.) the status quo (none); and (b.) the proposed 5-day limit. So, amendments between 0 days and 5 days would probably be your scope of amendments. *** While I ponder, I am trying to play devil's advocate an imagine the scope being the other way around, but I don't think there is an argument for longer days (i.e., 5+).

The answer is "automatic". -- No motion is necessary. Per your bylaws' method of amendment, you are giving notice. Therefore, the amendment should be automatically "considered". See page 594.

S1 is FALSE, per Robert's Rules of Order. -- There is no roll call necessary. S2 is FALSE, per Robert's Rules of Order. -- There is no roll call necessary. S3 is moot, as both S1 and S2 are NOT THE CASE under the plain application of Robert's Rules of Order. *** Q. Where did you get all this "understanding" (i.e., mis-understanding) of the never-ending "roll call"?

Yes. The loss of a single person from a committee does not freeze the committee 100%. If the chair of a committee is dead or resigned or otherwise removed, then the committee may still meet at the prompt of two members. *** You have rules in place which may alter that default assumption.

Robert's Rules does not list duties OUTSIDE of a meeting context. Robert's Rules does list duties regarding in-meeting behaviors. Q. What is a "POA"? Is it like a PTA?

By default, 100% of the members of a committee are empowered to vote within that committee. (We are not talking about the general membership, which you must join, nor a board, which you must be elected to.) However, when you adopt such a motion, e.g., "To create a committee of four people, composed of Mr. Jones, Miss Smith, Mrs. Dunphy, plus one accountant which the committee is free to hire," . . . that hired hand will be a member of the committee, and as such, can vote when the committee votes. Or, the motion could specify otherwise: "To create a committee of four people, composed of Mr. Jones, Miss Smith, Mrs. Dunphy, plus one accountant which the committee is free to hire, who shall sit without vote."

Q. Can you suspend such a rule of order?

According to Robert's Rules of Order (not law): A member who would count toward the quorum at the top of the meeting will continue to count toward the quorum, no matter how many times that member recuses himself. The member does not lose the right to vote just because he declared a self-recusal on this agenda item, that agenda item, and so on. A member who is empowered to vote in general will count toward the quorum, no matter how conflicted he may be, per a given agenda item. *** So, now, to answer your question: • Your recused member is present, as far as Robert's Rules is concerned. -- An act of self-recusal does not make a member suddenly "absent". *** In fact, under Robert's Rules, conflicted members can vote, even though the conflicted member ought not vote. -- Robert's Rules does not, and cannot, take away a fundamental right of membership, like voting, merely based on a perceived conflict-of-interest.

[excerpt, page 252] REMEDY FOR VIOLATION OF THE RIGHT TO VOTE. If one or more members have been denied the right to vote, or the right to attend all or part of a meeting during which a vote was taken, it is never too late to raise a point of order concerning the action taken in denying the basic rights of the individual members—and if there is any possibility that the members’ vote(s) would have affected the outcome, then the results of the vote must be declared invalid if the point of order is sustained. If there is no such possibility, the results of the vote itself can be made invalid only if the point of order is raised immediately following the chair’s announcement of the vote. If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the out‑ come, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), to move to Reconsider (37), or to renew a motion (38), arguing that comments in debate by the excluded members could have led to a different result; but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the point of order. *** The relevant text is this sentence. >> If the vote was such that the number of members excluded from participating would not have affected the outcome, a member may wish, in the appropriate circumstances, to move to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted, to move to Reconsider, [...]; >> but the action resulting from the vote is not invalidated by a ruling in response to the point of order. This text is new to the 11th edition (2010). I had either forgotten it or never noticed it. So, I must retract my statement. I had said 100% of the business would be invalid. -- Instead, all business transacted in such a meeting would be valid if the margin of victory was greater than one vote, i.e., greater than the number of wrongly-excluded members. ***

Follow the method of amendment in your bylaws. If your method of amendment in your bylaws makes no mention of such a restriction, then there is no restriction. *** I'd like to read your method of amendment. -- Can you post the text? Guessing at contents of bylaws is hard game to win.

Henry M. Robert, the original author, called self-nomination "indelicate." But Henry M. Robert did not say that self-nomination was "out of order". *** A member has rights. One of the rights is "to nominate". Your chair is a member (I assume). You chair therefore has the right to nominate.

It appears that your answer won't come from the 700+ pages of the current edition. You have bylaws to obey, which have more weight here that the default parliamentary rule. If your org is incorporated, then there may be work-arounds available to you via your state's corporations code, which often provides for such emergency situation (e.g., continuance in office beyond the nominal end-of-term deadline; the board remaining in place despite a quorum-less annual meeting; etc.). So perhaps a lawyer specializing in non-profit organizations might offer suggestions consistent with the law. *** Just going by your bylaws clip, if your defined term-of-office is interpreted literally, YOU HAVE NO OFFICERS. -- And I doubt that you are willing to assume that this is acceptable and solvable via a parliamentary rule. Thus my suggestion for extra-Robertian solutions.

In 20+ years of observation of countless nonprofit organizations, I can opine that "it is rare". But not un-heard of. *** In a non-"Executive Committee" situation, such as a "finance committee" or "capital assets committee", i.e., working committees, it is rare to include a non-member, but, when the organization does include a non-member, the primary reason to do so is for their expertise directly related to the work of that committee. Examples: • A bylaws committee could very well put an impartial third-party parliamentarian on the committee, for the Robert's Rules aspect to be double-checked. • An audit committee will likely have an independent Certified Public Accountant (CPA), for obvious reasons. • Ad ad hoc committee for the sale of property could have a lawyer specializing in real estate, or a Realtor specializing in the kind of property being bought/sold, sit on this committee, for fast answers to legal questions or realty questions, or negotiations in general (to get the best price). *** Where an Executive Committee holds one member without the "power to vote", you will see this often in the case of Immediate Past President. *** So, there you go. -- For committees in general, there are certain occasions where a non-member consultant will sit on an ad hoc committee. For executive committees, the non-voting member, nine times out of ten, will likely be a position of honor for the IPP. Take it from there.

No, don't put #2 ahead of #1. -- You don't need a quorum to call a meeting to order. You are free to call a meeting to order, and then declare the quorum situation, and act accordingly. (e.g., if you have no quorum, then you may recess for while, or make motions to obtain a quorum). There are limited "actions" (your term) which can be executed despite no quorum. See "Fix the time to which to adjourn" for an example.

Citations? The U.S. Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 9) was a rule: • No ex post facto law shall be passed. This is "not inconsistent" with Robert's Rules' chapter on discipline. You cannot increase a penalty on a party for the same crime, once the trial phase is over. To increase the penalty on a party, you must re-try that party. -- And because of the double jeopardy rule, you must use brand new charges, not the original set of charges. You cannot amend the first penalty to a higher, more stringent penalty, via Amend Something Previously Adopted, without due process to the targeted party. But you can forgive the convicted party, without violating a rule. -- You can commute a sentence. -- You can un-suspend a member. -- You can reduce the number of months of suspension from six to a lesser value. It violates no due process to un-penalize a party. But it does violate due process to increase the penalty. *** These are principles of justice taken from the United States of America's document of governance. I don't think Robert's Rules of Order's chapter on discipline would jump over such fundamental principles of jurisprudence.

Good news. You never need to refer to old election results, if a vacancy occurs. To fill a vacancy, you invoke the nomination/election process anew. No loser(s) from the previous election gets any special treatment, or gets any higher consideration.

You mean, the handwritten notes? The handwritten notes are not what the organization needs. -- It is the final draft of the minutes which the organization needs. The secretary is free to eat the handwritten notes, for all the parliamentary use they are, after the initial draft of minutes is produced.

No, you cannot remove someone from office after the penalty of a disciplinary nature has been issued (and which did not include "removal from office"). When the hearing committee (!?) issued the penalty, the penalty did not include "removal from office". So, the suspended officer is still in office. To remove from office this party, you would have to hold a second disciplinary hearing on another different issue (as you cannot re-try someone repeatedly for a single set of offenses). It appears that you will have to DELEGATE the duties to some other party, if that suspended officer cannot perform that set of duties.

"Is it odd?" Yes. -- I've never heard anyone say such a thing, in 20+ years of sitting in on countless meetings of countless organizations. So, you have your answer. The strange reply has no direct link to any text in Robert's Rules of Order that I know of. *** Perhaps you misunderstood the reply, since it is so strange. Perhaps the member was implying, "This is debate time, and I choose to have nothing to do with this." Or, ". . nothing to do with YOU!" (i.e., a personal grudge against the asker of the question.) This might be more of a psychological problem than a parliamentary problem.

Yes. Once a motion has been processed (i.e., moved, debated, amended, etc.), then once you get to the voting phase, the relevance of a second (or lack thereof) drops to absolute zero. The time to object to a lack of second is (a.) prior to the start of debate (if the motion is debatable), or (b.) prior to the first amendment (if the motion is amendable).

But doing so adds an unnecessary step. All The Book needs to add is a sentence to the effect, (a.) "Where the negative vote is/was intrinsically irrelevant and thus not taken, any non-affirmative voter is eligible to move to Reconsider." OR (b.) Include in Reconsider's Standard Descriptive Characteristics the eligibility of those who who could not vote in the negative on a vote where the negative vote was not taken due to the intrinsically irrelevant nature. *** (c.) Or just lift the rule of Reconsideration for committees and place it in the SDC of Reconsider.