Kim Goldsworthy

There is no "renewing". There is just moving the identically-worded motion, again. No need for fancy hoops to jump through. No need for parliamentary jargon. *** Beware that your City Council may have state laws to obey. The rules of Robert's Rules of Order may not apply.

Voting is a "members only" perq. Q. Do you know how many members your board has? -- Those people can vote when the board meets. Q. Do you know on what bodies (committees, board, etc.) your Treasurer sits on? -- The meetings of those bodies are the meetings where your Treasurer can vote. *** Wherever your Treasurer is a member, then, when that body meets, the Treasurer can vote. Contrariwise: If your Treasurer is not a member of a certain body, then, in those meetings, your Treasurer cannot vote. *** All this default "membership" and default "voting" is per Robert's Rules of Order. Your bylaws may very well likely specify otherwise. *** Q. Why do you have a question about the position of Treasurer voting, but you do not have a question about any other position (e.g., Secretary) voting? Why cherry pick on the Treasurer?

#1 is not fundamental. -- You can suspend the rules (dynamically, in-meeting) to have the vote be some other threshold. #8 is not fundamental. -- Its violation does not invalidate the adoption/rejection of a main motion. #9 is not fundamental. -- It is an Americanism. #10 is not fundamental. -- The chair can "violate" this rule in a committee meeting, constantly, and still obey the "small boards and committees" rules of RONR. *** You have a list of nifty tips. But not a list of fundamental principles of parliamentary law.

We are back to the Boolean "exclusive 'OR'". I would suggest that the reader discover in RONR all instances which RONR confirms to be "continuing breaches". A continuing breach will very likely be (but not necessarily guaranteed to be) "breaches that are of a continuing nature" [page 251] involving a fundamental principle. *** And breaches which are not of the continuing variety are guaranteed to be something else (perhaps a mere "basic principle"). Plus, whatever can be legitimately targeted by a "Suspension of the Rules" will most definitely be, likewise, something else.

Perhaps an example will show that AMEND is a necessary tool for ratification. SCENARIO A quorum-less meeting has taken the following actions in January: 1.) Approved the December minutes. 2.) Commended the vice president for her Christmas refreshments. 3.) Adopted a resolution in favor of cancelling the July meeting due the holiday. Meeting eventually adjourns. Come February, the meeting convenes, and this time there is a quorum. A motion is made to ratify the actions of the January meeting, namely, Items #1, #2, #3. The motion is seconded. A motion is made to amend the motion, namely by striking out Item #3. The amendment is seconded. The amendment is adopted. The main motion, now amended, reads, "To ratify ... #1, #2". The main motion is adopted. "Voila!" Bottom line: One need not ratify 100% of all past actions. Under one umbrella enacting motion listing all actions which could be ratified, the assembly is free to cherry-pick the actions and either DIVIDE THE QUESTION or AMEND THE MAIN MOTION, so as to isolate the questionable action.

No, it is not proper notice. When "previous notice" is a requirement for a meeting or for a motion, there are only two ways of giving notice: 1.) orally, by announcement in the immediately previous meeting. 2. in writing, to be included in the mailed call-to-meeting. Email is not a proper way to give notice, under the default rules of Robert's Rules of Order.

Yes. Example. Imagine a meeting with nine (9) members, fully empowered to vote. If all nine (9) members vote, then (a.) a majority of members present (5) and (b.) a majority of members present and voting (5) is one and the same. If only one member votes, while 8 members abstain, then the vote is recorded as either 1-0 (adoption) or 0-1 (rejection), and (a.) a majority of members present remains the same (5) but (b.) a majority of members present and voting is one (1).

"Does the appointment stand?" Yes. If you could have appointed such a person and not violate your rules, then it makes no difference how mis-informed you were, whether you think you were compelled to do so, or not compelled to do so. You vioated no rule in appointing this person. So you cannot argue that "We violated a rule in the process, so the apointment must not stand." *** Can we ask the board member who gave us wrong information. please resign? You can ask all you want. The party can just say, "I won't resign." Why should this party resign? -- This party did not violate a rule. They made a mistake -- a common mistake. (We get questions like this, reguarly -- viz., "Does the runner up get the office if the original electee resigns early?") All you had to do is "look up the rule", i.e., delay the filling of the vacancy, for like one hour or so, to do the necessary reseasrch. ***

Section 66 in R.O.R. Fourth Edition is in the public domain. It is one page long. *** 66. Nominations and Elections. Before proceeding to an election to fill an office it is customary to nominate one or more candidates. This nomination is not necessary when the election is by ballot or roll call, as each member may vote for any eligible person whether nominated or not. When the vote is viva voce or by rising, the nomination is like a motion to fill a blank, the different names being repeated by the chair as they are made, and then the vote is taken on each in the order in which they were nominated, until one is elected. The nomination need not be seconded. Sometimes a nominating ballot is taken in order to ascertain the preferences of the members. But in the election of the officers of a society it is more usual to have the nominations made by a committee. When the committee makes its report, which consists of a ticket, the chair asks if there are any other nominations, when they may be made from the floor. The committee's nominations are treated just as if made by members from the floor, no vote being taken on accepting them. When the nominations are completed the assembly proceeds to the election, the voting being by any of the methods mentioned under Voting, [46], unless the by-laws prescribe a method. The usual method in permanent societies is by ballot, the balloting being continued until the offices are all filled. An election takes effect immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent and has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, it takes effect when he is notified of his election, provided he does not decline immediately. After the election has taken effect and the officer or member has learned the fact, it is too late to reconsider the vote on the election. An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately, unless the rules specify the time. In most societies it is necessary that this time be clearly designated.

Kimberly, A mini lesson. Minutes are always subject to correction (i.e., subject to being amended). Example: Minutes dated way back to 1950, or even 1850, can be amended, if an error (a misspelling, for instance) is found. Quiz: For minutes of 1950 or 1850, must the old members amend the minutes? (They might be all dead.) The answer is "No." Members of 2014 may amend minutes original drafted and approved 50 years ago or 100 years ago.

Reply to Q1. Correct. The practice [i.e., of casting a single ballot by the secretary] is obsolete. The practice does not satisfy a rule which demands "voting by ballot". So, if your bylaws demand a ballot vote, you must stop casting a single ballot. Reply to Q2. Two prong answer. * If you have a rule to vote by ballot, then "No," the chair cannot declare elected the sole nominee, because a secret ballot must be conducted. * If you do not have a rule for voting by ballot, then "yes," RONR does allow the chair to declare elected sole nominees. But that never happens at the nominating meeting, but only allowed at the election meeting. (As you say, ". . . At the following meeting, we hold our elections . . .".) Reply to Q3. If the chair declares elected the sole nominee, then there is no way to vote in opposition. If the voting is by ballot, then you may write in a name, and thus vote in opposition.

Analogy: To argue otherwise is to argue: "To a dumb (unable-to-speak) audience, such as The Society of Laryngectomy Survivors", the word 'speaking' in debate means 'speaking' in the dictionary sense of the term, and never refers to sign language, since the authors could have included sign language and chose not to." I think not. I think the authors of Robert's Rules of Order always imply, "... where the spoken word is the norm. If 'aural' and "speech' is not the norm, then the regular order demands the application of the most reasonable rule, not the literal rule."

I take it mean, "... aural, all other things being equal. If not equal, then the general statement '... aural ...' may not apply. If it is reasonable that deaf people deliberate aurally, then that is the meaning. If it is not reasonable that deaf people deliberate aurally, then the generic statement yields to the highly-specific circumstance, which will be the equivalent of aural to a non-aural audience"

Oops! Yes.

Why someone resigns is of no parliamentary significance. Let's assume, "The president has resigned." Let's leave the reason out of the equation. No. 1.) If you are using the term "past president" in the dictionary sense of the term, then THERE IS NOTHING TO APPOINT. By dictionary definition, any president who resigns IS instantly and automatically a past president. No appointment, by anyone, by anything, is necessary, as it is a meaningless gesture, and way too late, to boot. -- It was already a done deal, before you ever get that far. 2.) If you are using the term "past president" as if the term has a meaning in Robert's Rules of Order, then be aware that THERE IS NO SUCH THING. -- The Book never makes any mention of "past _____" or "immediate past _____". Therefore, no page can be cited to prove what rules apply when creating a position which is unknown within any edition of Robert's Rules of Order. The closest parliamentary object in Robert's Rules which might apply to newly-invented positions would be "a committee of one." So, if you wish to have your resigned president serve as a committee-of-one in some task or whatnot, then you are free to do so. • Be aware that you are NOT creating an officer position. • Be aware that your resigned president is NOT a member of any board or committee (unless his resignation excluded those 2nd (and 3rd) positions when he submitted his resignation, which by itself is highly unlikely). • Be aware that if your bylaws do not define the position of "past president", then you don't have such a position, except as you create one, as you would for any committee-of-one position, as any unique, undefined position. If you have no defined position of "past president", then the answer is "No." If you already have in place such a position as "past president", then follow your own unique rules, as there are none in Robert's Rules of Order for anything called "past president" or "immediate past president." Remember, you have countless past presidents. But at any given time, you never have more than one immediate past president. Thus my confusion as to why you are designating this resigned person as "past president" when you could have dozens of "past presidents" in the history of your organization. -- Why single this guy out? Why exclude your other "past presidents"? The succession of officers, ideally, is already laid out in your bylaws. If your bylaws are SILENT as to "how to fill a vacancy", then to fill a vacancy, the body who elected the person to office is the body who does all the filling of vacancies for that office. Q. Who elected this person as your president (before he resigned)? THAT party is the party who fills vacancies for the office of president.

Unclear. Whose rule is it, i.e., who is enforcing this unwritten rule? If a sole individual is enforcing it, then that would suggest one kind of solution. If a board is enforcing it, then that would suggest a very different kind of solution. Given Mr. X, who changes his classes, who is Mr. Y, who stops Mr. X? Why cannot Mr. X just override Mr. Y's insistence? Why can't Mr. X go to the supervisor or manager of Mr. Y, and thus have the higher authority authorized the change? Since there is nothing written down, then it comes down to brute strength or sheer endurance, like mountain goats in rutting season. Thus my concern on Mr. Enforcer. -- Who is he? How did he get this power? Why not have the student just change his classes anyway? Why not start a new unwritten tradition -- allow the changing of the 5 classes, and celebrate the initiative with a Ayn Rand rally and film festival, to mark the rise of the individual as ubermensch and master of his domain?

What do you mean? What is the difference between (a.) an "informal" board meeting; vs. (b.) a "formal" board meeting? Is #a or #b any different from (c.) "a board meeting"? Is this a spontaneous (uncalled) meeting? Is this a BBQ or a cocktail party or a ball game, where the board just happens to be present? No. Minutes approval is serious business. There cannot be any lack of quorum, lack of notice, lack of call-to-meeting, where official business is transacted. Just as you would not amend your bylaws at an informal meeting. It's serious business. It is official business. There can be nothing informal about records of an organization, like minutes.

This is the source of your conflict. Under Robert's Rules of Order, it is NOT the case that (1.) the person who takes minutes signs the document he created; (2.) and hands off that document to a middle man (your elected Secretary), who signs it, likewise; (3.) and then, the elected Secretary presents the minutes to the assembly, for reading and for approval. Under Robert's Rules, anyone is absent (like the president or the secretary) does NOT sign any in-meeting document. There ought to be only two people's marks, maximum, on a set of minutes. The minimum is one person's markings. (a.) the person who took the minutes SIGNS HIS WORK, like any report's author. (b.) when the minutes are approved, the person is acting as the secretary at the moment of approval (which will either be the elected Secretary, or the secretary pro tem), will put his initials on the hard copy, and add a date. (c.) OPTIONAL: It is a popular practice, BUT NOT A RULE, that the president, or the chair pro tem, add his initials or his signature to the minutes upon approval.

No. Either you are (a.) a true member of that body; (b.) a nonmember of that body. Members vote. Nonmembers cannot vote. When/If the alternate becomes a true sitting member, then that person can vote (and the person who got swapped out cannot vote). The swapping in/out of alternates is not a fixed method. Your method of swapping might differ from another organization's swapping method. So no one can cite RONR and prove when/how an alternate becomes a fully-empowered committee member. It is all customized. (See RONR for convention delegate alternates, which does have a fixed method of swapping.) That is right. Alternates are not the same thing as members. Huh? Chapter XX (Section 61) in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (10th ed. 2000) is the chapter on DISCIPLINE. That chapter has nothing to do with alternates. As I said, for conventions, yes, there is a method in RONR. For committees, no, there is no fixed method in RONR.

There is nothing to "rescind." (To rescind something, that certain something must have been adopted. Merely uttering words does not "create a rescindable object".) A person who says aloud, "... therefore I must recuse myself ...", is under no obligation to abstain from voting. It isn't a commitment. It isn't a binding oath. He (the recuser) is free to undo his recusal silently, to himself. -- And grab a ballot and start voting. He need not obtain permission to vote, just because he told someone, somewhere, sometime, that he plans to recuse himself. As always, if you have a customized rule saying otherwise, then obey your customized rule.

In THAT context, THERE IS NO CHAIN OF COMMAND. That is, there is no such rule in Robert's Rules of Order which implies, for example, "When Colonel Potter is absent, Major Burns is in charge; when Major Burns is absent, Captain Pierce is in charge; when Captain Pierce is absent, Lt. Dish is in charge," etc. In the parliamentary "chain", when the president is absent, no power of the president is transfered. The vice presdient does not absorb the powers of the president. The exception would be PRESIDNG. When the president is absent, the duty of PRESIDING falls to the vice president. But "day to day operations"? No. No power transfers from the president, to anyone. Not per Robert's Rules of Order. That "direction" stuff is your own doing. There is no "direction" rule in Robert's Rules of Order. -- Presidents do not give direction.

See page 351. See page 93. That's it.

I see agreement. Would you (all) agree that any motion whose introduction brought business before the assembly cannot simultaneously (a.) never had been before the assembly ... yet nonetheless ... (b.) brought Business B before the assembly? How did Business B get before the assembly, without the motion itself being before the assembly? *** To use an example: Are you asserting, the business, "That we paint the barn red," was, at some time, before the assembly, even as the motion itself never was before the assembly? As a main motion, wasn't anything "before the assembly"? Wasn't anything "brought"? Even for a micro-second?

Are you sure? RONR's definition of "main motion" is this: A main motion is a motion whose introduction brings business before the assembly. [p. 95] The RONR team has asserted that an unseconded motion is (or can be) a main motion (if moved when no main motion is already pending). Therefore, there are circumstances when an unseconded motion is one whose introduction brings business before the assembly. Since the unseconded motion brought business before the assembly, your assertion, "... the motion has not been before the assembly [therefore] the prohibition does not apply," conflicts with the RONR authorship team. So your citation of page 326 won't apply. Agree? Ponder: Q. For an unseconded motion, when is it before the assembly?

What do you mean "RONR does not state ... that a motion to dispense with the reading of the minutes is in order"? RONR says Thus If RONR says "Minutes can be dispensed with by (a.) a majority vote; and (b.) without debate" then RONR is saying "It is in order to dispense with the minutes, via #a plus #b." Right?