J. J.

Yes, if they could prove it. Now, what if has been my custom not to stop at that stop sing and the stop sign is removed?

I disagree. That they have been generally following RONR, is implied in the question; nothing the question suggests that the assembly has not generally been following RONR. The question does not state that the assembly wishes to discontinue referring to RONR when there is a procedural question. What ever the particular practice has been, no matter what the source of that practice is, should be adhered to, if it does not conflict with some written rule, until the majority decides otherwise. It is repeated usage that creates a practice, no matter if the reason for that usage is because it the assembly chooses to correctly follow an adopted rule, by misinterpreting an adopted rule, or because the society ignores, or is unaware of, an adopted rule. That practice creates a custom, though that custom would fall to the ground in many circumstances. The society can, by continuing to follow a practice in a circumstance, create a custom. That custom might fall to the ground, when challenged, because it conflicts with a written rule, including the parliamentary authority, but it is still a "customary practice." RONR does envision this, on p. 19, ll. 9-17. To give an analogy, assume that, day in and day out for a decade, you drive to an intersection with a stop sign. You stop all the time. While it is required by law, it is your practice to stop there; by doing this for a decade, it is your customary practice. One day, the authorities take down the stop sign; you are no longer required to stop there by law. You still have been stopping there for a decade, so that is still your customary practice. You may choose, in the future, to follow your customary practice and stop there; you may choose not to follow what has been your customary practice. It is, until that point, still your customary practice to stop at that stop sign. [I am waiting for someone to ask me, in effect, what happens if you have not been stopping at that stop sign. ]

A rule is written and adopted. A custom isn't and has a lower rank that an adopted rule. That is the difference. Custom is created by doing a practice repeatedly over time. Here is an example: An assembly has no parliamentary authority. It is said to operate under "general parliamentary law (p. xxix)." They have "particular practice" that conforms to the general parliamentary law, that has been used in the same way for a long period of time; the usage creates the custom. Following that, the assembly adopts RONR. At the very least, RONR is going to be identical to the general parliamentary law is some aspects. This "particular practice" is one of them; this custom is identical to the rule in RONR. Just because they have adopted a written rule (in RONR) does not mean that they have the assembly no longer have a usage of the rule. It means that the written rule and the custom, which is the practice developed by usage, are identical. Now, we take away RONR, it is repealed as a parliamentary authority; the society still has the usage of this particular practice. That usage creates the custom. Maybe an example will be better: 1. An assembly has no parliamentary authority. However, when a main motion is made, the chair requires a second. They have 10 meetings a year and has been around for 20 years. Each of those meetings has had multiple main motions considered; each time a main motion has been considered, a second was required. The practice of requiring a second has created a custom of requiring a second for main motions 2. RONR is adopted; the rule is that a main motion requires a second. It is still practice of the assembly to require a second for main motions.. 3. Five years later, the assembly repeals the adoption of RONR. What has the practice been? The practice is still that assembly requires a second for main motions. That practice has created a custom that the assembly require a second for main motions. That's off of page 19. It can also be expressed this way: Keep doing what you're doing: 1. Unless you decide not to, or; 2. Unless you have a rule to the contrary.

The book indicates "a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were a prescribed rule (p. 19, ll. 3-5)." If the assembly, has, for example, for along period of time, required that only a member that voted on the prevailing side may move to reconsider (on motions that can be reconsidered), they have developed this as a custom. That custom is identical to the rule in RONR, but by repeatedly following RONR on this point, it is still the custom. If the assembly were, for along period of time, required that any member may move to reconsider (on motions that can be reconsidered), the have developed that custom, though it will fall to the ground if challenged (p. 19, ll. 9-14). [And yes, that has very strong implications in this case.] Basically, if the assembly had been doing a "particular practice" the same way for a long time creates the custom; if the way of doing things happens to correspond to a written rule, ll. 9-14 does not apply. If the assembly did so because of a written rule, and the written rule goes away, the assembly has still been doing a "particular practice" the same way for a long time. The usage creates the custom, not the reason for the usage. I also find the 2000 edition of Mason, p. 36, persuasive. All that said, and as hinted at here, it is a terrible idea not to adopt a parliamentary authority. First, there can be questions about what the specific custom for a given practice. Second, it provides no stability of procedure; the majority can decide to a "particular practice" many different ways, possibly in the same meeting.

The use of any practice over time creates a custom of using that practice. It makes no difference if the rule was, at some point, written or not. Whether or not that custom will be binding on the assembly in a given instance is a different question.

They still have been following a particular practice for a number of years, even though it will no longer be a matter of following a written rule. There is a difference, though not much of one in practice, between some source being persuasive and some source being custom. If an assembly wishes to make a decision on procedure, and it has no written rule or custom governing the matter, it may find some parliamentary authority, or other text, persuasive. At that point, the assembly may choose to follow the persuasive text. It would do so by majority vote, but until that vote, there is no rule. If an assembly wishes to make a decision on procedure, and it has a custom, but no written rule, governing the matter, the assembly would follow the custom. The assembly may choose, at that point, decide not to follow the custom. It would do so by majority vote, and as a result, that unwritten rule is changed. The assembly has to do something not to follow that custom. There can be some situations where it is meaningful. If a parliamentary authority is adopted, it will not be an issue.

There is no rule regarding campaigning outside of the meeting. You cannot object to a nomination; you could raise a point of order if the member is ineligible, but you have not suggested that she is. Nominations are debatable, but the rules of debate would prohibit you accusing another member as this would reflect on the member's "conduct and character (P. 344)." There could be several "back door" methods. Some are dependent on your bylaws. It may be possible to make a motion to censure the individual, which would permit debate regarding the member's "conduct and character." There is no guarantee that you could do this before the election, if you try to do this at the election meeting. The motion would have to be seconded, and I think you will need very strong support to discuss it.

Even if they don't adopt RONR, they have a custom of using the rules in it. Until the assembly decides to do something different, those rules are binding. This group started by establishing RONR in its bylaws. Now it which not to have it formally adopted. The rules that RONR established are now the custom of this assembly. The assembly may to diverge from each rule established by custom by a majority vote.

Notice is required, but your bylaws should state how much notice.

And you would be correct.

The rules in RONR are binding until the majority says otherwise (p. 19, ll. 6-9).

Just for clarity, a special could permit dropping a nominee from the ballot (p. 441, fn.). However, the "dropped nominee" could still be written-in.

I would note that, even if the clause is removed, your group still has the custom of using RONR.

Not to disagree, but there some details. If the nonboard member did second a motion, a point of order would have to be raised at the time; if debate has begun it too late. The next meeting would obviously be too late. If this is a small board, seconds are not required.

I would note that some organizations require that some contact information be distributed. If you are a member and don't like that, you can resign or not to join in the first place. I am familiar with one group that does it.

If this has been done for a while, it might become custom.

I know of one meeting, prior to being hired by the group that broke into a near riot and ended about 10 minutes into the meeting.

Yes, under several circumsances: 1. Their next regular meeting is in March. 2. There next regular meeting is after March and they establish an adjourn meeting in March. 3. They have a regular meeting in February. They postpone the election to the February meeting, and when it becomes pending in Fenruary, they postpone it until March.

Assuming that the election takes place at a meeting, as it usually would, the members may postpone the election, when it is pending, subject to the rules for the Postpone To a Certain Time.

While is always a good idea to have a capable attorney, simply involving one does not make it a legal issue, as opposed to one of procedure.

I was treating that as a given, in this situation, based on Guest Bobby's statement, and assuming it is accurate: Had she attempted to vote and was denied, e.g. was deliberately not given a ballot, or not called in a roll call, my answer would be different. Had her vote not been counted when cast, e.g. she gave a ballot that was crumpled and tossed in a waste basket, my answer would be different.

Does the past president hold a board position because he is the Immediate Past President and the bylaws say that the Immediate Past President serves? If so, he can hold another position on the board, though he would not gain an additional vote.

Under RONR, a two-thirds vote means two thirds of the votes cast. 5 is more than 2/3 of 7. Unless your bylaws specify a vote two-thirds of the entire membership of the board, this was a two-thirds vote (see p. 403). I will also agree with Bruce that, even if there were not two-thirds vote, it is too late to raise a point of order. Since she was removed as president, the board should continue on, probably with a new president.

If no one prevented her from voting (or prevented her vote, if cast, from being counted), then she was permitted to vote, but chose not to cast a vote. If someone told her to jump in a lake, she would not have to jump in a lake.

Who told her that? Did she attempt to vote?