Steven Britton

Guest Charlene:

IMO, Mr. Katz has given you an excellent answer if the Current Edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised controls the situation. However, you've posted this question relative to a school board, which further suggests you are possibly describing a situation relative to a public governmental body. If I am correct, the answer to this question may occur outside of RONR , that is, in you your local jurisdiction's Public Open Meetings Laws (sometimes called Sunshine Laws). IMO, you should also pose this question to your school board's attorney for his/her input.

On 1/10/2022 at 8:35 AM, Guest Bernie Howe said:

I attended a seminar on Robert's Rules several years ago.  The speaker said that like motions could be combined on the agenda such as committee appointments for various committees. The Chairman must first ask if any item should be removed from the list to be acted upon seperately. Then, a single motion could be made to approve the remainder of the items without discussion.  If this is appropriate, where can I find the procedure and rules?

Specificly, your example descrbes a device referencing a "consent calendar," which generally may be applied to "routine or noncontrolversial" business items. Sometimes, multiple items are listed on the Consent Calendar and adopted as you described. See 41:32 for details.

In meetings that I've chaired it is advisable to adopt Meeting Standing Rules at the begining of the meeting and to a rule concerning the use of the chat.

Concerning members abusing  the chat, the main concern that I see are when members at the meeting attempt to carry on debate or other conversations in the chat.

The chat function may be vital to process motions that interupt, or the processing of long worded motions. As such, I would not advise a group eliminate it.

However, in a association meeting I chaired last spring, after a member exhausted her/his two turns to speak in debate, s/he attempted to continue debating (that is, take a third turn) in the chat. As chair, at my first opportunity without interupting a speaker, I reminded the assembly that all debate needed to be addressed through receiving the chair's recognition, and further, if the member has exhausted his/her turns to address the assembly, the assembly itself needed to authorize her/his continued debate.  There were no other incidents of members abusing the chat function at this meeting.

On 11/10/2021 at 4:00 AM, Richard Brown said:

 

Generally, if RONR is your parliamentary authority and if your bylaws do not specify otherwise, a resignation may be withdrawn at any time prior to it being acted upon.  It does not matter whether the resignation is to become effective immediately or in the future.  It is up to your organization itself to determine whether a letter expressing an intent to resign in the future constitutes an actual letter of resignation or just a non-binding email talking about future plans.

In addition to  Mr. Brown's excellent answer if RONR controls, consult with a lawyer about your jurisdiction's non-profit statutes regarding the effective date of resignations. If the non-profit laws in your state or jurisdiction are differnt from RONR, the laws may interceed.

Our church is incorporated in a state that requires in-person meetings unless electronic means are established in our bylaws, which bylaws are silent on such and require we follow the latest edition of Roberts Rules secondarily.

Do you have a parliamentary question? Your preface is framing a legal question. You may consider asking a lawyer whether your state is under an executive order that allows you to do meet by electronic means.

Question for the OP: What type of organization is this?

My concern is with the length of the period that defines the majority of meetings is undefined by the information provided. If the definition of a majority is more than half, half of what? Hence, if one of Gov. Cuomo's executive order nullifies this bylaw, there is no restriction from meeting electronically.  Again, you need to speak with a lawyer and not a parliamentarian regarding applicability of the New York governor's executive order.

Strictly, speaking, the citation you've provided only provides for regular meetings to be held by electronic means, and a majority of the regular meetings are required to be held in person. However, you should contact a lawyer to review and interpret Governor Cuomo's various Executive Orders to determine how they apply to your particular non-profit organization. My only question is what did your organization intend by stating a majority of meetings (majority of what)?

Tim Wynn, PRP, gave an excellent presentation at the NAP Leadership Conference, which in-part,  explained the section/paragraph number citation.

22 hours ago, Deb Parm said:

Our board is allowed to vote on issues via email per our bylaws. We have a controversial matter that is being voted on presently. The vote has started. However, two members of the board had expressed concerns but their emails to the board were delayed and arrived after the vote had been called. As they are valid concerns, is there a way to stop the vote to allow more discussion prior to calling for the vote again?

In state statute, many states restrict voting by email by providing for taking action outside of a meeting through Unanimous Written Consent. You should contact a lawyer whether email voting is permitted in your jurisdiction.

If RONR controls, if draft minutes are circulated to board members prior to the meeting where they will be approved, yes, the director is permitted to see  the draft minutes. However,  RONR does not require the circulation of draft minutes prior to their approval. If the minutes are not circulated prior to a meeting amongst members of the board, RONR requires  there reading prior to approval.

42 minutes ago, Guest MJJCC said:

If a vote was taken in May and passed unanimously, but in October was discovered to be widely misunderstood by the members is there a way for it to be revisited, revoked, restated and re-voted on?

Generally, depending on the nature of the business transacted, the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted may be applied in many of situations. However, there are exceptions to the general rule.  As an example, rescinding or amending bylaws would be subject to the same procedures and notice requirements necessary to adopt a bylaw amendment, and rescinding contracts may be problematic or ill-advised.

1 minute ago, Joshua Katz said:

What exactly allows the moderator/chair to do this? If the assembly has decided to permit open discussion, the parameters will be those set by the assembly. If not, I don't see how the chair can allow it. Either way, while this may be a good idea, I don't see how the moderator/chair can just do it. Certainly he can suggest it, though.

RONR, pp. 251 - 252:

PRECEDENT. The minutes include the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling (see p. 470, ll. 15–17). The ruling and its rationale serve as a precedent for future reference by the chair and the assembly, unless overturned on appeal, the result of which is also recorded in the minutes and may create a contrary precedent. When similar issues arise in the future, such precedents are persuasive in resolving them—that is, they carry weight in the absence of overriding reasons for following a different course—but they are not binding on the chair or the assembly. The weight given to precedent increases with the number of times the same or similar rulings have been repeated and with the length of time during which the assembly has consistently adhered to them. 
If an assembly is or becomes dissatisfied with a precedent, it may be overruled, in whole or in part, by a later ruling of the chair or a decision of the assembly in an appeal in a similar situation, which will then create a new precedent. Alternatively, adoption, rescission, or amendment  of a bylaw provision, special rule of order, standing rule, or other motion may alter the rule or policy on which the unsatisfactory precedent was based. 

29 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

That sounds like the assembly granting permission to do so, to me.

Perhaps, but if the  order is subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization, it could easily be permitted by precedence (pp. 251 - 252), or custom, which could ultimately lead to the final decision by the assembly, but not necessarily the immediate decision.

In a contentious assembly, Its perhaps a better solution for the moderator to allow for this sort of item with a time limitation (maybe 3 minutes), and to provide for limited rebuttal if necessary.

22 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

 

There is never a proper time during a meeting to discuss a matter without a motion pending, unless the assembly has specifically granted permission to do so.

Except that:

RONR, 11th Edition, pp. 362 - 363 states:

After the completion of new business—that is, when no one claims the floor to make a motion in response to the chair's query, "Is there any further new business?"—the chair may  proceed to one or more of the following headings, in an order that may be subject to variation determined by the practice of the organization. 

Good of the Order, General Good and Welfare, or Open Forum. This heading, included by some types of societies in their order of business, refers to the general welfare of the organization, and may vary in character. Under this heading (in contrast to the general parliamentary rule that allows discussion only with reference to a pending motion), members who obtain the floor commonly are permitted to offer informal observations regarding the work of the organization, the public reputation of the society or its membership, or the like. Certain types of announcements may tend to fall here. Although the Good of the Order often involves no business or motions, the practice of some organizations would place motions or resolutions relating to formal disciplinary procedures for offenses outside a meeting at this point. In some organizations, the program (see below) is looked upon as a part of the Good of the Order. 

It would not be out of order for a member to offer an amendment to the meeting's agenda at the beginning of the meeting, which provides for Good of the Order or Open Forum to the order of the meeting's business.

3 hours ago, Aloha said:

I'm unable to find anything more in our documents, and wondered how RONR addresses this. 

Thank you again.

Directly, RONR (11th ed.) does not deal with COI, except as follows (pp. 407 - 408):

ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. 
VOTING ON QUESTIONS AFFECTING ONESELF. The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member should not vote for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, or should not vote when other members are included with him in a motion. If a member never voted on a question affecting himself, it would be impossible for a society to vote to hold a banquet, or for the majority to prevent a small minority from preferring charges against them and suspending or expelling them (61, 63). 

IMO, as a matter of law, applicable state statutes and IRS 501c rules may influence your organization's COI concerns, but are outside the parameters of this forum. Further, for additional information you should contact a qualified attorney.

3 hours ago, Guest Erin said:

Is it a conflict for President to also be Parliamentarian in a small association?

There is no rule in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th ed., which disqualifies a credentialed member of the National Association of Parliamentarians or the American Institute of Parliamentarians from serving in the office of president of another organization.

44 minutes ago, Atul Kapur said:

But the twist here is whether a general rule in a Special Rule of Order yields to a specific rule in a lower-level document, namely the Parliamentary Authority?

I'm leaning towards answering Yes, but I'm not irrevocably there.

Ironically, resolving this question could likely be determined by appeal. In a similar vane, is the motion to commit the main motion to Committee Of The Whole in order under this rule?

On ‎2‎/‎18‎/‎2019 at 11:28 AM, Guest Vicki said:

Is there a quick guide/procedures sheet for quick reference?

The National Association of Parliamentarians, in its on-line store, has something called the "Golden Leaflet," it may be similar to what you're seeking.

15 hours ago, Guest Jason said:

I am the President of a Non-Profit. We have a Treasure who is not filing monthly financials and neglecting other duties. What is the procedure to remove him by the Board. Our By-Laws do not address this issue.

 

 

Do your rules state the treasurer is obligated to file monthly treasurer reports?

9 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If the question as to inclusion in the minutes of a motion which an assembly has refused to consider at one of its meetings is first raised when the secretary's draft (including, as it should, the spurned motion) is presented for approval, then I agree that it will have to be raised by moving to amend ("correct") the secretary's draft by striking out that portion of the minutes which makes reference to it. If the chair rules (as I think he should) that such a motion is not in order, then a member may move to suspend the rules which interfere with the consideration and adoption of this motion to amend ("correct") the minutes. This is the course of action I would suggest.

Or, I suppose, an appeal might be taken from the ruling of the chair, arguing that the rule in the book is only a "should" rule, not a "must" rule, and therefore the motion to correct the minutes is in order and can be adopted by a majority vote. Now all of us here on the Forum can cast a vote as to whether or not the ruling of the chair should be sustained.  🙂

Would the application noted above hold true for Suspend Rules applied to embarrassing motions that are made, which don't receive a second?

13 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

,,There is no final vote on the minutes as corrected.  Once there are no (further) corrections offered, the chair announces that the minutes stand approved.

So the motion "I move to Suspend the rules that interfere with deliberately falsifying the minutes, and strike <language>" would be made at the time the "correction" is offered.   The motion is not debatable, so the vote would occur at that time.

I'm not sure I would agree with the above analysis, and was politely asking for DAN's clarification. I am well aware of the procedure for approving minutes (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 354 - 355) and the proper contents of minutes (RONR, 11th, pp. 468-469), but  I'm questioning if proposing the subsidiary motion to amend-by striking-out the paragraph (11th, pp. 354. l. 31) actually requires suspending rules, or would the breach occur by giving final approval to minutes, which intentionally omit the embarrassing main motion, thus requiring a two-thirds vote to give final approval to these particular minutes by application of the motion to suspend rules.

On ‎2‎/‎8‎/‎2019 at 11:59 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

If RONR is the adopted parliamentary authority, the association's rules (assuming no special rule, bylaw, etc. to the contrary) require that main motions that have been made during the course of a meeting are to be included in the minutes of that meeting. As a consequence, it seems to me that it will require a suspension of the rules in order to approve minutes of a meeting which knowingly and deliberately fail to include a main motion which was, in fact, made during that meeting. 

Question for Dan:

When is the question to suspend rules, which requires a two-thirds vote, put to a vote; at the time of the individual correction.or at the final approval of the amended secretary's draft?

4 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Then that disciplinary process can only be used for those outcomes it mentions. It cannot be used to suspend fundamental rights; for that, your bylaws are, apparently, silent, and you're back in RONR-land.

Not necessarily. Much would depend on the actual wording of the custom disciplinary rules and procedures provided in the bylaws, and how it intercedes what is printed in RONR.  Without reviewing what is written in the bylaws, it is difficult to determine whether you're back in Chapter XX or not.

RONR, 11th ed. p. 497:

A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair's prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion.