Nathan Zook

I agree that I have read a bit more into "This Eleventh Edition superceeds all previous editions" than is justifiable. The "and is intended" clause is a limitation on the effects of the supercession. (Is that a word? I think that should be a word.) I still believe that without a more general clause than what is recommended on RONR, 11 Ed, pg 588, that positive action by the assembly is required to change the parliamentary authority to a work with a different name.

Grr. I should have checked myself twice. I'm not used to typing out quotes. Sorry & thanks.

I'm glad that I was incorrect regarding the intent.

I would think that the language of RONR, 11th Ed, pg 579, ll 24-28 indicates that the exemption applies to any officer who is an ex officio member of all committees, excepting particular committees. "The section may also provide that certain officers--for example--the president 'shall be ex officio a member of all committees except the nominations committees except the Nominations Committee.' In that case, the president has the right, but not the duty, of participating in the work of the committees." (Emphasis added) Does this not state that the "right, but not the duty" clause functions as the result of the "all committees" clause regardless of office? In the particular example before us, I would think that the limitation of committee sizes to 3 or 5 (being small and odd) would suggest intent for this to be the case. But of course, your organization, your interpretation.

You've been to some of our meetings!

In theory, I can agree with you. In practice, there are over 3000 counties in the United States feeding into 50 states with a lot of subordinate units with committees having their own bylaws. And my experience with the rules in two of those states makes it EXTREMELY likely that numerous counties would fail to update their language before some sort of crisis required it. In particular, some states (such as Texas) have statutes setting quorums for non-statutory actions which are historically difficult to make, meaning that the change has to be implemented during the organizational meeting in the middle of the campaign & convention season. Other places insist that the committees are continuing bodies, so that these things require a full bylaws change. And there will be a lot of no-nothings that will oppose the change simply because they don't know that they are no-nothings, and want to keep it that way. Which I why I support automatic updates--on a timeframe which is convenient to the body.

And RONR 11th Ed, chapter XX goes into a lot of detail regarding the proper procedure for removal. But it is entirely possible that your bylaws bypass that procedure depending on the exact wording. Please post the exact wording of your bylaws as they relate to the removal process.

I have real problems with the ex-post nature of this claim. If an organization has adopted some work with a different title, current edition or not, then it has not adopted RONR. If the validity of claims of successorship in the language I propose are problematic (and I agree that they are), then the validity of this claim strikes me as even more problematic. My proposal clearly permits a work under a new name to become the parliamentary authority without further action. This claim purports to divine intent contrary to the rule. This is not the usual form of interpretation. In particular, any body formed after Roberts Rules of Order, Revised that specified "Roberts Rules of Order" would seem to specifically choose an earlier work. Now, if the same body of rules were to be published under all three titles.....

So the quoted rule does not require the approval of the members, but does require broad notice. Interpretation of the word "proper" is going to fall to the organization, but if there are notice requirements elsewhere in the bylaws, I would expect that this would be used to interpret "proper."

I'm talking about disputes today when the rule (or the governing code) says "Roberts Rules of Order" or "Roberts Rules of Order Revised". As mentioned elsewhere, I approve of the automatic phrase outside organization-specific blackout periods.

No, I was speaking only with respect to RONR. And I had forgotten the rule on page 289, and missed it when checking. And I was thinking of suggesting the chair submit the question directly to the body. I'm glad that the rule is in fact what it is.

Mr Chairman, I move to amend the motion by inserting the words "or its successors" between "Revised" and "shall". I believe that history has shown that the name of this series of works has changed over time; that these changes have been a source of dispute when the most recent name has changed; and that there is no way to guarantee that yet another change in name will never occur.

From my experience with political parties, the "central committee" is generally the assembly (usually meeting quarterly), and there is some sort of execute board elected by that committee that functions as a board of that committee. The entire thing gets really messy because these central committees tend to be established by state law, and sometimes are mentioned in state constitutions, creating all sorts of *interesting* questions about the actual nature of these committees--which can be elected in about fifty or so different ways. My view is that we don't have State parties in this country, so these state-established committees are long-standing violations of the Freedom of Association, in as much as the state courts treat them as "the party". The main exception being that if they are elected by the party conventions, then the party executive authority (the convention) has chosen to submit to the statute. But that's diving rather deeply into political-legal theory, so I'll stop.

Let's hope not. Such a provision seems ripe for legal problems. What happens if president-for-life writes a general power of attorney? What if that power is challenged? What if the president-for-life is, heaven forbid, kidnapped and held for ransom? Just no. And lets not forget that the ugly provision won't be removable once the president-for-life dies. BTW, maybe I'm being cynical, but this smells like someone trying to dodge taxes. I would advise talking asking an attorney specifically about that.

The relationship between the bylaws of a subordinate body to its superior tend to be...complex. I find it curious that the usual choruses of "we don't interpret bylaws" and/or "please post the exact words of the relevant rules, do not paraphrase" has not arisen, because in my experience, this is a case where the superior organization most definitely will have to make the call. You really need to contact the superior organization (in particular, its parliamentarian) for information regarding how this rule has been interpreted by the superior body--if there is any history of contention at all, you can expect that this issue will have been raised already. But no, the general principle is that if a rule is specified as applying in one case, then it does not apply in others. Therefore, if the rule mentions a limitation for the superior body, then the rule does not limit the inferior one. One beautiful example of this is that the First Amendment to the US constitution prohibiting congress from establishing a religion was easily passed while multiple states had established churches! It was only after the Supreme Court developed the doctrine of incorporation that this prohibition was extended to the states.

My immediate question is this: Suppose candidates A, B, and C are declared as candidates. On the first round of voting, the votes are distributed A-10, B-8, C-5, D-3, E-2, F-1. How many rounds of voting are permitted? Sounds to me like four. Next question, for ballot 2, are D and E now "candidates" entitled to having their names on the ballot and not required to be written in? If they are, has the number of permitted rounds been raised to six? Or seven? My point is that the statement limiting the number of ballots worse than useless, as a later rule has to clarify that in a 5-3-3 situation, that the ballot is to be repeated. The clarification itself needs clarification (to me) as to the actual meaning of the words, although the intent seems clearly enough to be to modify the limit on the number of ballots. So please drop that bit. Please also review RONR, 11ed, pg 441 ll 5-10 and pg 437 ll 18-30. I find that short prescription and its defenses to be most persuasive. I have also found that assembles tend to get very impatient with recalcitrant behavior. In practice, I don't expect many ballots to be necessary very often at all. Of course, assemblies tend to be SO impatient that they adopt rules contrary to RONR by dropping the lowest vote-getter. But do try to be exceptionally crisp regarding the permissibly of "unofficial" candidates on subsequent ballots. This question has inspired me to open https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33241-new-candidates-for-later-rounds-of-balloting/, which I am hoping will have an interesting (or at least informative) discussion.

So what if the chairman was drafted by the only experienced parliamentarian, who also chaired the nominations committee, had his wife chair credentials, instructed the chairman as to the composition of the nominations committee and the method of composing the other committees, wrote the special rules for the convention, and named the chairman of the rules committee? I dubbed it "Convention by Zook", and it was the most peaceful convention that had been had in twenty years. (The next convention--even more so.) It all depends on the intent of the players.

Inspired by https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/33222-multiple-ballotsmultiple-candidates/, I have the following question: RONR, 11ed, pg 441 ll 1-10 specifies the procedure in the event that a majority is not achieved on the first round of an election. That is, that the ballot is "repeated" as many times as needed for some candidate to achieve a majority. Dropping candidates is forbidden (absent a rule) to permit or encourage "dark horse" or "compromise" (pg 437) candidates to emerge. So what if, after some number of ballots have failed to achieve a majority, some entirely new member were to draw attention as such a candidate? I see nothing permitting the reopening of nominations. I would think that a 2/3rds vote to suspend the rules would suffice. Would it be necessary? That seems to be the case, which seems unfortunate--only a majority should be required to accomplish an election. Of course, if I were at a meeting, and someone were to propose such a candidate, I would shut up and "let the body work its will" in any event. But I am wondering what the black letter rule is.

I would add only that if there were no regular meeting of the assembly scheduled in time to effect the change, then a special meeting would be required. Pay careful attention to the notice required for a special meeting, as well as the contents of the call of the meeting. (RONR 11th ed, pp 91-93, especially pg 91 ll 28-35). Or perhaps if the board were given the authority to override a motion approved by the assembly, they could meet--although you would need to parse the bylaws carefully to see if they had the authority to do so. BTW, the most successful event planners I have worked with started planning the next (annual) event three days after the prior one. State convention planning routinely runs two years out in WA, six in Texas. Venue conflicts are a common problem, and it is next to impossible to confirm avoidance in the context of a general meeting of an assembly.

Without the bylaws, special rules, and relevant code, if applicable, (rules) there is no way to say. 1) What is the requirement for notice of the meeting? Has the notice period passed? 2) Do the rules specify the time, has the assembly voted to meet at a specified time, or is that power vested in the person making the change? 3) Is this a custom which is being changed, or is there a rule specifying the time, or did a previous notice state the time? In Texas, starting a convention before the time set by the rules was the most common way to get the convention proceedings thrown out entirely.

Appearance, they say, is in the eye of the beholder. And if there is any divisiveness (as opposed to mere debate) regarding the committee report, what do we expect the eyes of those not happy with the report to see? While I can agree that among Vulcans, "Madame chairman, at the direction of the committee, I move the adoption of the report" preserves impartiality, I cannot agree that it does among humans who are feeling wronged already. Moreover, as others have said, this creates a weird situation where the mover of the motion must forgo the right to speak first to it. Do we suggest some sort of special rule that the Chairman give preference to some committee member to speak in favor of the motion? Which one? It's just needlessly complicated. I agree that for organizations of modest size, it is natural, perhaps even expected, that the Parliamentarian actively participate in a bylaws committee, not merely advise. I can also see that they might serve as chairman. But for them to bring the report to the body as opposed to some other committee designate is just asking for either trouble or complication. (Likely both.)

In the cases where I have served, I did not believe that my unique contributions to the process as an active member would have mattered so much to the outcome so as to outweigh the benefits of having a parliamentarian. There were also personal political benefits from accepting the role that went beyond the caucus in question. Especially in Texas, where there were a number of RPs in the caucuses I was in, your experience of having to worry about serious miscalls was not something I have faced. And as I mentioned, I made a big deal of setting aside my factional loyalties when I accepted the role as parliamentarian. Our state rules in Texas have required a PRP at the convention as well. Unfortunately, these have gone very poorly more than once. An abusive chair is going to bring in a hired gun, it seems. The help table is an interesting idea. The organization of the convention in Texas probably made that less necessary, as the rules committee had a member from each of the caucuses. Therefore knowledgeable people were known and spread throughout the body. I like the idea, raised in other posts, of having a separate office to chair meetings. This was often done for the state convention in Texas, and they did better than most of the party chairman. But the sociological aspects for a regularly meeting body would seem to preclude that, unfortunately. I think we strongly agree that the actual and perceived neutrality and competence of the chair is the goal. We pursue this in each situation as best we can.

Our county party executive board uses email voting for urgent matters, as permitted in our bylaws. I cannot say that I am happy with this. We certainly have urgent matters come up from time to time, but I've seen unanimous votes flip because someone brings up a point after several hours. Fortunately, even when divided, the board has not been contentious. Furthermore, I agree (strongly) with the idea stated above that there are many details that need to be specified regarding such proceedings, such as: What calls a vote? Until when must voting remain open? Is there a minimum number of responses that are required for a vote to be valid? What are the provisions for changing votes? Note that all answers to the above questions must take into account that email is NOT real-time. A delay of minutes between when email is sent and received is normal. As for the issue at hand, I wonder that the President has the authority to edit the draft minutes at all? It is the secretary's duty to record the minutes, and it is the secretary's draft which is to be presented for consideration. Absent something in the bylaws to the contrary, anything else is a violation of your parliamentary authority, which would appear to put the President in a situation of legal jeopardy. (I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.) I would think that an attorney might make short work of this situation.

So are you Jack Sprat, or am I? :D

I expect that rights may only be "retained" that exist in the first place. While I can certainly agree that in theory, having an outside parliamentary is desirable, there are problems in practice. The first is cost. Again, most of my experience is with political parties. County parties are generally far from cash-flush, and an awful lot of politics is done via in-kinds donations. If a party can do something for free, there is an expectation that it will do it for free. Furthermore, there is the matter of airing dirty laundry. I would expect there to be protests if the chair were to hire an outside parliamentarian. And to be clear--I in no way have committed to always say "yes" when asked to serve as parliamentarian. But to date, the needs of the many have outweighed the needs of the one.