Kim Goldsworthy

No! The member had the RIGHT to demand, without debate, with majority vote, that the minutes be read.

Interesting. I am laying odd that your "practice" (whatever it is) is indeed in conflict with a rule in Robert's Rules of Order. Snapshot: Proposed bylaw is defeated. Therefore, the status quo (whatever it happens to be) remains in place. False. A defeated motion changes NOTHING. Even a defeated proposed bylaw amendment. Well, I am laying odds that it isn't "valid." But, given the circumstances so far, it is clear that your mysterious, unsaid precedent has yet to be overturned or altered. Q. What is this so-called 'practice'? I am betting that Robert's Rules of Order already covers it. "Spin the wheel! I'm feeling lucky!"

Hold your horses. Where did this "two thirds" rule come from? If the rule is your own customized rule, then the interpretation will spin on the exact wording. For example, your wording might be worded any number of ways: • 2/3 of those present • 2/3 of those voting • 2/3 of those present and voting • 2/3 of the membership In general, if Robert's Rules of Order applies, and if there is no superior rule to confound the plain application of Robert's Rules of Order, then all you need for adoption is the chair's announcement that it passed, even if the vote itself was in error (i.e., short of the threshold indicated).

Again, you've jumped outside The Book. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.) says that when the president, i.e., the regular chair, is a candidate or nominee, that fact does not preclude the regular chair from doing his job, i.e., running the election, for all the offices' elections. The chair does not step down when his office is pending for election.

That's the problem. You aren't. The CHAIR is responsible for running the election, by rule. If a committee chairman runs an election, then you aren't following Robert's Rules of Order. You've jumped outside The Book, and you are Doing Your Own Thing. The chair OF THE ORGANIZATION. Not the chair OF ANY COMMITTEE. That is "the" difference. Q. Where is the president? Where is the regular chair?

Because it makes no difference. A negative vote of zero, or a negative vote of 99, or a negative vote EQUAL TO THE AFFIRMATIVE VOTE, is irrelevant to the calculation, if the calculation is based on "members present". Likewise for "total membership". - Taking the negative vote tells you nothing about the winning or losing margin. Thus, it is a waste of time. Thus, it is truly dilatory. (To repeat: If the calculation is based on "present and voting", then that is significantly different. -- The negative vote is to be counted, since it is one of the elements you must account for in your calcuation.) True. - But there are very few rules in Robert's Rules where Robert's Rules says "Don't do this". Page 390 gives two steps. Page 390 does not give two steps plus all the "not to do" things one would do for (a.) calculation based on "present and voting"; (b.) calculation based on "total membership". You can test this out. • Assume a rule which requires "a majority of those present." • Assume the total members PRESENT = 100. • This makes "51" the threshold for adoption since "a majority of 100" is 51. • Assume the vote is 10 affirmative. • Assume (for your sake) that the negative vote is taken, and the negative vote is 10. Q. Before you do a count of all members PRESENT, does the fact that the affirmative and negative are both the same value change the net result? Answer: No. If the affirmative were to be 2x more, and/or the negative were to be 2x less, OR VICE VERSA, it makes not a whit of difference in the final calculation. E.g., 20 ayes and 5 noes = no difference. E.g., 5 ayes and 20 noes = no difference. • Now do the calculation: 10 affirmative; 100 present; 10 is SHORT of "a majority of those present" (note: 51 is a majority of 100). Thus, the motion is rejected. Q. Does the fact that the negative is GREATER THAN or LESSER THAN the number of affirmative votes alter the result? A. No. Whatever number the negative vote turns out to be, EVEN IF GREATER THAN THE AFFIRMATIVE, is irrelevant to the calculation. Your step #3 is not taken from page 390. Your step #4 isn't taken from anywhere (i.e., you don't announce the negative vote when the vote threshold is based on "members present"). Per page 390, (a.) you don't take the negative vote; (b.) you don't announce the negative vote. The negative vote quantity is meaningless because it is never used in the calculation.

Technically, no. According to RONR, the chair is to do two things when the vote threshold is based on those present (as opposed to the default standard, present AND voting): 1. count the affirmative votes 2. count the total number of members present, after the affirmative vote. (see page 390.) Note that the the chair NEVER counts (1.) the negative vote; (2.) the abstentions; when the voting threshold is based on members present. That is The Book.

Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR 10th ed.) does not say. It is not a parliamentary issue.

Like any business rule, "The person who is responsible for document X signs document X." That's just good business practice, not Robert's Rules of Order. The typist can be anybody. - For example, a typist who is typing up President Barack Obama's executive orders never signs his own name. President Obama signs the document, even if President Obama had no hand in the drafting of the document. He is just "responsible." So he signs off on what he is responsible for. Thus, whoever wrote the minutes, signs that document as his own work. - Not the typist who helped out. • You don't have an absentee secretary sign for minutes he never saw before in his life. The secretary who drafted the minutes signs the minutes. Any secretary who didn't draft those minutes does not sign those minutes. • You don't have an absent president "vouch for" minutes which he has no clue matches (or does not match) what truly happened inside that one given meeting. Whoever was the chair at the meeting where the minutes are approved does the signing of those newly approved minutes (i.e., the act of verification that this hard copy document is the one which is official and which is to be archived as the sole master original copy). Remember, minutes are not signed and dated for the sake of the signer or the dater. Minutes are signed and dated as a symbol to future readers that the hard copy document is the sole master original document. That is why absentee offices don't sign off on minutes they know nothing about. Their dating and their signing are meaningless, misleading, and inauthentic. Their symbols communicate nothing authentic to future members, readers, researchers, archivists, etc.

There is really nothing to explain: • Your "active member" exceeded his authority. • Your president exceeded his authority. • Nothing in Robert's Rules of Order grants "executive decision-making" to any president, nor to any 'active member' (whatever that is). So, you'll have to punish your president and your "active member" for spending organization funds without authority. Suspend them. Expel the president from office. Or both. Your choice.

paulc6 - think this through, in a Socratic style: Let's assume for the moment you are correct - that the motion, PREVIOUS QUESTION, is somehow out of order when there are members who still wish to speak. If that is the case, then you must tell us when the motion PREVIOUS QUESTION can be: (a.) moved, without a continuing breach being triggered. (b.) voted on, without a continuing breach being triggered. Likewise again, if that is the case, then why does no Standard Descriptive Characteristic of PREVIOUS QUESTION fail to mention that it is out of order when at least one member wishes to speak? Shouldn't SDC #1 or #2 imply when this motion is out of order in that way? Q. Why does RONR have certain motions require a two-thirds vote, and not a majority vote? I think if you answer the above queries, you'll come to the conclusion that a two-thirds vote is always required whenever a basic right is involved below the level of a bylaws-level rule.

The Book does not say "This limit must be stated in one's bylaws." RONR leaves it up to custom/tradition. (Surprisingly!)

The Book has no restriction. - Anyone can "wear as many hats" as the voters allow (by voting-in Mr. Popular to every conceivable open office). However The Book also says that organization may force the multi-winner to choose one office, and thus decline indirectly all the other "won" offices. So, if you are asking about Robert's Rules of Order, then the answer is, "No limit." Thus it comes down to an organizational decision.