Nathan Zook

This appears to be to be substantal change. Currently, those provisions in the "bylaws" can be amended by a majority vote. Changing the rules to require a two-thirds vote makes these provisions more difficult to amend. Indeed, the fact that the "bylaws" can be amended by a majority vote makes me curious as to their nature. It may be that these are rules in the nature of standing rules, and that perhaps, relabeling the documents "Constitution" and "bylaws" as "Bylaws" and "Standing Rules" might be more desirable. I can see that a merger of the documents without changing provisions is not a general revision. But with this change to rules being scatter throughout the new document...

Taking the example of Mr Brown further, it is possible to empower the committee to act as well. I'm in politics, and at this time in the cycle, we are getting donations which need to be allocated. As the months have passed, we have had increasingly short periods with which to allocate funds. We have appointed committees to determine how various funds should best be allocated, and directed the chairman to spend funds based on these determinations. Some organizations create arraignments committees which set the date and direct the chairman to sign contracts for the facilities and services. Of course, such empowerment requires a significant amount of trust. Often there are substantial limitations on the authority of such a committee.

To be clear, this situation is an excellent example of why requirements to hold an office are a bad idea. The body needs to be able to fill these positions based on their own best judgement. If this were not enough, just look at the questions of eligibility for the office of US president raised against Barack Obama, John McCain, and Ted Cruz.

If the board really is split 4-1, then the odd man out is going to lose a lot. That's actually an important principle in RONR. Not that the rest of the board is acting morally, just that proper procedure requires that majorities be able to work there will. From the other side, one might complain that the odd member is being dilatory. And when an employee sends out an email alleging "hostile work environment", I would lawyer up. Sadly.

It seems to me this might be one of the times to pull up my sig: "You asked me if you could do it. You didn't say a thing about if you should." Humans are intensely social creatures. To that end, meetings of a society inevitably have both business and social aspects. From what you describe, it appears that the social aspect has come to interfere with the business aspect more than you find acceptable. I'm intentionally localizing what you have said, "Because of the difficulty in getting members back on track by having members only attend meetings..." which looks to me that other members of the organization may view things differently. This is important because generally it requires a two-thirds vote with notice to change bylaws, and even if a bare majority wanted to make the proposed change, that would not suffice. It is easy for small committees to become echo chambers, and bylaws committees in particular are susceptible being dominated by people who belittle the social aspect. In my case, it took more than fifteen years for me to finally understand that sitting around at a political convention while some politician did their thing really is as important as electing delegates or adopting a platform and rules. Given that a body may always vote to close its meetings, I would suggest that a standing rule is a more appropriate place for a rule to close all meetings. It is also more clearly suspendable. Also, please consider carefully (and talk the the regent) if you really want to put the responsibility for allowing individual guests in the sole hands of the regent. Such an arraignment appears to me to be ripe for cries of favoritism and the like. Finally, it may be that the structure of your meetings might be the best solution. If (and I'm surmising) you have a meal before the business meeting, perhaps doing the business meeting first would get the members to focus on the business? If there really is a desire to close the meetings while allowing guests at a meal, perhaps, depending on the usual length of the meetings, there might be a separate room for guests while the body deliberates. Many, many options here. Without knowing more about your society, these are just wild suggestions.

My example is a quote from the form which I have observed the Speaker of the House use. It's entirely unrelated to bodies using RONR, particularly since "laying upon the table" means something very, very different.

If find the form that is used in the US House to be...interesting. "It-appears-the-ayes-have-it-The-ayes-have-it.-Without-objection-the-motion-to-reconsider-is-laid-upon-the-table." It's the sort of thing that makes one wish to run for congress solely for the joy of playing merry havoc with the thing...

There is an unfortunate tendency to attempt to use rules to settle or prevent disputes within organizations. RONR already states that it is the duty of each member to cheerfully support the implementation of decisions by the body until they can obtain the vote to reverse the decision. If a committee, or the president is defying the body, adding another rule is not likely to fix the problem. A body can discharge a committee from duties if necessary, or even dissolve the committee (subject to limitations of the bylaws.) Individual members, including the president, can be brought up on disciplinary charges. Such matters are often painful to contemplate or execute, but by bringing the dispute to the direct attention of the body, they bring the issue to a definite close.

As I take it, the order of events is as follows: 1) The board adopts a rule permitting email voting. 2) A motion has been made, and "discussions" relating to it, have occurred. 3) The voting opened. 4) Some votes have been cast. 5) Email sent prior to the opening of balloting arrived. (This can generally be verified by checking the headers of the email which has been received.) 6) At some point, the balloting will close. This conundrum is inherent to attempting to conduct business via email. The lack of physical presence, and of immediate voting, means that situations of this sort are the norm. Moreover, email voting is fundamentally different than any of the forms of voting contemplated by RONR. If anything, it is closest to the "lightboard" voting common in the US congress and many state legislatures. 1) I can think of no meaningful way to stop email between members while a vote is ongoing. Any rule supposing to do so is really attempting to legislate the impossible. 2) Ongoing discussions, by their very nature, have the ability to change people's minds. I personally have seen a vote flip from unanimously for to unanimously against when a person who had been offline weighed in during an email vote. 3) The natural solution seems to be to allow members to change their vote at any time prior to the close of polling. I must stress that nothing in RONR requires that this be the practice. Note that if this IS the rule, there remains the problem that email is by design not an immediate form of communication. In general, it is immediate enough to be effective, in my view. 4) If a body follows my suggestion to allow votes to be changed, then I strongly recommend that polling be held open for a set time, and not just until everyone has voted. That way, any late-arriving information has a clearly delimited time for arrival and effect. Note that I am implying that emails are being sent to all members, and not solely to the chairman. From the standpoint of the security of the vote, I do not see any other way to handle voting. For the purposes of smoothing the process, I would recommend that members make a practice of explicitly abstaining. Again, there is no way to make an effective rule requiring them to do so.

My point is that the word was chosen more than a century ago. This a historical question. Of course, some of the folks here are history buffs as well, so the complete answer may be forthcoming.

That's more question for a linguist...

In an earlier life, two professional organizations in my field had a tradition of holding a joint week-long annual convention. My understanding is that the business meetings were held on different days during that week. This would be acceptable.

That reminds me of a post from the earlier days of Usenet, talking about the nature of debate, "It has been said that academic politics is so nasty because the stakes are so low. Welcome to the new low." Certainly, a society may do as it pleases. But a couple of excited people may be able to convince a society to take a course of action which is dangerous for the society. Few people outside IT understand the fundamental problem that anonymous-internet-secure is impossible, and that any decision will, at best, be making tradeoffs.

While addressing this section, you might want to think long & hard about there being an office for and ex-president at all. Suppose a president were removed with cause, but retained membership in an organization. There might well be a great deal of acrimony. The ex-president would then be in a position to cause a great deal of trouble. The in-between option would seem to me to be: "Be informed of all meetings of the Executive Committee, and, subject to the will of the committee, be permitted to speak and make motions and to speak in debate." The "subject to the will of the committee" then permits the committee to adopt a motion to exclude the ex-p by majority vote should that become necessary. But that's just one thought.

The start of the post addresses public elections & their machines which won't matter for many assemblies. When he gets into voting over the internet, however, it DOES apply. Anonymity, secure, internet--pick at most two.

Also, keep in mind... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LkH2r-sNjQs

As I said, this transcript is more for edification than for questions. This class of behavior is not new, it's just that it is in practice impossible to correct an abusive chair in an online meeting. The process of seeking recognition itself is difficult, when it comes to points of order. He did "rule" that the point was too late. What was too late was his acknowledgement of the point of order--I did raise it before he moved to the vote. And yes, he went to the vote on the rules without any debate.

For those who are not familiar with how these things go down, I'm posting what just happened when we move to the question of adopting the rules. The chairman was speaking in video. The comments should be reasonably self-explanatory. What happened was not a surprise. This is why I do not agree that such events can be considered deliberative assemblies. My point of order was not acknowledged until after the vote was opened. Then, he stated, "If the motion fails, then we will have debate." There is no parliamentary question here. I'm simply wanting to ensure that the assembled luminaries have seen what some of us are up against.. Nathan Zook27 minutes ago How do we debate the proposed rules? thomas watson26 minutes ago second Nathan Zook26 minutes ago Snohomish county: point of order: debate ! Alexis Wallace25 minutes ago floor debate Marcello Mancini25 minutes ago Second - Marcello Mancini 8 - 25 - 296 John Berg25 minutes ago POINT OF ORDER: Debate needed. Hannah Joy25 minutes ago huge delay! Andrea Sehmel25 minutes ago I second Alexis’ floor debate Natalie Zook25 minutes ago Snohomish county: point of order! Debate. Mark Naulty25 minutes ago Point of order is appropriate John Berg25 minutes ago POINT OF ORDER: Debate needed. Edward Norton25 minutes ago Snohomish County. Point of Order! Debate Sami Jensen25 minutes ago Why would you be asked to input on the rules and suggestions, when your emals are not acknowledged? Andrea Sehmel24 minutes ago Retract all votes under Point of Order is resolved Debbie Knutsen24 minutes ago Do people know they need to vote, submit and CONFIRM? Nathan Zook24 minutes ago Snohomish county: Appeal ruling of the chair Andrea Sehmel24 minutes ago This is what happened in Thurston 5 weeks ago. Natalie Zook24 minutes ago Debate comes first. Everyone knows this. John Berg23 minutes ago I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR: Rules are debatable before vote. Sami Jensen23 minutes ago debate first!! Joseph Murphy23 minutes ago Who cares if its what happened somewhere else. If you have a problem with it vote no. Easy to do. Martin Metz23 minutes ago The process to move to an action is being presented to preclude use of rules of order. May need to slow down those technological procedures. John Berg22 minutes ago I APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE CHAIR: Rules are debatable before vote. Nathan Zook22 minutes ago My point of order was raised before the voting was opened. C Davis22 minutes ago Isn’t a motion debatable, before the call of the question? Stephanie Gleason22 minutes ago We need more time to discuss these. I don’t believe the chair should be fast to call for votes Jessie Westcott21 minutes ago vote to reject the rules if you want the debate. everybody is doing the best they can under very unusual circumstances… William M Johnson21 minutes ago I agree just vote no if you disagree Joseph Murphy21 minutes ago Then vote no if you want it to get turned down. How hard is that to do. Mark Naulty21 minutes ago Caleb, it doesn’t matter if the Rules look great, we still are beholden to Robert’s Rules of Order which requires debate on this motion. Sami Jensen

Uggh. Not my night. Sorry.

That's what I get for cowboying. Sorry. I'll check more carefully next time.

IPP is a Bad Idea. You appear to be dangerously close to experiencing one of the reasons why. While we're on the subject of modifying your bylaws, I also feel compelled to point out that I perceive some problems with this paragraph. 1) "They shall hold office for two years and until their successors are selected." The recommended language is "They shall hold office for two years or until their successors are selected." The use of "and" would appear to exclude removal for cause, absent other language in your bylaws. 2) If a vacancy in the office of the President occurs after a year, more-or-less, and assuming the Vice President fills the vacancy, can they then be elected to two terms as President? If so, this would appear to contradict "two consecutive 2 year terms only." If not, this would appear to violate "two consecutive 2 year terms only." 3) If a person becomes President, and is re-elected, may he then immediately run for Vice President? What if the newly-elected President resigns at the next meeting of the board? If he then becomes the President, can he run for reelection? I believe the solution to the class if issues mentioned in 3 above are handled if a President who has been term-limited cannot serve as President or Vice-President for the entirety of the following term. The issues in 2 above are handled by explicitly handling the case of partial terms.

As the responses indicate, the precise language in the bylaws is at issue. Both as it relates to the composition (does it say that there are five members?), and to the staggering. Absent the full relevant language, we are being a bit speculative. If the bylaws state that there are five members on the board, that there are four officers, and that there is one board member at large (either by saying one, our by using singular language exclusively), then no person may hold two offices by the Pigeonhole Principle. If the bylaws state that two members shall be elected in even years, and three in odd, then it has stated that there are five members. If they state that certain offices, including the at large member, are elected in certain years, then we have a lack of clarity. Although, if the President and Vice President are elected in the same year, I would argue that it is absurd for the President to run for Vice President as well. Members should probably be made aware that if a sitting member is elected to a different position, that the vacancy is created AFTER the election, which might (depending again on the bylaws) mean that the board will fill the new vacancy.

I always raise a point of order when they don't call for the "nays".

Just to be crystal clear, the custom of "friendly" amendments is no where to be found in RONR. Before the question is stated, it can be modified by the maker. (And if this happens, it requires a new second.) I've rarely seen societies that try to do this not run into problems when it turns out that an amendment is not friendly to the maker.

First, as stated, the definition of member is in the bylaws. The Roman mention mentioned above functioned as if the clans were the members, and the vote of the clan was determined by the members of the clan. I have seen this type of rule in religious communities. These bylaws have been typically drawn up based upon practical matters of wanting to avoid pocket voting by children living at home and the like. The question of how the vote of the household is determined is then often implied by the doctrine of the community. As usual, this works find until there is a serious dispute. And, absent a serious dispute, it is typically impossible to convince the community to make a formal declaration in the bylaws about what is to be done. To me there are three options: 1) Define voting members as individuals subject to some restriction. Note that I am specifying "voting" members. There are doctrinal implications to being a member of some religious societies, and there is no requirement that all members be permitted to vote. (In particular "members" might be younger than eighteen, and there might be legal implications if they voted on certain business matters.) 2) Define voting members as households, and specify in the bylaws what member of a household speaks and votes for the household. (Or perhaps allow all members to speak, but one to vote.) 3) Define voting as by household, and specify that the vote is shared by the members of the household. Again, you might want to think carefully about allowing, for instance, minor children to claim a share of the vote of the household. This creates fractional votes, and the tellers will need to be prepared with spreadsheet software to handle it. Note that I exclude the Roman model. The immediate problem is that a two-member household might well split--and then what? Is that an abstention? This creates weird dynamics in the case where a two-thirds vote is required to pass a motion. As for what your current bylaws mean, we would need to see the exact wording to offer our views, but in the end, the society will have to interpret them (or amend them) itself.