Nathan Zook

I mean that I think that the usual process of amending a proposal is more likely to arrive at the greatest concurrence than the use of blanks when there is significant complexity to the proposals. If, as in the tournament example, "single elimination" were a complete specification, then I would agree that filling in blanks would work well. But it is not. If during the debate on the proposal to change the format, the body votes "single elimination" as one part of the format, it then proceeds to debate how to seed the tournament. These two interrelated parts can be treated separately by the usual process more cleanly than by attempting to fill in a single blank.

Gentlemen, I have a strong problem with the interpretation that if all members of an organization are present, that this satisfies the requirement that an amendment proposed at one meeting not be voted on until the next. First, it violates the plain language of the bylaws, which do not permit such actions. Second, the basis given is that this is a "notice" provision whose purpose is to ensure that all members are aware of the proposal. This fails for two reasons. One, because we are not informed that notice of the proposal must be sent with the call of the next meeting. Two, because notice is not merely about member's right to be informed of the proposed change for the purpose of attending. The delay between notice and action gives members time to research the matter beyond what can be done at a meeting. For instance, someone might search the internet for a resource which addresses the proposed changes. They might even ask the opinion of experienced parliamentarians in some sort of online forum. This cannot be done in the heat of a meeting, as the considered responses might come back in hours, but rares in minutes. The issue has been raised here about whether or not a meeting must be properly noticed to be valid. The unanimous opinion was "yes"--even if all members happen to be together, a meeting is not valid unless it was properly noticed. I see this as another application of the same principle.

I am mostly speaking of advisability. So long as each proposal is complete, it would seem to be to be in order, but unwise for something of this nature.

Yep, I'm blind.

Suppose that a motion to Create a Blank has been agreed to. The chairman requests suggestions. After asking for more suggestions, and hearing none, the chair asks "Is there any debate?" (RONR 12:98) Suppose that during the debate, someone desires to add another suggestion. I see no harm in permitting the suggestion to be added, but it is not clear to me from the text that it would be in order to do so.

But if an assembly is filling in blanks, all of the options must be proposed before any of them are considered. So one might propose "red" and another "firetruck red". If no one thinks about "rose red" before the voting starts, that would be excluded. Likewise the the form of the tournament. "Single elimination with random seed" can only be the "fill" if it is proposed before there are any votes. The body looses the benefit of the structure that comes with proposing to Amend the base proposal. Debate on the motion to substitute will bring out various options, and whether it passes or fails, what remains is subject to further debate until some version of the proposal is dealt with finally. Note also that votes to fill in a blank stop as soon as one proposal receives a majority. If a different proposal further down the list would receive a greater majority, it does not receive consideration.

It would be helpful if you posted the entirety of your bylaws, word-for-word, on the subject of amending the bylaws. But from what you have stated so far, the answer is "no".

This really is a different question, and should be posted to its own thread. Having said that, freedom of speech applies, and the chairman, like anyone else, can ask anyone to do almost anything. They have no power, however, to compel any action. If a member's conduct during a meeting is sufficiently outrageous, chapter XX of RONR does provide for disciplinary procedures "on the spot", as it were. Still, it requires a vote of the assembly to discipline a member. If the member's actions are outside a meeting, then a formal and detailed process is required. You will need to study the process in the current edition of RONR (the 12th) in either case.

Blank ballots are abstentions. They are not counted in computing the number of votes necessary for any action unless your bylaws state otherwise. Unfortunately, some bylaws specify something like "51% of members present". In which case, blank ballots are effectively votes against everyone. Please post the exact words in your bylaws on this subject.

A significant part of the discussion centered on the meaning of "will of the assembly" in relationship to whether or not the motion in question should be considered "dilatory". There was repeated insistence that if two-thirds, or 89% of those present and voting are in favor of something, then it cannot be against the "will of the assembly". I cannot agree. The "will of the assembly" is expressed in it bylaws, special rules of order, parliamentary authority, and approved motions. When the assembly has adopted a bylaw that a 90% vote is required for a certain action, and then an 89% vote in favor of the action occurs, the will of the assembly is that the action not be agreed to. And to be clear, while RONR refers to the "minority" when discussing the losing side of a vote, it seems to me that the rules surrounding the definition of dilatory ought to be more stringent when the prevailing side is less than 50%. In general, a group of size greater than 50% is much less vulnerable to browbeating than a group of smaller size. Of course, it is unavoidably that a raw majority can use Appeal to force its way through anything. But then entire purpose of RONR is to provide for and orderly process for the conduct of business which provides for the rights of all. That a prevailing minority actually prevail seems to me to be one of the more critical of these rights.

On the contrary, when you are talking about something such as the format of a tournament, "double elimination" and "round robin with no playoff" are related to each other exactly the same way as "blue" and "green". In particular, the acceptance of one precludes the acceptance of the other. I feel like we are brushing the edge of philosophy here. There are gross features of tournaments, such as "elimination" and "round-robin" which clearly are exclusive. One could argue that the existence of "double elimination" verses "single elimination" are variables of "elimination". However, "elimination" is an incomplete specification. If the assembly were to adopt it, further clarification would be required. Of course, there remains the further question of how to seed the elimination--neither "single elimination" nor "double elimination" are complete either. I seems to me that the use of blanks would be permissible if proposed entries were required to be complete--that is, specify completely the form of the tournament. We refer to the amendment process as "perfecting" a motion in part because it allows members to discuss variations of an idea which might gain maximal support even if the underlying idea (initially) lacks majority support. If a proposal to fill in a blank were to permit proposals which did not complete the subject of the blank, one losses that capability. So while I believe that one could use blanks, I believe that "propose A and see if it gets amended to B or to something else entirely" is what you should do.

Once the chairman declares the results of a vote, there is a very narrow time frame in which the results might be changed. In particular, since any business which occurs after a vote is finalized can be effected by the result, the start of any business post-vote "seals" the result, barring exceptional circumstances.

As is the case in the other state with which I am familiar, "major" political parties fall under different statues than "minor" ones. Thanks to all who answered. I reasoned that, like the US House of Representatives, we would be a new body. In particular, since there is no higher authority, we are unlike an elected executive board. But, I came here to learn, and I'll transmit the unanimous view of my seniors to the committee.

I am well aware that this is not the forum for legal advice. We have significant decisions here in Washington state wherein the courts (including the state Supreme Court) have treated these central committees as if they were political parties and, applying strict scrutiny, more-or-less stripped the code of the force of law. Which, combined with the lack of language in the statute, is my excuse to bring the issue up here...

This is a question regarding county party central committees organized in the state of Washington under https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.80.030. The code requires that an organizational meeting be held, but does not specify anything with respect to bylaws. https://app.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=29A.80.020, which addresses the state central committee, does specify that at its organizational meeting, the state central committee "adopt bylaws". The question is: it is more proper to "adopt bylaws" at the organizational meeting of a body which is newly elected as a whole, or to consider that the previous bylaws carry over, and are to be amended?

This needs to be on a separate thread.

This probably needs to be moved to a new thread. That said, my first question is whether or not the bylaws of your organization even allow electronic meetings or not. RONR requires that bylaws specifically permit them in order for them to be valid meetings. Moreover, the basic characteristics of online meetings are such that additional rules of order are probably needed. Unfortunately, my copy of the 12th edition is in the mail, and I am informed that there is more guidance than was in the 11th. Next, in order for a meeting to be valid, proper notice of the meeting must have been sent to all members. If you were not given proper notice, then there was no valid meeting. Also, as mentioned in the thread, the right to attend meetings is a fundamental right of membership, and can only be abridged by the formal procedures outlined in the chapter on discipline. Given that this is being handled in a meeting to deal with a matter which occurred entirely during the meeting itself, the required process deliberately shadows that of the criminal justice system in the US. One key difference is that the member on trial has a right to debate and vote on their question of their own discipline.

I'm very confused here. The purpose of notice is to ensure not just that the entire society is aware of a proposed action, but also precisely when it will be considered. This is to ensure that each member has the ability to study the matter in advance as well as to decide whether or not they wish to attend the meeting to decide the matter. If a proposal is sent to a committee, the result of the committee's work is expected to be different from the original proposal. Unless the committee is directed to report to the next meeting, how is anyone not on the committee, let alone the entire society to have proper notice? It has been my understanding that if a committee is proposing amendment to bylaws, that the proposal still requires notice. What am I missing? Moreover, what if, at the January meeting, a committee is formed to study an amendment and a motion to Discharge passes at the February meeting. Is the proposed amendment now in order?

My understanding is that a consent calendar is effectively a compound motion to approve all of the included items. As it is now one motion addressing unrelated issues, any issue can be separated out by the demand of any member.

"Not essential" under RONR. Depending on the nature of your organization, the charter, state law or federal law, or a higher body might have additional requirements. I believe that 401(c)3 corporations must have a treasurer, for instance. In the state of Washington, political party central committees must have a treasurer.

I am firmly of the opinion that, assuming that this is all that there is relating to the board of directors, that the situation is ambiguous. Often these questions come up with an election about to occur, so there is no opportunity to amend the constitution. In this case, someone should either raise a Point of Order or make a Parliamentary Inquiry of the chair as to the proper interpretation. If they are not satisfied with the response, they may Appeal to the body, which, after debate, will decide the matter by majority vote. (Or, the chair might refer the question directly to the body.) In any event, I strongly urge that the constitution be amended to clarify the situation.

I got to wondering that as I was running an errand. Thank-you for the correction.

Have you ever played the rules game? In this game players take turn proposing rules to govern the game until the group is unable to continue. I was introduced to it at age sixteen. As it happened I was first. I proposed a rule, which was accepted, and the next player asked a question about it which we could not resolve. Game over. The requirement that I consider to be absolutely essential is that the rules not create a situation where a body is no longer able to function while obeying the rules. Putting requirements on an election which the majority cannot suspend can and, I believe, repeatedly has, created such situations. The usual response, I expect, is to simply ignore the rule. And what happens next? The organization may become legally vulnerable for having violated it rules. Those who are dissatisfied with the response become embittered. In any case, a general disrespect for the rules within the leadership especially tends to set it. In short, the long-term health of the organization has become endangered due to the short-sightedness of the original rules makers. I've just re-read some relevant sections. I am pretty certain that, if elections are conducted within the context of a meeting, the adoption of standing rules meets my concerns as well as yours. I have never intended to suggest that it is acceptable for an organization to entrust power to an unsuitable individual or without appropriate checks. That is also entirely contrary to the long-term health of the organization.

I learned the formal term "informal law" from an article in Scientific America some decades ago. The article used as its example the fight between open range & closed range laws in the state of Ohio. What the researchers found was that the actual behavior of the farmers was well defined--and completely ignored the adopted statute. To top things off, having been raised on the farm in Kansas, I knew precisely what the correct behavior was even though if challenged, I would have been hard pressed to demonstrate how I knew any particular point, let alone the entire thing. So I cannot concur with honorable justice. He certainly never shook hands with Moe Howard. More locally, what does the word "should" refer to in RONR if not to informal law? As to the conduct of meetings, I am hard-pressed to find a more important rule than that the chairman maintain the appearance of impartiality. And yet, this is a "should" rule. A search for the term "informal law" results in many hits. I understand (and agree) with what RONR says about custom when it conflicts with RONR. I've also seen organizations completely fall apart and have to be reconstituted when it was applied.

My intent is to allow the organization to go about its business with the minimum fuss necessary to ensure its long-term health. That includes the usual line with respect to majorities and minorities. It also means that rules should be as minimal as possible (but no more). As we have seen by op's post, if absolutely no where else, rules regarding the qualifications can have the problematic effect of reducing the pool of candidates to zero. This can have catastrophic effects on organizations, and in my opinion, that is reason to be exceptionally careful about putting them beyond the reach of a majority. Thinking some more about the situation, that is my nut--the need of the majority to be able to effect its will with respect to an election. A bylaws provision that could be freely suspended by the majority for a single election would satisfy the concern I have been focusing on as well as the complementary concern that unwritten requirements are well-known to be subject to corruption. This would also satisfy the need for some sort of requirement, such as bonding, which might be problematic to effect if it were not in the bylaws. Going further, it seems to me advisable to also permit a majority to willfully leave some office(s) unfilled (I'm thinking about an office NOT part of the sample bylaws). A vote to fill a vacancy created willfully should then require notice.