J. J.

No. Very little of RONR applies outside of a meeting.

That is left to your bylaws.

"Great Importance" is the eye of the beholder. To me, if nobody objects, the motion is not one of "great importance" in the eyes of the assembly.

Yes.

I missed this. Yes. Whatever the chair rules, his decision can be appealed; he can also submit point of order to the assembly. What the assembly will do, one way or another, is determine if there is a custom of using the five minute procedure. They can say that there is no existing custom and that there is no limitation on debate. They can find that there is a custom, and that chair should stop the speech at five minutes. If I was chairing, I would initially stop debate at 5 minutes. That is the way the assembly has been doing it, and nobody, at that point, has given the chair the specific instruction not to do it that way or to do it some other way.

If the assembly decides that, at any level, it will do something different than the custom, that ends the custom. These will end the custom. A point of order is raised that the custom of limiting debate is no longer binding. The chair rules a the point of order well taken. That would end the custom. A point of order is raised that the custom of limiting debate is no longer binding. The chair rules against a point of order, and a successful appeal is made. The assembly adopts a rule that sets a limit on debate, that is different from the custom. The assembly adopts the motion that "the custom of limiting debate shall no longer be in force." Over time, the chair and the assembly ignore the rule repeatedly; the custom, eventually, is not in force. Over time, the chair and the assembly ignore the rule, but follows another practice in its place. Eventually that will replace the custom of limiting debate to five minutes with a new custom. You could also adopt a rule that "Only written rules adopted by the assembly shall be used to govern parliamentary procedure." That would have to be special rule or placed in the bylaws. This would end all custom based practices. Rescind would be out of order; that applies to main motions, not a customary practices.

In a large part the assembly should give direction on how the procedure is followed. The assembly not so given any additional directions; it has not even said "We are no longer limiting debate to one five minute speech, per member, on each debatable motion." The assembly has not changed its instructions. 1. I think general parliamentary law is, well, general. There may not be any general parliamentary law setting the limits of debate. General parliamentary law is nebulous, and even if we find a something, it may not part of that general parliamentary law. 2. Ranks all the sources of rules relating to parliamentary procedure are stated in RONR. At the top of the list is the corporate charter, then a constitution, bylaws, special rules of order, the parliamentary authority, and finally custom. General parliamentary law is not on that list. That is because the rank of general parliamentary law is lower than anything on that list. If something from higher source conflicts with something in general parliamentary law, that higher source is controlling. 3. Sources that do give general parliamentary law a place in the hierarchy of the rules, place it below custom. I find that persuasive. 4. Parliamentary procedure, which we are really talking about, is general parliamentary law, "as it is followed in any given assembly," along with any rules the assembly has adopted (p. xxx) While custom is not adopted, it is created by the assembly. It is certainly, by its nature, is something that is followed by the assembly, as are higher level rules. The assembly has chosen to use custom to govern some procedure, at some level. And in the case of the thermostat, the officers and employees will not act without an order; they obey the rules. The thermostat will remain at 68 degrees.

I do not agree. The ballot was interpreted improperly, but that interpretation was still not the ballot. I have to keep coming back to p. 413. Basically the chair is declaring a plurality a majority when it was not. That is my answer to Josh as well. Maybe you could answer this; this is where I'm having the problem. If instead of needing a majority to be adopted, what if it needed a unanimous vote of those voting and the chair declared this vote unanimous, would that be a breach of a continuing nature? I do understand that there is a problem of "belling the cat." Somebody has a raise of order, or object, at some point.

Then you tell me what elected that person chairman? Normally, I would say a vote, but that is not the case here.

It depends on that the error is. If the error causes the choice to be made by a method other than a ballot, yes, assuming that the vote is to be by ballot.. The chair could improperly ask for a for/against on each choice and take that vote by ballot; that is not a problem. That is the first one that comes to mind. A point of order or a vote on appeal is not a vote on one of these choices. A motion to postpone the pending motion (or election), is not a vote on these choices. Would you disagree that if the chair would have called for a voice vote on this motion, then this could be challenged at a later date?

Because the assembly has changed how the rule can be modified, but they have not changed how the rule functions. I'm going to use the Five Minute rule as an example. The assembly says, when repealing rule, "this rule will not be binding." It does not say, "and we are going to handle debate this way" or "we are no longer going to use the Five Minute rule." The assembly has not said anything about what the assembly will do, in that instance, nor has it prohibited use of the Five Minute rule. It is clear that the Five Minute rule does not conflict with any adopted rule. Following the Five Minute rule also what the assembly has customarily done. The assembly has not changed anything about the length of debate itself; it has changed the method for extending or limiting debate, but it has not changed the actual length of debate. Perhaps this example of standing rule will work. A society has adopts a standing rule that "the thermostat be set at 68 degrees." The rule violates no other rule of the asembly. The thermostat is set at 68 degrees, in accordance with the rule. After three sessions the rule "the thermostat be set at 68 degrees," is properly rescinded. No other rule dealing with the thermostat has been adopted. What is the temperature set at? My answer is 68 degrees.

I think you missed something. Jodi made no claim that this person had not attended two meetings. The exact quote is: Additionally, this person has not attended any member meetings since becoming a Candidate member. (Emphasis added)

First, if any of those sources conflict with the bylaws, the bylaws prevail. The bylaws give criteria for membership for this class of membership, and under #4 pp. 589-90, no from a lower source (at least internal to the society), can create criteria for membership. The person is eligible under that bylaw, if he meets the qualifications for being a member. In order to meet the criteria for being a member of this class, the quotes lists criteria, one of those is that the potential member has "attended at least two member meetings." You have indicated that he has not attended any meetings since becoming a candidate member. If the potential member has not attended two meetings in his life, he clearly is not eligible to be a member; there is no ambiguity in that. There is ambiguity on if this criteria means that the potential member must have attended the 2 meetings while his status was that of a candidate member or if he had to attend 2 meetings at some point in his life. That is ambiguous, and needs to be interpreted (p. 588, #1). You might be able to clear up that ambiguity by looking at the rest of the bylaws. It is up to the assembly to determine which interpretation should prevail. Either, based on the information provided, would be a reasonable interpretation.

Those are analogies. I do not believe that the assembly is capable, in a procedural sense, of making the decision in this case without making that decision by ballot, p. 413, ll. 1-4. If the assembly did not take some action, then nobody was elected. I would not agree with the premise that no one was elected.

I think that there is a difference between no rule, and a rule against doing something. Repealing a rule is not the same as the assembly saying, "We will not do what this rule mandates." It is different from assembly saying, "We are no longer bound by a rule from that particular source." To go to the Five Minute Rule example, if it would be repealed, and the assembly decided it was in no way binding on the society, there is nothing to prevent the assembly from adopting a Five Minute Rule in regard to debate on a specific motion or for the entire session. If a society would remove a clause mandating RONR as parliamentary authority from its bylaws, that is not the same as saying "We will not do what RONR mandates." It is saying, "We are no longer bound by RONR, when it is being applied as our adopted parliamentary authority."

I do not agree. The chair declared 6 was selected, and the assembly agreed to that declaration, by its silence. This was a ballot vote. Because this is a ballot vote, the assembly cannot agree to its declaration by anything except a ballot vote. If there was a motion that "to suspend the rules and elect by plurality," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. If there was a motion "to suspend the rules and declare that 6 is selected," made after the chair's announcement, and that motion was otherwise in order, that motion could only be adopted by ballot. If the chair asked for unanimous consent, a voice vote (for some reason), or a standing vote to adopt either motion, adopting that motion would violate p. 413, ll. 1-4. It would be the same as a motion to make the vote unanimous that was not unanimous (though that has a different adoption threshold). You could substitute the words "majority vote" for the word "unanimous" on p. 413, ll. 4-9.

The point of order could go either way. The chair could rule that while it has been a customary practice, that it is no longer in force. The chair could rule that it is a customary practice and that it should be followed. The assembly can reverse either. The assembly can also adopt a motion to extend debate. Let's say the point of order is, "That debate should not be limited to one speech of five minutes per member on each debatable motion." If I am making the ruling, my ruling that would be, "It is the custom that debate be limited one speech per member of no longer than 5 minutes on each debatable question. Until the assembly chooses to vary from this custom, it should be followed. This decision is subject to appeal. The decision will create a precedent." In many cases I would submit the point of order to the assembly. If that point of order is found not well taken, the next time this comes up, I will following that precedent, but I would note that this decision is subject to appeal. It is entirely possible that the precedent could fall to the ground. The last paragraph is one of the reasons why it is not a good idea to conduct business without written rules.

Okay, the assembly voted for chairman by ballot; a majority is required. The votes 3 for one candidate, 6 for another, 5 for the third. The chair declared that 6 was elected, and there was no objection from the assembly. I submit that 6 was not elected by ballot. 6 was elected by the chair declare him elected and the assembly not objecting. 6 was elected by unanimous consent. The fact that there was a ballot at some point in this process does not mean that the action to select the chairman was taken by ballot.

On that, I disagree. The assembly can decide to something else, obviously. Hypothetically, the society has a rule that says, "Debate on all debatable motions shall be limited to one speech of 5 minutes for each member." There are no other that conflict; the society has not adopted RONR, nor does it use RONR by custom. The rule has been followed for decades. The assembly repeals this rule. At a meeting, somebody gains the floor, and begins to run over 5 minutes. Can a member raise a point of order that there is the five minute custom that is binding. Yes, but whatever the chair's decision, that can be appealed. What ever the chair, or the assembly on referral or appeal, decides is the rule, in this case a precedent. It depends what the event is and if it is subject to a point of order.

I am specifically trying not to cite that possibility of bylaw requiring a ballot. I do not agree with you that vote on the choice of B is by ballot. The chair, with the consent of the assembly, chose B. That is where there is a fundamental difference. That choice would have to have been made by ballot. The assembly lacks the ability to choose B, unless it chooses B by using a ballot. The method was that the chair declared B adopted, and the assembly consented, but not with a ballot.

Mr. Homemann, I am not speaking either of those cases ( I will just below). The question, as I see it, is could the assembly adopt a motion "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted" without using a ballot. If the assembly cannot do that, does this create a breach of a continuing nature? My answer is, yes this creates a breach of a continuing nature based on p. 251, e (ll. 21-23). I have no doubt that point of order could be raised "regarding the conduct of a ballot vote," or that "taking a voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," could be raised at the time. I would agree that the "voice vote voice vote on the validity of such a point of order," would not require a ballot vote. My only disagreement is if that point of order is required to be timely.

Because the society has followed that rule, what the do is a customary practice. I'm positing that why an assembly follows a certain practice has no relationship to what the assembly's practice is. I positing that even though the society follows a certain practice because it is mandated by some written rule, it is still created a customary practice. Normally, that makes no difference, because the written rule mandates the same thing as a customary practice. The question is, what happens when that written rule goes away and is not replaced.

It is not proper to rescind a motion that was defeated, currently at least. I would opine that rescinding something that does not exist has no effect. It would be proper to make the motion, "The board will consider a bid from ABC Lanscaping to maintain the landscape area." Motions no longer under the control of the assembly or that were rejected, may be renewed at a future session, which is usually the next meeting.

Why do you thing it is important to know why a particular rule is adhered to? The only thing I can see in that regard is to know if the particular rule has a higher "source" than some other rule. In other words, the statement , "We follow Rule 1 because it is our custom," would only be importance if we are trying to change Rule 1, or if we are looking at Rule 1 to compare it to another rule. I am not talking about either of those thing.

It would be the same thing here. You can treat a continuing breach as something similar to a rule that cannot be suspended. In other words, you cannot suspend someone's right to vote, except through disciplinary action; if someone is prevented from voting, that act creates a continuing breach. In other words, if a rule can be suspended, its violation does not create a continuing beach. If the rule cannot be suspended, its violation creates a continuing breach. Assuming that there are three choices, A, B and C, but this is not an election. They are choices to fill blanks. The vote is not taken by ballot but is counted. Choice A gets 3 votes, B gets 6 and C gets 5. Could someone move, "that the rule be suspended to declare choice B adopted." Yes, and it wouldn't need to have a particular method of voting different from any other motion requiring a 2/3 vote. Assume that everything else is the same, but the vote is required to be by ballot. At some point, the assembly mandated that the vote this particular blank would be by ballot. A member makes a motion, "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted." To vote on choice B, the assembly requires a ballot, because the assembly previously said, we will vote on a motion that fills a blank by ballot. I see similarity between a motion "that the rules be suspended to declare choice B adopted" and "that the rules be suspended to unanimously declare choice B adopted." In either case, a ballot is needed.