J. J.

3 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I don't think the specific rights of the members has anything to do with it. The question is whether the bylaws have been complied with. A requirement of a "ballot vote" has a very specific meaning; it doesn't just mean that ballots were employed in the vote somehow or another.

I'm not sure, in that case, that the requirement for a ballot vote can be stretched into an announcement of the vote totals, or for the vote totals to be included in the minutes.  I think that both the announcement and placing those results in the minutes would be rule in the nature of a rule of order as they relate “to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of the officers in that connection (p. 15, ll. 9-11).” 

Also, those same requirements would occur if the vote was taken by roll call.  I would not have a problem with the assembly adopting a rule that the results would not have to be announced or placed in the minutes in the case of a roll call vote (providing this was not a representative assembly), even if the bylaws provided for a roll call vote.

5 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

No, this isn't a bylaws interpretation question, it's an RONR interpretation question.

Assume that the bylaws are identical to those on pages 583-588.

Same  answer, except  I do not believe that it is a matter bylaw interpretation.. 

Simply put, it becomes a question of if the assembly trusts the tellers and the chair sufficiently to rely on their count.  Would that trust, including a trust that all tellers and chairs in the future were not going to make honest mistakes, be misplaced?  I would say so and certainly would not recommend this rule.

There are many rights associated with balloting, but a right to know how the assembly voted collectively does not appear to be one of them.  Even if it were assumed to be a basic right of an individual member, I do not see anything that even suggests that such a right could only be curtailed by a bylaw provision. 

As you are aware, some organization use black and white balls in voting; some of those provide that a lower number of votes are needed to reject the proposal, or the candidate.  For example, three "black balls" are needed to deny admission to a proposed member.  In that case, the chair could simply announce that there are sufficient black balls to defeat the question.

I would add that I am a proponent of the adage of "trust, but verify," and, as such would neither recommend of vote for  such a rule.

On 5/19/2017 at 11:27 AM, krishna Reddy said:

I have both books one from RONR 11th edition and the 3rd edition of Websters RONR. I find the information below very useful. I could only find few points similar in the 11th edition of RONR>  in our religious organization where we have constitution separate from bylaws. The board can amend the bylaws. However, they made few bylaws that are not in conformity with the constitution articles. Our C & BL committee recommended the board to have the bylaws approved y the assembly. One member is contesting that Board had the authority and assemble does not have authority. Your thoughts please!

WHERE DOES IT SAY WE CAN’T DO IT?   Organizations today are faced with many problems. One of the biggest problems is officers or members trying to do something that is not provided for in the governing documents. They justify their actions by the question, “Where does it say we can’t do it?” A very important point concerning governing documents is that they are written in the positive. They define what officers, members and committees can do, not what they can’t do. By assigning duties, setting dates of meetings and previous notice, specifying nominating and election procedures, and other bylaw requirements, the governing documents are limiting action. The members must act within the boundaries set by their adopted rules. If something is not mentioned in the bylaws or parliamentary authority, they cannot do it unless they change their governing documents. So when there is a question whether something can be done, the question to be answered is: “Where does it say we can do it?” Answer this and the problem will be resolved in the correct way.

 

Robert McConnell Productions. Webster's New World Robert's Rules of Order Simplified and Applied, Third Edition (p. 299). Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Kindle Edition.

My thoughts are that this misstates the general parliamentary law, at least as worded.

An assembly would need a specific requirement in the bylaws to hold a picnic or take a position on some issue, if this claim was correct.  Generally, an assembly can do anything that is not prohibited, at least by implication, in its bylaws. 

13 hours ago, Brad B. said:

Legislative body reviewing public policy issue.

This will probably be included in the rules for committees in general or in the motion authorizing the committee to presumably hire another member.  I would probably treat this as suspension of the rules to permit this process, or authorization from the parent body. 

23 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

This is a hypothetical - but arises from  concern over actions that are anticipated .

A member ( X)  makes a motion that the Chair refuses to accept on the basis that it is" dilatory" and  an attempt to unreasonably  delay and frustrate  the legitimate purposes of the meeting . A second  member  ( Y) then raises a "point of order " and when asked  by the Chair to state the point, says :

 "The chair has no right to make such a ruling  as our bylaws are clear - "All questions shall  be decided by a majority vote " - accordingly whether or not the  motion is viable should be decided by the assembly and not the Chair ."

.

 

D.Llama

 

I think, at this point, the chair should explain to Member Y that he may raise an appeal the chair's decision on Member X's motion; it  might end the back and fourth, even if the chair would rule the appeal dilatory.  

I would say that, in a society that adopted RONR, the society would either have to define the type of majority in text, or use the RONR definition for the particular term.  For example, if the bylaws use the words "good majority," and didn't define it in text, it would mean "majority" in RONR.  If they used, "the majority of the members present," that would mean what RONR defines as that.

A plurality is not necessarily a majority, so I doubt if "simple majority" would mean "plurality," unless the bylaws went on to describe it as such. 

Yes.  And the person could be nominated after declining at the same meeting. 

19 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I think such a motion would be in order but others might disagree. It is a close call. The question is whether the new motion presents substantially the same motion as was presented before. I am on my cell phone and do not have RONR are with me at the moment to give you a citation.

It would have been better perhaps to have tried to amend the original motion to either substitute $300 for $500 or to create a blank, but that is not absolutely required.

A ruling of the chair as to whether the new motion is or is not in order can of course be appealed to the assembly.

Just a few days ago there was a very similar issue discussed at great length in this forum. Our regular posters were somewhat divided as to whether the new motion constituted a substantially different motion from the first one.

Note: if a point of order that the new motion is out of water is sustained, a member could move to suspend the rules so as to allow the new motion. Doing so would require a two-thirds vote.

I would rule it out of order, based on it "practically the same question as a motion previously  decided at the same session (p. 343, ll.  23-25)."  However, I would note that the decision is subject to appeal.  

I would also note that if there were people who voted against the $500 motion and were  willing to support the $300 motion, that Reconsider is an option. 

Is the candidate a member of the body, the "small meeting," that was to vote on this. 

I would suggest that if it is necessary for the body to formally deny a motion, special rules should be adopted to deal with that.  You would basically have to rewrite how the question is stated by the chair. 

59 minutes ago, Guest Art said:

 

 

If only 14 people show up, the annual meeting doesn't have quorum.  Yet, we could have a situation where 20 people voted on the elections because of the combination of in-person and mailed in ballots.  And the mail in ballots wouldn't count.  But if 15 people do show up, then the mail in ballots would count.  Something just doesn't seem right.  Like I said, I don't think this situation was contemplated.  Maybe that's he situation RONR is trying to avoid.  I'll buy the book and read it.

A quorum is the numbers of members at the meeting needed to conduct  business, not the number of votes cast.  Warm bodies, not pieces of mail.  You would be free to redefine that in your bylaws.   

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

 

I agree that voting by mail is not permitted unless authorized in the bylaws. However, RONR does not  say that mail ballots cannot be mixed with the ballots of those who vote in person. RONR says they SHOULD NOT be mixed but does not say they CANNOT be mixed. The election will still be valid even if mail ballots and in-person ballots are mixed together. It is not an either/or situation.

 

Agreeing, I will note that if the question is put first, members in attendance vote, and then the ballots are mailed out to the members that did not vote, it is possible to mix the ballots.  It is necessary to keep an accurate record of who voted at the meeting, and, generally, that there be a second meeting to formally declare the result (and hear any challenges).

It also takes authorization in the bylaws to do this, properly. 

I am assuming you are speaking of disciplinary action?

Generally, in the absence of a bylaw provision, the assembly will both charge and try the individual.  See Chapter XX. 

I think you are asking a legal question, as phrased.

1 hour ago, Alexis Hunt said:

Did you actually read the page?

Yes, and that is why I would not claim that there is a "basic right" to make motions or debate. 

A member has a right to make motions in the manner that the other members, collectively, have a right to make motions.   Those rights, in general, may be curtailed, but they not be curtailed individually for just one member.  For example, if the Previous Question is adopted in regard to the main motion, the individual member does not retain a right to move an amendment on that motion.  The members, collectively, do not retain that right, at that time.

You said initially, " P. 264 says that debate, except as limited by the appropriate subsidiary (or corresponding incidental main) motions, is a basic right of an individual member."  No, it says, in effect, that the rules cannot be suspended to prevent one member from exercising the rights that the other members may exercise in the circumstance.¹  There is, of course, the exceptions for disciplinary action and for some action of the bylaws.

Even talking about introducing business, when no motion is pending, a member may not be able make a motion in the circumstance.  A member does not a "basic right" to introduce new business while the assembly is between hearing reports of committees.

If you say that members have a "basic right" to make motions, you are saying a member can make a motion in any circumstance (though not intending to say that, perhaps).  

¹And yes, if there is a circumstance where a member was deprived of the rights other members have, in the same circumstance, and with those exceptions, a breach of a continuing nature would be created. 

6 minutes ago, Guest Interested said:

Can this scenario apply to the immediate affect of a bylaw amendment where the chair errors as described throughout this thread?

A point of order could, if this was a breach of a continuing nature.

I will say, yes, provided the recount/recapitulation is done timely, as per pp. 418-19.  .

25 minutes ago, Alexis Hunt said:

p. 264 is quite clear that it is indeed a basic right, but one that can be curtailed such as by a motion to limit debate and vote, or a motion for the previous question.

If it was "a basic right of an individual member" it could not be curtailed.  You have the same rights as everyone else to make a motion, but you do not have the right to make a motion whenever you want.  Those "same rights" could not be suspended just in regard to you.

8 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

 

As noted in the other thread, there may be other kinds of breaches of a continuing nature that don't fit squarely into the neat package of continuing breaches found on p. 251 (but I honestly had not thought about that as a possibility before), but I think my position is very similar to your quoted position and Mr. Coronite's position in the other thread that there should be a way to correct this mathematical nightmare.

 

Or, there could be remedies for different breaches?

First, the  assembly could suspend the rule that the 2/3 vote was needed, provided that it didn't involve another p. 251 violation.  Announcing that the voice vote was "64 yes and 33 no votes" and that the motion was adopted would not create a continuing breach.  Likewise if the vote was stated as "33 yes and 64 no" and that the motion was adopted, this would not create a continuing breach, either.

Today, and I can still be persuaded, I will say that if a vote can be counted, it can be recounted or at least recapitulated.  In either of the cases, whether or not the chair stated it as a 2/3 vote, the vote can be recounted by the assembly and the announcement can be corrected.  I base this on p. 446, ll. 4-7. 

If the assembly feels that it can rely on the accuracy of the count and the announcement, as recorded in the minutes or written on a scrap of paper, it may correct the announcement. 

In a set of given circumstances, Society A may feel that it is fine to rely on whatever information exists, and recount the vote and change the determination.  In the same circumstances, Society B may decide that the information is not sufficient to change the determination.

7 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, I certainly do not agree with the assertion he makes in his first sentence that making a motion is not a basic right of an individual member (and I doubt that he really meant to put it that way), but other than that I suppose you're right.

Making a motion is not the basic right of an individual member.  There are many examples of when a member cannot make the motion would like to make.  The right to make make motions, in general, may be suspended, as indicated. 

A member, not under disciplinary action, or due to some action of the bylaws, may not, however, be singled out and forbidden to make motions that other members may make.  If you had a "basic right" as an individual member to make a motion, you could move to adopt a main motion while another motion is pending.  If I had a "basic right" as an individual member to make a motion, I could move to amend a main motion after the Previous Question was adopted in regard to that main motion.

If we are members, we could have a general right to make motions, that were otherwise in order.  That right is a general right, which may be curtailed, collectively, by the assembly.

4 hours ago, SaintCad said:

I think we all agreed that if the assembly created the committee that the Chair could not dissolve it.  I thought the question now was if the Chair created the committee could he dissolve it.

I think we could possibly agree that, provided the assembly had the authority to create the committee, the chair could not disband it, without that authority being granted to him in the bylaws. 

2 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

Are there any circumstances where denial of the right to debate can create a continuing breach?

P. 251 says that a continuing breach is established where an action was taken in violation of a basic right of an individual member. P. 264 says that debate, except as limited by the appropriate subsidiary (or corresponding incidental main) motions, is a basic right of an individual member. Is it possible for a decision to be made in such a fashion as to violate this?

What of a member who is not permitted to move amendments on a motion, since making a motion is also an individual right?

However, making a motion is not a "basic right of an individual member."  It would be permissible to, prior to a main motion's introductions, suspend the rules and prohibit amendments to the main motion; it would take a 2/3 vote.  Gen Robert used something as a similar example in his book Parliamentary Practice.

In regard to debate, a motion "that Member Jones not be permitted speak in debate on this question," would be generally be a violation of the "basic right of an individual member," except in cases where it was a penalty for an infraction of the rules (Chapter XX stuff).  With that exception, depriving a member of the right to enter into debate in such a manner would create a breach of a continuing nature.  The point of order can only be raised during the continuance of the breach (p. 251.  Continuing breaches are not necessarily eternal breaches. 

When does this end, or "heal," of its own accord?  When there can be no more debate.  In other words, until debate has ended on this question, which could be a few hours away, there would a continuing breach.  When debate ends of this question, it is too late to raise a point of order, because the breach "healed" of its own accord.

I would note that if the member moving the question would, when initially recognized, move the Previous Question, and that motion was adopted, debate would be cut off, prohibiting Jones, or anyone else from speaking or making motions (p. 251, ll.3-7).

5 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

There are so many problems here.

As Saint Cad has suggested, a straw poll is not in order - as you say, the pastor wanted to "get an idea," which does not sound like a binding motion to me. Additionally, there should have been a clear motion regarding changing the service to Wednesday. Since the current service is on Thursday, those who wished for the service to remain on Thursday could have voted "no."

But back to your questions, it was quite improper for the pastor to order members to write their names on the ballots (or for the pastor to order that ballots be used in the first place). The assembly may order a ballot vote, and the vote is presumed to be a secret ballot unless a "signed ballot" (which is really a form of roll call vote) is specified and there is no purpose for a signed ballot except in an assembly which is responsible to an interested constituency. Unsigned ballots should have been counted. I agree that votes which were marked "either" should not have counted - those seem to be in the nature of abstentions.

This would be out of order within a meeting context, but I am not sure this occurred within a meeting. 

5 hours ago, Guest RobertSp said:

Thank you.  According to New York law, only the Rabbi's salary is under the Congregation's authority.  Other employment matters are generally for the Board.

While I agree with Josh, I would note that the Congregation may be able to express an opinion of the Board's decision or of the cantor himself (though I have known a cantor who would be "herself"). 

3 hours ago, SaintCad said:

Can we agree that since the Chair cannot create a standing committee (p 491) that he cannot dissolve it? 

As for special committees, they exist until they complete the task committed to them (p 490) or the question committed is discharged.  P 310 specifically places the power to Discharge with the assembly and that is further implied on p 313.

Is there any rule or implication that "Whoever created the committee can dissolve it." to cite?

Since this committee was established by motion, I think we can assume this is not a standing committee. 

18 hours ago, SaintCad said:

I still think it is a non sequitur.  Look at it this way, Can the maker of a motion unilaterally withdraw it once it is stated by the chair?  What's the difference?  Just because you create something doesn't mean you can dissolve it.  I'd like to see a reference in RONR that says you can.

If the chair has this power, a withdrawal of a motion is not the correct analogy.  The correct analogy would be, could all the members of the assembly vote unanimously to rescind a motion.  The answer is usually yes.