Greg Goodwiller, PRP

Expanding on what my colleague has posted, RONR says very little about nonmembers, and its assumption is that meetings are meetings of members except to the extent that members allow wider participation. Regarding voting and debate, in particular, RONR 25:9 states: Rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, such as the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (5:4), cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting (45:56), the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember,7 or to authorize absentee voting (45:56ff.). Likewise, since it is a fundamental principle that each member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question, the rules may not be suspended so as to authorize cumulative voting (46:43). And footnote 7 above reads as follows: In contrast, the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate. So if you have a significant number of nonmembers who your leadership believes need to have the opportunity to be present for and participate in the meeting (which is completely understandable in the current religious landscape in our country), the body can allow them to be present either by vote or simply by not barring them from being present, and it can vote to suspend the rules and allow them to participate in debate. But it cannot give them a vote. That said, in my denominational meetings (I am a mid council leader in the Presbyterian Church), we have several categories of "delegates" present at our national meetings who are technically "nonmembers" of the assembly, but to whom we give the right to participate in debate. And when votes are taken, each group of delegates is polled first so that voting members of the assembly can be "advised" about how they would vote prior to their actual vote being taken. All of that is to say that there are ways to help various constituencies feel included and valuable to the process without having the membership right to an actual vote.

RONR 36:1 and 36:2 state: By means of the motion to Discharge a Committee from further consideration of a question or subject, the assembly can take the matter out of a committee’s hands after referring it to the committee and before the committee has made a final report on it, and the assembly itself can consider it. So long as a question is in the hands of a committee, the assembly cannot consider another motion involving practically the same question. So if the assembly wants to act on a matter that is before a committee, , it has to first vote to take it out of the committee's hand by means of the motion to Discharge a Committee.

Don't confuse a "quorum" with a "majority vote." And also understand that the congressional rules related to voting "present" aren't RONR rules. A quorum is the minimum number of members that must be present to hold a meeting. Period. So by your rules, if you currently have 100 members, a quorum is 51. In terms of voting, the RONR standard is that most motions require a majority vote of those present and voting. So if, say, 60 members actually showed up, and all 60 voted, a majority of 60 would be 31. But if, on the other hand, only 50 chose to vote, and the other ten abstained, then a majority vote on that motion would be 26. In other words, the number of votes required to adopt a motion, under regular RONR rules, can vary on any particular vote depending on how many members actually vote for or against the motion.

Building on what my colleague has stated, here is the relevant paragraph in RONR: 23:6 The only exceptions to the requirement that a point of order must be made promptly at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, whereby the action taken in violation of the rules is null and void. In such cases, a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach—that is, at any time that the action has continuing force and effect—regardless of how much time has elapsed. Instances of this kind occur when: a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly. . . . So provided you can demonstrate that the appointment of the Nominations Committee Chairman violated your bylaws, the action is a "continuing breach" for which a point of order may be raised at any time during the continuation of the breach, and that is what you should argue when raising your point of order.

And once you've "read it thoroughly," you'll be ready to start the process of getting credentialed as a parliamentarian!

This is completely a matter of what is in your township's rules. The ban against ex parte communication comes from the secular legal system, not from Robert's Rules. Nothing in RONR would prevent anyone from communicating privately or otherwise from anyone else prior to a meeting.

If the motion to amend the minutes wasn’t seconded and therefore was not stated by the presiding officer, then it wasn’t a motion, and need not be included in the minutes and all.

RONR 9:29 states, "Some bodies, especially public ones, may invite nonmembers to express their views, but this is done under the control of the presiding officer subject to any relevant rules adopted by the body and subject to appeal by a member." So your rules for these hybrid meetings would determine whether or not this would be allowed, and how it would occur.

Not sure exactly what you mean, but if they are elected members of the committee, then yes, they can vote as soon as they are duly elected.

Unless your state code (which supersedes your parliamentary authority) mandates otherwise, RONR requires that electronic meetings be authorized in an assembly's bylaws. Specifically, RONR 9:30 states, "Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined in 8:2(1), a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present.: If your bylaws do not currently so authorize electronic meetings, an amendment must be adopted by the assembly at a meeting at which a quorum of members is present in person. RONR goes on to speak about special rules of order related to such meetings, and various conversations in this forum discuss such rules and the process for developing and adopting them in some detail.

I am a mid council executive in the Presbyterian Church. We do just what you are describing with similar numbers of participants for our meetings. We use two screens in the room - one with the Zoom meeting participants, and another with the meeting content, which is sent to the Zoom meeting participants by making the host computer's Zoom Webcam a "virtual webcam" with (free) OBS software, and sharing the content of that screen. I have a set of special rules for those meetings, and a PowerPoint presentation that describes it all in detail that I would be happy to share with you. My email address is: greg@goodwiller.org

there's a big difference between "asking" the offender to apologize or withdraw," as in this post, and "demanding" it, as in your original post.

Actually, according to RONR 61:11, what the chair should do is "call the member to order." And according to RONR 61:13, "the chair has no authority to impose a penalty . . ."

While that is recommended, it is not mandatory unless your own rules make it so. RONR 46:13 states: It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination—that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory.

RONR 9:5 states: When notice is required to be sent, unless a different standard is specified that requirement is met if written notice is sent to each member either: a) by postal mail to the member’s last known address; or b) by a form of electronic communication, such as e-mail or fax, by which the member has agreed to receive notice. So you first need to receive the members' consent to receive notice in that way. Once that is done, email may be used. I would advise against the other methods, as verification that it was in fact done could be challenging. I do, however, have members who don't regularly check their email, and who need a voicemail or text saying "please check your email."

That is covered in RONR in the section titled "A vote by mail," which concludes "E-mail and other means of electronic communication can be tailored to comply with these requirements" (RONR 45:57-9). That section begins, however, by saying "A vote by mail, when authorized in the bylaws, is generally reserved for important issues, such as an amendment to the bylaws or an election of officers - on which a full vote of the membership is desirable . . ." So if your bylaws do not authorize such votes, amending your bylaws would need to happen first.

This discussion is all certainly relevant, but an important point from the case is that any local, regional (county), state, or federal law supersedes RONR. So when it comes to "disruptive" behavior in a meeting, it behooves us to know how our particular civil authorities interpret that, and what actions are available and/or mandated in response.

Actually, I think this ruling is relevant and useful. I field many questions relating to a chair’s authority when one or more members are disruptive. This makes it clear that at some point, responses of leaders to disruptive behavior can transcend RONR requirements (namely, when the behavior violates civil ordinances or laws of conduct).

RONR 57:16 states, "Amendments to the article on officers may raise difficulties in relation to the time at which adopted changes take effect, unless special care is taken. A society can, for example, amend its bylaws so as to affect the emoluments and duties of the officers already elected, or even to abolish an office; and if it is desired that the amendment should not affect officers already elected, a motion so specifying should be adopted before voting on the amendment, or the motion to amend can have added to it the proviso that it shall not affect officers already elected. There is virtually a contract between a society and its officers, and while to some extent action can be taken by either party to modify or even terminate the contract, such action must be taken with reasonable consideration for the other party."

Many of us are using zoom for hybrid meetings, and have developed special rules of order that can make them comply with RONR requirements if, as Mr. Merritt has said, such meetings are authorized in the bylaws. But in accordance with RONR, unless otherwise stated in your bylaws, a "member" is presumed to have all of the basic rights of membership - to be present, to speak in debate, to make motions, and to vote (RONR 1:4). Any restrictions on those rights would also need to be included in an organization's rules that are of higher authority than its parliamentary authority (bylaws, or special rules of order). So essentially, if you currently have no rules, those attending electronically who have no ability to speak or make motions or vote aren't really members in attendance. They are observers. By giving them some of the rights of membership (voting), you have definitely crossed a line that makes them members who are considered present, and that probably requires changes to your bylaws.

A resolution in and of itself is really not a motion. It becomes a motion if it is either preceded by something like: "I move the adoption of the following resolution . . ." (as in RONR 4:4), or followed by something like, "I move that the resolution be adopted as just read." The motion is "I move that . . ." The resolution is the content of the motion. RONR calls it a more formal version of motion content because it is typically composed of both a preamble ("whereas . . .") and then the resolution itself ("Resolved, that . . .") and there are special rules for how those sections are amended and considered (see RONR 10:16ff).

The rights "to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote" are among the basic rights of all members (RONR (12th Ed.) 1:4). As that section goes on to state, "Some organized societies define additional classes of “membership” that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified." So if your bylaws contained "additional classes" of members for whom membership rights are limited (for example, by limiting the right to vote), then those rules need to be consulted regarding what other limitations are placed on the rights of those members. My advice would be that attending meetings (including meetings in executive session) is a right of membership unless otherwise explicitly stated in your rules.

The most basic rights of membership are the "rights to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote" (RONR (12th ed.) 1:4). So every member of a board has those rights at board meetings, unless in its governing documents "membership" is defined differently and somehow limits the rights of certain members.

For what it's worth, I personally love the Kindle version - including the fact that it is available on ALL my devices!

See RONR Section 38 on "Renewal of Motions." there are a number of specific rules that can come into play, but the basic principle is that a motion should only come before a body once in a given "session" (a single meeting if the organization holds one-day meetings, or once during a multi-day session if the organization meets for multiple days at a time). So in an organization that holds, for example, regular monthly meetings, each meeting is a new session, and a motion that was "made and disposed of without being adopted" (RONR 38:1) at one monthly meeting, may be made again at the next monthly meeting, and at every future monthly meeting. The only way to limit its introduction at future meetings would be to adopt a rule that supersedes the parliamentary authority (a special rule of order or a bylaw).