Greg Goodwiller, PRP

Assuming your bylaws list the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) as your parliamentary authority, ask them to show you where the procedure they are following is described.

No one is ever "forced to vote" under Robert's Rules. They always have the right to abstain.

If I am reading this correctly, those who want to keep the existing logo will still have the opportunity to so vote. That shouldn't keep them from voting on which of the two new ones they like better (or perhaps more politically, voting for the one that they think is the least likely to be finally adopted at the end of the process). But abstaining from voting will not affect whether or not one of the new logos is selected. If a member believes that a majority of the membership doesn't like either of the two new logos, when the matter is pending the member should move to either refer the matter to some group of people for the purpose of developing more options, or to postpone indefinitely, which if adopted has the effect of not adopting either option and ending the matter (at least, for that session). I would add that the process being followed here is not standard parliamentary procedure. It is basically using election procedures for a matter other than an election. Ordinarily, someone would move that one of the options be adopted. Then someone who favors the other one would move the adoption of the other logo as a substitute motion. Following debate, the assembly would vote on the question, "shall the substitute motion become the main motion." That vote determines which of the two new logos goes up against the current one. Then having made that choice, the vote proceeds to the adoption of the main motion - which is the point at which those who wish to keep the current logo can state their case, and vote against the motion's adoption.

Agreeing with my colleagues, I would that RONR contains a simple statement of the basic rights of members, which is as follows: "A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings" (RONR pg. 3, ll. 1-9) Note that the right to hold office is not among these - and in fact, the bylaws of assemblies quite often include requirements beyond "membership" as qualifications to hold an office, or a particular office. It's just a matter of clearly stating (in bylaws) what those are.

According to Robert's Rules of Order, Newly Revised (RONR), in boards of "not more than about a dozen members present," one of the relaxations of the rules is that "informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending." I assume that is why Mr. Katz is inquiring about your group size. If indeed it is a small board, then under the rules the presiding officer can begin calling on those who seek recognition, and if they have questions, recognizing the speaker to answer them. If the group is more than about a dozen members, or is an actual assembly rather than a board, then you need to get out from under that rule.As suggested by Mr. Lages, that could be done by holding the discussion at a different time and/or place than a meeting, such as before or after the meeting. Alternatively, someone could move to take a recess for a certain number of minutes, during which time the presenter will be available to answer questions (or however you want to proceed). RONR on pg. 541 has a section entitled "Aids to the Crystallization of Opinion that discusses this to some extent - as well as a common practice of holding discussions in "breakout groups," that you might consult for ideas. Another way to get "out from under" a rule that is interfering with what an assembly wants to do is the motion to "suspend the rules." So, for example, with no motion on the floor, a member could move "to suspend the rules and hold an information discussion of the matter just presented with no motion pending for up to ___ minutes." The motion would need to be seconded, and would require a two-thirds vote. If adopted, the presiding officer would lead a discussion as described above.

A parliamentarian's role is to advise the presiding officer. If the presiding officer doesn't follow the parliamentarian's advice, so be it. A parliamentarian who feels the need to raise a point of order during a meeting is a parliamentarian who needs to resign.

If the vote is “going to a government body,” then you should consult the rules of that body. Those rules may well dictate the form of your “advice.”

A basic principle of parliamentary procedure is that a majority rules. Therefore, if two of three members of a Nominating Committee agree, then that is the committee’s decision.

I don’t disagree with anything that has been said. I would still like to know more details about the decision(s) in question.

I would only add to what my colleagues have said (with which I do not disagree) that in the non-profit world where I live and work, there are plenty of organizations that do allow (and even expect) the current president to participate in the nominating process. I understand and concur with what RONR says about that, but we call come into particular organizations with our experiences and traditions of other organizations of which we are or have been a part. So before I contemplated censuring someone for something that the bylaws don't prohibit, I would strongly encourage you to develop some sort of agreed upon written statement of expectations, and preferably a bylaw amendment to clearly define the president's role.

The simple answer is no. But I suspect that there are more details you might need to give us to more fully answer your question.

Concurring with Zev, while a spelling correction may seem incidental, it's amazing how much difference a very minor "correction" of spelling (that could potentially change the meaning of the word - such as from "read" to "red") or punctuation - such as an "oxford comma" that was the subject of a recent multi-million dollar court judgment. Therefore, unless your bylaws explicitly delegate authority to make editorial corrections of some sort, only the assembly can make such an amendment.

You refer to the president's "ex officio status." Please give us the language in the bylaws about that. While RONR expresses a clear preference for the President not being part of a Nominating Committee - and for exactly the reasons you outline - such an exclusion needs to be clearly stated in your bylaws. If, for example, your bylaws state simply that the President "is an ex officio member of all committees with voice but without vote," which is pretty common language, and if words such as "except for the Nominating Committee" are not also included, then the President has as much right to be present at a Nominating Committee meeting as she does with any other committee.

Sadly (as a left handed person) that is what it says in RONR in two instances. Fortunately, in both cases RONR is simply giving examples of the form of voting by a show of hands. Personally, I never state it that way. When taking a vote by show of hands, I always say, "all in favor, raise your hand. Opposed, raise your hand." In a meeting where the chair calls for "right hands," if I had a legitimate reason to object to doing so, I would raise a point of order. I have also witnessed chairs trying to be creative, lighthearted, or whatever use other "signs" - like "all in favor, quack like a duck." I'm not advocating such a practice. I'm just saying that unless someone objects to how the chair puts the question, it doesn't change the legitimacy of the vote.

First of all, it is your organization’s responsibility to interpret your own rules. That said, why do you think you can move forward with the election of candidates who you admit do not meet the new requirement?

Regarding your “sweeping motion,” while it is possible to move the adoption of more than one recommendation or proposal at a time, it makes the amendment more complex, and is really not necessary or advisable, unless the actions can all be taken by unanimous consent (don’t need discussion or amendment, and no one objects to their adoption). it sounds as if your presiding officer needs some assistance with meeting process. I would try to focus there.

If I am reading your post correctly, there were items on the agenda that needed approval or other action (such as minutes), but at the meeting no action was taken on them. If that is true, and they still need to be acted on, then they should be placed on the agenda for the next meeting. To use Mr. Harrison’s analogy, if peas were on the menu, and nobody ate them, then they go back on the menu again tomorrow (at least, that’s what we always accused them of doing at our cafeteria!).

Unless your rules say otherwise, a two thirds vote means two thirds of those present and voting. However, in the scenario you present, three in favor and two against is only a 3/5 vote which is less than a 2/3 vote. (3/5 = 9/15, whereas 2/3 = 10/15). So whether five or six votes are cast, a 2/3 vote is still 4.

It's really more of an "assumption" than a clear statement in RONR - at least, at least as far as I can tell. There is a clear assumption that the minutes of any board or assembly "belong" to that board or assembly, which then is clearly the body responsible for their adoption or amendment. See, for example, RONR pg. 487, ll 13-20, which states: A record of the board's proceedings should be kept by the secretary, just as in any other assembly; these minutes are accessible only to the members of the board unless the board grants permission to a member of the society to inspect them, or unless the society by a two-thirds vote (or the vote of a majority of the total membership, or a majority vote if previous notice is given) orders the board's minutes to be produced and read to the society's assembly.

Assuming no one can prove that there was any collusion, I suppose

I find this question very intriguing. Clearly, the bylaws "trump" a statement on a ballot. But I think the question is whether or not that statement qualifies as a breach under RONR pg. 445, ll. 34 ff, which states that "If a number of members sufficient to affect the result are improperly prevented from voting in an election, action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting a basic right of the individual member." If it is so believed, then "at any time during the continuance in office of the individual declared elected," a point of order may be raised (RONR pg. 445, ll. 16-17). To follow through on a point of order so raised, one would need to know how many members were so "prevented from voting" as a result of the error. I think that could reasonably be done by counting how many votes were submitted (if that is possible) during the time period between the bylaws date and the published date. If that total number of ballots (not for whom they voted) is greater than the margin by which a candidate was elected, then there is a good argument for declaring that election invalid. As noted by my colleague, it is ultimately for the assembly itself to judge (beginning with the ruling of the chair on a point of order, which may then be appealed).

I've been wondering how you guys get up to the number of posts you have (in the thousands!). This little stream helps me understand. Geez.

I'm not following you. Pages 423-424 are about electronic voting, not electronic meetings, and point "d" on page 251 says that actions taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law create a continuing breach. How can holding an electronic meeting be such a violation when RONR on pages 97-99 describe how to correctly hold them? I suppose you could argue that since their bylaws (apparently) don't authorize them, the actions are in violation of point "a" on that list: "a main motin has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly." But I would note that even then, the actions are not automatically null and void, it is simply never too late (at a future meeting) for the assembly to declare them null and void. The obvious first advice is to amend the organization's bylaws to authorize such meetings, since they obviously want to hold them that way. In that case, they should also look at the full section on such meetings and consider also adopting some special rules of order as recommended. But to directly answer the question asked, what happened was not "Ok with Robert's Rules" if electronic meetings are not authorized in the bylaws. If they are authorized, then there is nothing improper about the vice president presiding electronically at a meeting at which the president is absent unless their bylaws or special rules state that the chair must be present in person.

The former. It is in effect upon its adoption, unless something in the motion states otherwise.

So perhaps, just raise a pint and go on with life!