J. J.

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.

And a member moving to make a ballot vote unanimous may not have voted against the candidate. So long as that example is in the book, it creates a problem. I agree that, because the ballots were destroyed, a recount is not possible. If we were talking about electing someone other than to an office, and if there was no ballot, I would agree with your position. The position of chairman may not be an office established by the bylaws. Assuming this not an election of officers, and the was no ballot, and the result the same, would a motion "to suspend the rules and declare #6 chairman," be in order? I think it would. In the same case, except that the vote was by ballot, would the motion "to suspend the rules and declare #6 chairman," be in order? Yes, but a ballot is need. What if the not an election of officers, but a ballot is ordered. The result of the vote is the same. Would the motion to suspend the "to suspend the rules and declare #6 elected unanimously," be in order? Yes, if not dilatory, but the vote would have to be taken by ballot.

I think that it would expose a member's vote, if he were to object at the time. Even now, it would tend to do so. Based on p. 413, ll. 1-4, I would say invalid. Using a ballot creates when there is something other than a yes or no vote, a right to secrecy in voting and a right to cast write-ins. We also do not know if these ballots were required to be taken by the bylaws, or if these were officers. Either or both would strengthen that position.

Because this by ballot (p. 413, ll. 1-4), the result is null and void. Anything that would have been done to make a plurality acceptable, even if possible, would have to have been done by ballot. See also p. 264, ll. 6-13, p. 251, e.. The chair, during a meeting, should rule the vote null and void. If not, a point of order should be raised, and appealed, if necessary.

Was the vote by ballot?

There may be problem. It is possible for those special rules, in part, to violate the bylaws and constitution, as they exist before the revision. If they do not, you may adopt them.

There is a way of doing it, but it in difficult to draft a bylaw permitting it, harder to carry out, and very time consuming. The process is and would have to be authorized in the bylaws: 1. Chair puts the question on the main motion to be decided. This is after debate and any subsidiary motions have been processed. 2. The members at the meeting cast ballots 3. The meeting adjourns. It either adjourns to the next regular meeting (if that will be within the quarterly time interval), or to an adjourned meeting 4. The ballots are mailed out to all members that have not already voted. They are instruction to return them by a certain date. 5. A committee of tellers receives the ballots and counts them. 6. At the next meeting, the tellers report and the chair announces the result. It is possibly, but it is not easy. In the case of an election, the nominations would have had to have been closed before anything has been sent. Because of some problems implementing this, I would suggest making it a straight forward absentee ballot.

Not in the same way is correct, IMO. In this case that type of rule RONR would be would change; it is no longer the adopted parliamentary authority.. There is another problem. It is very difficult to determine if some practice has become customary.

Yes, special or standing rules could be offered as a package, but a single member, could call for a separate vote on and individual rule(pp. 274-5). Each proposed rule is a main motion.

I agree, though it well for the text to read, "When the bylaws provide that an officer shall be ex officio a member of a committee or of all committees, the officer ... ." At the end of that line, adding "(see also 579-80)."

It seems clear, but if any member had any question about it, he could easily email back and ask.

I think that, without unanimous consent , that these two will have to handled separately from the bylaws.

Well, if they wish to name it a constitution, they can. Actually, in may be clearer to the members if it is called a constitution. From what I understand the revision is technically to replace the existing constitution and the society wishes repeal the existing bylaws. I think they might be confused about what is being revised. I really don't to confuse this situation anymore than is necessary.

A. whatever the constitution requires for amend is what you would use (p. 593-4). B. This sounds like it is bylaw revision, so division is not permitted. C. 1. I suggest that you treat it like a revision and that you effectively come up with a new constitution, including the parts you bring in from your bylaws. You will be voting on that section by section. 2. While the new constitution in being considered, the assembly adopt a proviso that follows: "Resolved, that, upon the adoption of this constitution, the bylaws are repealed." (p. 597) 3. If you want to establish parts of the bylaws as a special rules, I suggest that you adopt them as special rules as part of a "package" of special rules and that you adopt the whole package with the proviso: "Resolved, that, these special rules shall be effective upon the adoption of the proposed revision of the Constitution that is being considered at this meeting." Do read pages 592-99 of RONR.

Page 662, ll. 9-17, also gives very broad grounds for disciplinary action and do indicate that these grounds would not have to be in the bylaws. To overrule this, I think that there would almost have to have a rule saying like, "Only the following offenses shall be grounds for disciplinary action..." and then list what they are. IMO, unless that type of clause is in the bylaws, an organization with Jerry Sandusky and/or Larry Nassar as a member can remove either (or both) of them from membership.

I would suggest you do a bit more redacting, and take the ones that have there down. There is identifying information (and yes, I have found identifying information that should have been redacted in FBI background checks). The first line says: "A quorum of only those present ... " A quorum is the number of members needed to conduct a meeting, so that line is nonsense. Unless your bylaws say differently, the board, or some group of members, are bound by the decisions of the member's meeting (p. 483, ll. 9-13). Technically, the people forcing football on the group could be subject to disciplinary action.

To determine if something is a customary practice, why do need to know whether or not that practice violates a rule? I'm not suggesting that if a customary practice is superseded by something else or not. I am suggesting that, if the assembly has a particular practice that it has followed for a long time, whatever else it is, it is a customary practice. To go back to the stop sign example let's assume that there are two intersection. For the last ten years, I have stopped at the first intersection, and not stopped at the second. To determine what my customary practice is, do you need to know if there is a stop sign on either or both of those intersections? My answer is no; you don't need to even know if there is a stop sign involved to determine what my customary practice is.

Here is where I disagree. The rule is "stop at the stop sign." Assume that I stop at the intersection because there is a stop sign. Does that change what my customary practice is? My customary practice is to stop at that intersection; it makes no difference why that has becomes customary practice. My customary practice happens to correspond to the rule . I can develop a customary practice that does not conform to the rules; I can, repeatedly, over time, not stop at the intersection with a stop sign. That customary practice would "fall to the ground," when challenged. That does not change the fact that it is a customary practice. The creation of a customary practice is dependent on my actions, not my motivations.

Agreeing, the chair may ask if there are objections to a motion and, if none are voiced, the chair declares the motion adopted(pp. 54-6) There is a Latin phrase "Qui tacet consentit, " which means "Silence assumes consent." However, that phrase does not appear the 4th through 11th editions, Parliamentary Law and Parliamentary Practice, so far as I can tell.

What is that common or general parliamentary law, and can repeated practice modify (or supersede) whatever general parliamentary law is?