J. J.

Agreeing with Richard, Joshua, and Guest, I would first note that some motions cannot be rescinded.  A motion to "buy the president a gavel" cannot be rescinded one the gavel has been bought, for example.

You could adopt a special rule making a motion to Rescind/Amend Something Previously Adopted subject of the motion Objection To the Consideration of the Question.  That way, if only a small minority wants to try to rescind the motion, at least 2/3 can shut that down. 

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I think I do.

As I understand the facts, the motion as originally proposed was still pending at the time when the revised version was moved, considered, and voted on during the second of the three sessions of this three session meeting (or the second meeting of this three meeting session, whichever you prefer), and the original proposal was considered and voted on again (for the final time) during the third session while the revised version was also pending.

And I think that you might be right.  If the second meeting is part of the same session, the second motion could not be introduced.  Ideally, each meeting should be separate session, in this type of arrangement.

I would suggest that you might need to change your bylaws to make this more workable.   This article may be of some assistance:  

http://aipparl.org/pdf/ShiftMeetings.pdf

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

Like any question, there can be a number of hypothetical variations, which could change the result.  Speaking for myself, I tried not to answer questions that were not asked, in that format.  I will concede that the answer might have been different had there been a point of order and/or an appeal. 

Some of those can be answered by the next parliamentary research editor and his or her associates.  

 

There are several possible variations.

1.  What if, before the vote, a member moved "to suspend the rules that require the amendment to be adopted by a two thirds vote?"   What if that motion was subject to a point of order and an appeal at the time?

2.  What if, after the adoption of an amendment a member raised a Point of Order that a 2/3 vote was needed, but, after appeal, the Point is determined not well taken? 

3.  What if someone wants the vote recapitulated, or recalculated (the next meeting being within the quarterly time interval)?  What if the meeting is being video taped and video records who stood?

Certainly, there were more questions that the could answer, but those were not asked.   Personally, I am not for writing expansive answers and trying to establish a global principle.  .

4 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, and as I said in my initial post, I certainly agree with the answer provided in Question 51.

Like any question, there can be a number of hypothetical variations, which could change the result.  Speaking for myself, I tried not to answer questions that were not asked, in that format.  I will concede that the answer might have been different had there been a point of order and/or an appeal. 

Some of those can be answered by the next parliamentary research editor and his or her associates.  

First, I will note that the first line of the answer to Question 49 in incorrect.  It should read "The club does not need to use Amend Something Previously Adopted or Rescind."   A correction should be published in the next issue.

On 7/17/2017 at 2:31 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 I suspect that the conventional wisdom today is that a rule in the bylaws specifying the vote required for the adoption of a motion is clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order, and can be suspended. 

 

 

I think that your assumption here is correct.

There are any number of questions that Answer 49 did not answer, largely because those questions were not asked.  The question here is not if there is any way for the society to fix its mistake.   It is, can this mistake be fixed by a non-timely point of order.

As I have indicated, PL may not properly describe the current general parliamentary law as it is codified in the current edition of RONR.   I have said that in cases where PL supports a position I hold, so it is not a situational answer.

In both of the PL Questions 98 and 99, there was a ruling either directly by the chair or the chair acquiesced to a statement from a parliamentarian.  That is not the situation given in the question used in the NP.    There was no objection in Question 51, of any type, at the time. 

On 6/27/2017 at 10:09 AM, George Mervosh said:

Yes, I think I would.  Harm to the rights of members or things which could give rise to a continuing breach are my red lines no matter which hat I'm wearing at a meeting.

 

 

I have myself agreeing with George more frequently, and this no exception.  If the chair, for example, rules that a motion to Lay on the Table requires a two-thirds vote, and it gets a two-third's vote, should I, as a member, raise a point of order?   What if the chair entertains a motion Objection To the Consideration of the Question raised in regard to an incidental main motion, that gets substantially more than a two-thirds vote?   I'd say that, as a member there is no obligation to correct the chair.

What if the chair rules that those 20 members that have not paid their dues yet, but were not dropped from membership, cannot vote?   Yes, even if I'm just a member, I would raise a point of order, even if I were sure that those 20 members would vote the opposite of how I would. 

I am also mindful of the admonition on p. 250, ll. 11-15.  

I'm guessing that do not vote at a meeting.  Is that correct.

11 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

No. An organization is entirely free to require that nominations be made in advance of the election meeting.

And, it could create an absentee right that could not be suspended.  If there was a properly adopted rule preventing nominations from the floor, this could be a problem. 

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

Mr. Katz posited a situation in which the bylaws specify "that no write-ins are permitted". I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Gerber that such a provision makes a candidate ineligible for election by write-in, but only Mr. Katz has read these bylaws in their entirety, and so maybe we should ask him. 

In any event. I also agree with Mr. Gerber when he says that, even if this provision means what it says and makes write-in candidates ineligible for election, it won't be very effective unless combined with an effective prohibition against nominations from the floor. A combination of the two, however, can be deadly.

I do believe that rule could be not suspended, and the "election" of someone by write-in votes would be null and void, but I might not consider saying that the person is "ineligible" to be elected.   Looking at Mr. Gerber's response, he might not be saying that either.   It might be more of a semantic argument. 

In addition, there might be several different grounds for why write-ins could not be credited.

On the second point, yes, this would create a "deadly" combination if there was a rule against nominations from the floor.

35 minutes ago, Silvertomster said:

What does it mean to say that a meeting is "valid", if the actions taken at he meeting are null and void? (I realize that there's some small number of things that you can do without a quorum, but what would constitute an "invalid" meeting?)

In this case, it would mean that the meeting was properly called.   If a group of members got together and said, without authority, "We a having this meeting," it would not be a valid meeting.  If the bylaws required  30  days notice for a meeting, and only 10 days notice was given, that would not be a valid meeting. 

On 6/9/2017 at 2:22 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

By that standard, all rules relating to the election of officers could be suspended, which is obviously not the case. A rule that makes a candidate ineligible for election by write-in is not merely a rule of order, although it might not be very effective in substance unless combined with a limitation on the ability to reopen nominations.

It  would depend on how the rule/bylaw was written.

I would treat a rule, "That write-in votes shall not be credited," differently than "Only persons nominated shall be eligible to hold the office of ____."

59 minutes ago, Silvertomster said:

RONR provides good tools for limiting debate on an actual motion, but what about member questions, comments, even - alas - speeches that often occur during the Reports of Officers? What tools do the chair and assembly have to effectively manage this part of the agenda? Our agenda contains a specified order, but not specified times or durations for each item.

Is a 2/3 vote appropriate, for example, to close or limit question and discussion time during the officers' reports? Or is a majority enough? Or can the chair simply put a lid on things unilaterally? (A stage hook has not customarily been available, but sometimes we wish it were!) 

An officer, while speaking, may decline to yield for a question  (p. 295, ll. 9-14).  Even if the speaker consents to the interruption, "comments that are not questions should be ruled out of order. 

On 6/2/2017 at 5:34 PM, Rev Ed said:

Okay - yes I concur.  But that would be in the Minutes.   However, at the same time we are not lawyers - it is quite possible that a court could order the Minutes to be produced in order determine if the resolution or motion contained anything defamatory.  But we cannot twll the original poster if that would occur or not.

I was merely noting that the minutes could be defamatory because a motion this is defamatory may be included in them. 

3 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

But the Minutes of any meeting, under RONR, do not contain what was said but what was decided.  Therefore, there should be no defamation contained in the Minutes. 

 

The society could adopt a resolution that was defamatory,and that would be recorded in the minutes. 

46 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

It doesn't protect the member if he can't have access to all records to prove his/her innocence. I don't know how many thousands of organizations use RONR for handling disciplinary matters. But I do think there's a difference between somebody who gets into a bar fight because he's had too much to drink and needs a cooling off period and somebody who's accused financial malfeasance or some other breach. Mr. Martin's comment that the assembly does 'the best it can' is probably the main truism. 

Harpet

Well, if  everything is in executive session, nobody outside of the society will know.

Further, the society cannot establish legal guilt, or innocence. 

If the member is kicked out, the society can't stop him from talking. 

7 minutes ago, Guest Harper said:

Can the accused? And can the accused demand that it be made available? It seems to me that the rules are designed, at least on the secrecy issue, to protect the powers that be in the organization. My experience has been that transparency is the best way to insure ethical conduct among management.

Cheers

Harper

My experience, which has been vicarious, is just the opposite.     In cases where there have been public statements, I have also seen suits filed. 

An assembly cannot determine criminal  guilt and may discipline for matters that are not criminal.    The rule protects the member by not publicly accusing him of some perceived wrongdoing.    The assembly is protected by not engaging in actions that could constitute libel.

1 hour ago, Guest Kyle K said:

Hello and thank you all in advance for your help and advice on this matter. I am currently the VP of our local Jeep club, our current president has stepped down. We had an board meeting and everyone verily agreed to reinstate the runner up from the begging of this years elections. (Now the drama kicks in) Now we have members of the board stating that I am to become the next president and that we need to have a re-vote on who is to run for VP. I do not want to be president, I am very happy at my current roll as VP. So how dose this work? I don't the the position and no interest as I am out of town and can not make the monthly meeting. I would like to see the past president run for the remaining time left this year which he has agreed to do and was voted on, however there needs hard proof of what ever can be helpful in leaving me in my roll as VP and getting the past president into office. The twist, now the current president that stepped down wants to come back and finish his term creating another issue to this mess. Can some one please help with getting this back into control. I need help finding a rule in the RONR to keep in as VP and getting someone else as president or a way to move all officers up to fill the top positions and then allow for others to vote in the lower officer rolls. This is a mess and I am stuck in the middle, it's becoming a power struggle between the clubs officers. I could really use some solid proof to show away to resolve this conflict.

Thanks,
Kyle

You are the president now.  How is the vacancy in the position of vice president filled?

It could be possible to for  you to resign as president, after the new vice president has been seated.  That person will then become president.   Perhaps you could then fill the vacancy created in the office of vice president. 

5 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, then, you oughta reduce the fuss somewhat by admitting that disclosure of this information to the assembly is also an essential element.  

Disclosing of what information? 

22 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Well I certainly believe those two elements are absolutely essential and cannot be superseded by a special rule of order, and as far as I understood it, the Q&A doesn't state anything which contradicts that.  I also don't think the Q&A in any way states having a proper tellers report isn't essential.  It's the last part of your post that the Q&A is addressing.  

   Yes, and the Q & A deals with the specific acts of announcing the vote totals, and the recording of those totals in the minutes.  It says nothing about removing the ability to count the vote.  The Q & A said, " This committee recognizes that there are certain rights associated with voting by a secret, as opposed to a signed, ballot.  No motion can be made that force the disclosure of how any member voted (p. 413, ll. 1-4)."  I think that answers Dan's first question.

To be clear, and to avoid a straw-man argument, the Q & A deal only with the reading of the vote totals by the tellers, the repeating of those vote totals by the chair, and the recording of those vote totals in the minutes.  It is implied that was a count.

23 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

It looks like a "should" rule to me, so I would rule the point of order not well taken.  Ultimately, it is a matter of bylaws interpretation.  I agree with Greg Goodwiller's post and would interpret that particular "should" rule as being advisory in nature.  Others might disagree.  That's what appeals from the ruling of the chair are for.

I'll disagree only slightly and say that it is up to the society to make the determination. 

2 hours ago, Ann Rempel said:

If something must be authorized and is not authorized, then it is prohibited. According to RONR, proxy voting is prohibited if it isn't authorized.

As I said, I do not disagree.  That does not change the fact that there is nothing that says proxy voting is prohibited in the bylaws.  That is not the same as saying proxy voting is permitted.  

27 minutes ago, Ann Rempel said:

If the bylaws are silent about proxy voting and RONR is the parliamentary authority, proxy voting is prohibited (unless authorized by statute, of course). The Sample Bylaws state that RONR is the parliamentary authority. Therefore, no proxy voting. Period.

I don't disagree.  However, no one can point to a section of those bylaws that says, in so many words, that proxy voting is prohibited.  Proxy voting cannot be used because RONR specifically states that the bylaws must authorize proxy voting (p. 428, l. 30-35). 

By adopt RONR in Article VIII, the society agreed to do two things, effectively.  First, it agreed to use RONR is cases where in applicable and is "not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order that the Society may adopt (p.   588, ll. 1-8)."   In less formal terms, it says that RONR, filled the gaps in the absence of a bylaw or a special rule

Second, it agrees to to take certain actions, unless it authorizes those actions in the bylaws; that is indicated in a footnote of p. 16.  Proxy voting is an example.

Okay, is there anything, in so many words and in the bylaws, that says that the vote totals in an election has must be announced?  Not that I can find, or that has been cited.  There is in RONR, but not in the bylaws.

The assembly has agreed that they will use RONR when they are not inconsistent with the bylaws or with a special rule of order.  There is a special rule of order that says, "The vote totals in elections shall not be announced or recorded in the minutes."   That does conflict with RONR, but the society says that special rules will supersede any conflicting rules in RONR.  With the exception noted in the footnote, RONR says that these special rules will supersede RONR.

So, is there anything in the bylaws that says, specifically, that the vote total must be announced?  No.  While RONR provides that the results of a ballot vote will be announce, the bylaws do not require that.  Before we look at what RONR says, we have to look at special rules.  The special rule say "The vote totals in elections shall not be announced or recorded in the minutes."  However, RONR does say that some certain actions most be authorized in the bylaws.  Is there anything in RONR that says, if you want to omit the vote totals in an election, you must put that into the bylaws?  No.  It could say that, but even under elections of officers section, it doesn't talk about the count being announced at all.

And, finally, we have another problem.   If there is a plain vanilla motion pending, can a motion be adopted, "that the vote be by ballot, but that the totals not be announced?"  While I think that is unusual, it looks in order to adopt according to p. 283,  ll. 9-11.

2 hours ago, Ann Rempel said:

But the Sample Bylaws Article VIII states that RONR is the parliamentary authority. Therefore, proxy voting is not permitted unless the bylaws or statute require it. The express wording does exist.

Ann, the question was where, in the sample bylaws, is that express wording. 

Also note that I specifically exempted a statutory requirement.

On 5/26/2017 at 9:29 PM, flipper92 said:

 There is a clause in our bylaws that states that if no one receives a majority, then the top two candidates go to a second round, but that presumes three or more people vying for a single position instead of three slots, which is what we have here.

If this clause is the bylaws, it would have to be obeyed, despite it being unusual and possibly unworkable.    I really that, for this, you should contact a parliamentarian to look at your bylaws. 

Perhaps this will help you understand the  question.  If you were to ask me where, in the same sample bylaws, that it says proxy voting is prohibited, I would say that there is no place in those bylaws that says proxy voting is prohibited.  That does not mean that I think proxy voting is, or could be, permitted (unless required by statute).         It is simply that the express wording does not exist.