Rob Elsman

With nothing but admiration for Mr. Martin, I must respectfully disagree with his position on this. During the deliberations of the committee, it is necessary that members have the freedom to speak their minds without fear of any adverse consequences outside the committee room. Members might not make the suggestions they think best were they to fear that their contributions would be divulged, name by name, in the report. So, for the sake of the good and welfare of the society as a whole by electing the best qualified people for office, I confirm my opinion that it is improper to divulge what went on during the deliberations of the committee by reporting to the electing assembly that Mr. suggested this or Ms. suggested that.

By the way, I fully understand your choice of word. 🙂

The deliberations of a nominating committee, like other committees, are held in secret. The nominations reported out of committee are the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, it is improper, in my opinion, for the report of the nominating committee to include the names of individual committee members' suggestions during deliberations.

...or any other form. 😊

If a main motion is rejected, another main motion can be made, as long as the latter presents a technically different question. RONR (12th ed.) 38:5. This can be repeated with respect to the same subject any number of times. If a main motion is adopted, it can be brought before the assembly a second time during the same session by means of the motion, Reconsider. Other main motions that do not conflict with the one already adopted, but dealing with the same subject, can also be made.

If the rule in RONR (12th ed.) controls, the vice president accedes to the office of president. The vacancy in the office of vice president is handled, as you say, according to the bylaw.

It seems to me that the gravity of the procedure should match the gravity of the proposal. With a matter so important as the amendment of the governing documents, why would each amendment not be voted on separately, and only after the most thorough deliberation?

You can use your favorite internet search engine to find associations of parliamentarians.

This motion is not in order. It is mistakenly used as a courtesy motion to hide the fact that there was, or might have been, opposition expressed in the previous vote. I understand the sentiment, but the practice should be dropped.

I cannot see where the importuned "certification" of the tally has any bearing on the situation from the standpoint of parliamentary law. Mr. Martin has, to my mind, summed up the matter rather nicely, as is his wont. 🙂

Uh, oh! Someone is getting ready to go to the woodshed. I suggest re-reading RONR (12th ed.) 10:54 in a hurry. Maybe begging for mercy will assuage the Wrath.

I agree with Mr. Kapur. In addition, the parliamentarian has no business "certifying" the election results. It is the responsibility of the presiding officer to announce the results of an election.

Mr. Brown is correct to say that my response assumed that this "committee" is the kind of body defined in RONR (12th ed.) 50:1.

Ah! I'm all better, now. 😊

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. 😊

If all the members were present, why would it be necessary to suspend the rules that interfere with the continuance of proceedings without a quorum? I don't get it.

Organizations should never adopt rules that permit a mixture of in-person voting and absentee voting, because it inevitably gives rise to impossible situations--of which this is one. See RONR (12th ed.) 45:56. So, while this post's timeline begins with an election, this organization was already off the rails long before.

Then, there is nothing in the memorandum that is binding on the assembly, and, there is nothing official to change during the meeting. Again, regardless of the memorandum that was circulated for members' informational benefit, the chair adheres to the rules in RONR (12th ed.) concerning the order of business. Concerning changes to the order in which items of business are transacted, take a look at the motions, Postpone to a Definite Time and Suspend the Rules. There are two other motions that are rarely in order, Lay on the Table and Take from the Table, that are just worth mentioning for the sake of completeness.

You don't. The circulated memo is just for information. Individual members bringing their copy to the meeting are responsible for marking it up to reflect changes made during the proceedings. Regardless of what was circulated, the chair follows the rules relevant to the order of business in RONR (12th ed.).

The parliamentarian never announces the result of a vote. This is the duty of the chair alone. Nevertheless, as to the particular question the is raised about the error of including abstentions by members who were present in the determination of the result: a Point of Order could have been raised by interrupting "someone". Now, the window of opportunity has closed. It would certainly be worthwhile for the chair to make an announcement to make clear the error that occurred and the reason why the result of the vote stands, as announced. Finally, the practice of the parliamentarian of announcing the result of the vote should be immediately stopped. Only the presiding officer announces the result of a vote.

Zev is trying to point us to List VII at RONR (12th ed.) t50-51.

The personally hired gun, not being a member of the committee, should not be present in the committee room during the committee's deliberations. When deliberations are commencing, the chair should politely ask him to leave the committee room. Upon an objection by any member of the committee (presumably the member who hired), the question is put to a vote. Otherwise, the personally hired parliamentarian is just a guest. He must avoid interrupting or causing annoyance during the proceedings, and the chair can eject him if he is unwilling to comply with the applicable rules. Certainly, at no time, may this guest attempt to argue with the chair or raise a ruckus on behalf of his client.

No member, including the presiding officer, has the right to unilaterally shut down debate and cause the question to come to an immediate vote. If the "body" in this case is a committee, motions to immediately close debate are not in order at all.

Another proper reason to raise a Point of Order is to vindicate the rights of individual members, factions of members, or the assembly as a whole. I see no problem with Zev's comment.

Because of the importance of the bylaws and the possible inadvisability of adopting one or more of the "uncontroversial" amendments, it is best to arrange the amendments logically and handle them one at a time, even if several resolutions are offered at one time with one main motion. Please keep in mind the distinction between "uncontroversial" and "advisable". The deliberative process has much more to do with the latter than the former. Even "uncontroversial" amendments to the bylaws should be exposed to the fullest opportunity for debate and modification. Otherwise, the assembly runs the risk of turning "uncontroversial" into "unwise".