J. J.

If there was clause under the amendment provision of the bylaws (Article XXVII hypothetically) stating that:

Article XXVII

These Bylaws, except for Article III, may be amend by a two thirds vote at any meeting provide there has been at least thirty days notice have been given.  Article III may not be amended.

Article XXVII could be amended to strike out the words "except for Article III" and "Article III may not be amended."  If adopted, Article III could be amended at a future point.  (I have seen this.)

If Article III said, as its last line, "None of the provisions of this Article may be amended." and the assembly were to amend those provisions, I think that a point of order that this violated the bylaws would have to be timely.  An amendment does seem to be a rule in the nature of order.

I will with the adage that a bylaw that says that it cannot be suspended cannot be suspended, but that is not the case here. 

You organizationhas several capable parliame

On 1/6/2015 at 11:26 PM, Guest Dr. Matt Hogendobler said:

 

So here is my question:  if "revision" is not identified in a constitution (perhaps intentionally) as a procedure to make a change (or changes) to a document, can an organization's constitution be treated, as in the case with bylaws documents elucidated in the next paragraph, as simply disposable?  To add density to the fog of this case, RONR is not identified as the default parliamentary authority (although, here I am).

 

 

First, I will agree with those stating that a revision is a form of amendment.

Second, and to the quoted point, your chapter may have established RONR by custom (p.  19).  I believe that is mentioned in Dummies book as well.

Finally, and for Gary, you can add another Republican to the list. 

As a practical matter, there would be no problem with the body allocating funds to pay the dues of this one member. 

I'll attempt to cut to the chase.

Even if a nonmember were to make a nomination, or to make some other type of motion, the time to object to it is before it is considered by the assembly (see pp. 250-51).  It is a mistake that has to be caught at the time it happened (p. 251 lists exceptions to this).

Since you are new RONR, I would suggest looking a pp. 250-51 and pp. 263-65.  These usually end up being the answer to a sizable proportion of the questions answered here. 

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Under these circumstances, it is not possible to know for sure whether there is anything which needs to be amended, although this would appear almost certainly to be the case.

As a consequence, it is quite obvious that your board should proceed on the assumption that to change the amount of your club's dues will require either a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of its entire membership unless previous notice is given.

As I said, it ain't rocket science.

That is the safest course.

I do agree with Richard that there could be circumstances where just a plain vanilla main motion would suffice.  This is not one of them where it can be used safely. 

1 hour ago, SDMiller said:

@Kim Goldsworthy Yes, of course everything you say follows from your premise that the motion to end the closed session is a main motion -- but is it? Or is it a privileged motion, effectively to adjourn the closed session?

@Richard Brown, forgive e, but I do not see anything in the text J.J. helpfully posted about the motion requiring a second or being debatable. What am I missing? 

You should be looking at the cited sections of RONR, especially, pp. 226-7, 4-6.

11 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

J.J., I suspect that not many of us have copies of the National Parliamentarian from 2002 lying around and I doubt that Mr. (or Ms) Miller has them. So, how about elaborating on your answer and quoting the relevant provisions from  the article?  Or providing a link to it if one is available?

1.  A PDF of the text is attached.

2.  Copies may be order through the National Association of Parliamentarians at not cost, IIRC.

3.  This was reprinted in Best of NP (2000-07), which is also available  from NAP, at a cost.

4.  The published text mentions our good friend Gary c. Tesser, as the inspiration. 

NP 14 RW1.pdf

1 hour ago, SDMiller said:

So we need a motion, and we need a vote. Richard Brown was very declarative that this motion needs a second and is debatable, and Josh Martin concurs. Neither learned gentleman cites an authority for this position. The remaining replies, while interesting, are not on point, except those suggesting we consult a Michigan attorney, which we have done. He agreed with my contention that the motion is akin to a motion to adjourn, because the closed session is effectively a meeting within a meeting, and the motion is to end the "child" meeting (and therefore to return to the "parent" meeting). But he agreed in a kind of "sounds good to me" way, not with any conviction or authority.

I state the questions again, with a third question:

1. Does the motion to leave the closed session require a second?
2. Is the motion debatable?
3. What authority supports your answer?

Thanks for the interesting discussion!

 

1.  Try pp. 226-7.

You may also see "Question of Privilege:  Reopening the Windows," National Parliamentarian, third quarter, 2002.  Though tied to the tenth edition, it addresses your question. 

On 1/2/2017 at 7:54 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

But there wasn't just one nominee, there were three.

Actually, there were eventually four nominees, but what made the question interesting was that it appeared that there would only be three. 

If I understand correctly, there was one nominee for a partial term.

On 11/17/2016 at 0:54 PM, George Mervosh said:

 

Then I don't think that helps. She wants the matter to go away for a while, and a motion to rescind or amend the adopted rule is dealt with as any other main motion, and I doubt they want to waste time dealing with it.

Well, you could not bring up the smoking motion, so debate might be curtailed.  The smokers may have failed to have given notice, and a majority of the entire membership may not be there.

The rule could be drafted to make "smoking questions" subject to Objection to the Consideration of the Question, so it would likely be made and rapidly dismissed.

On 12/30/2016 at 11:45 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

I must admit, however, that I have no idea what you have in mind when you say that "There could be a ballot tio (to?) vote for X, and if write-ins are not credited, X should be elected."

 

First, it should be "to."

I am saying that, if there is only one nominee, X, and write-in votes are not permitted (and not credited), if X gets one vote,  X is elected. 

Was this election conducted by ballot or roll call?  Is the "leadership position" an officer position as defined in the bylaws? 

And to you too, good doctor. 

8 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Nothing would prevent the church from balloting on the partial term first. That is one of the two alternatives I suggested.

 

It seemed like the optimal solution.

I may not be understanding this correctly, but what would prevent the church from balloting on the partial term first?  There could be a ballot tio vote for X, and if write-ins are not credited, X should be elected. 

5 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

I vote for "Unofficial Moneyperson for a Little While."

The Treasurer in commission? 

On 12/27/2016 at 9:52 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

In that case, the chair certainly should neither have entertained a motion to adjourn nor taken the vote on such a motion.

Agreed, but perhaps the assembly should have adjourned at that point.  

34 minutes ago, Guest Joe Kulik said:

Can the membership of an organization vote to suspend the by laws?

I agree with Hieu's answer.

There are two instances were something within the bylaws can be suspended.

1.  When the rule provides for its own suspension.

2.  When the rule is in the nature of a rule of order.

On 11/28/2016 at 7:15 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

You think that the chair's interruption of a member who has the floor, and who repeatedly reminds the chair that she has the floor, in order to improperly state a motion to adjourn the meeting is a minor violation?

In truth, we don't know in what capacity the member actually had the floor and whether there was a time limit, but let's put that point aside for the moment.

We also don't know if the time set for adjournment (that might have been reached). 

On 12/23/2016 at 9:45 AM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The motion in the example is "that the open portion" of the meeting be declared ended.

So, will a motion, while in executive session, to come out of executive session conflict with this motion that the open portion of the meeting be ended whereas, if the motion had been, instead, "that this open portion" of the meeting be declared ended it would not?

I don't think that could happen.  A motion, "To go into executive section to vote on a motion to fire Mr. X," would reveal what will be considered in executive session.

Also, I would advise the SDMiller to seek an attorney's, licensed in his state, to review the legality of voting in executive session. 

I have to disagree with harper.  I think this is something understood by even someone with a "lay knowledge" of both procedure and of the law.

About 25 years ago, such a person actually wrote an article on the subject.  The individual, at the time, had no certification as a parliamentarian, was not a member of any bar anyplace on the planet, nor had he ever attended law school. 

8 hours ago, Guest said:

My thanks to Mrs. Comfort for bringing this subject up because I debated bringing it up myself. I find it unfortunate that RONR-11 does not have a paragraph that specifically delineates these items. The list on page 688 is sadly inadequate. The same can be said for the list on xxxiii and li. Please allow me to propose the following list that I found on Wikipedia. And please, I don't need a lecture on the authority or accuracy of Wikipedia. I wish only to discuss the merits of the list.

1. Majority rule

2. Minority rights

3. Member rights

4. Absentee rights

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on

9. Following own specific rules

 

1. Majority rule - The basic principle of decision is majority vote.

2. Minority rights - The minority have certain rights that only a supermajority, such as a two-thirds vote, can rule over. Such rights include introducing new business and speaking in debate.

3. Member rights - Members have the right to attend meetings, speak in debate, and vote. Members have the right to know what they are deciding on. All members are treated equally.

4. Absentee rights - Certain actions require previous notice, which protects the rights of absentees. This includes notice of the meetings. There also needs to be a quorum, or the minimum number of members to be present at a meeting.

5. One question at a time

6. One person, one vote

7. Only members present can vote

8. Changing action previously decided on - the requirements for changing a previous action are greater than those for taking the action in the first place.

9. Following own specific rules - The group must have the authority to take the actions it purports to take.

 

Another source I found added another, which I am not sure should be considered a fundamental principle – The impartiality of the Chair.

 

What do the rest of y'all think?

I think that only numbers 5, 6, and 7 are fundamental principles of parliamentary law.  That does not mean that some of those others can be suspended.  

One person noted, "Basically, a fundamental principle of parliamentary is whatever the author or authors of a particular parliamentary authority identify as one."

Right, but wouldn't they need to say why such acts are commendable?

No, but they could and could cite the same acts he was to be censured for. 

Student government in college in 1981.  I started with the 1893 edition and quickly graduated to the 1915 edition. 

Game playing?

 

In the usual case an assembly has no way of knowing, before it has adopted a motion authorizing the making of additional nominations, that not a single member will want to make one, and that the only thing that anyone wants to do is engage in further debate. To the best of my knowledge, the rules do not require that in order to make a motion to reopen nominations, the member making the motion must intend to make one himself. Perhaps he hopes that simply providing an opportunity to other members to make a nomination may prompt someone to do so. Who knows? In any event, I don't think it matters. I think he is entitled to make a motion to reopen nominations, and the assembly is entitled to decide for itself, by majority vote, whether or not it wishes to do so.

This was my point in post #41.  I can move to reopen nominations so that some other member may make a nomination.  There is no way for me to know that any other member wants to nominate, nor for the majority to know if there is someone who wants to make an additional nomination.

The only time that I could regard this as being even close to improper is if all persons that could be nominated have already been nominated (unlikely, but not impossible).