J. J.

On 4/11/2017 at 8:37 PM, Guest Connie said:

I'm new here and I didn't see a message board for this topic so I apologize if its been covered.

Our organization has members who speak a different language. We would like to change this so we can include English speaking members in our meeting. Is there a rule/guideline for this?

Conduct the meeting in both languages perhaps?

Thank you.

You might be able to arrange for translators.  I would suggest that exactly how they would would function be included in the rules of debate. 

I did preside over a meeting in which was conducted in American English and isiZulu. 

On 4/11/2017 at 7:12 PM, Josh Martin said:

 

I'd say the danger of ranking unwritten "traditions" above RONR, beyond the difficulty of simply remembering them, is heated debate over how long-standing a practice must be for it to be a "tradition."

Custom was highlighted in the 11th edition to clarify the role of custom. What is said on this matter in the 11th edition has always been the rule - it simply has not been as clearly stated until now.

While I agree that a society is better off relying on a parliamentary authority, a society is free to elevate custom in general above the adopted parliamentary authority.   It could choose to do so by establishing a parliamentary authority in the following manner:

“The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws, any special rules of order the Society may adopt, and those established customs and usages of the Society.” 

I am familiar with one legislative body that has such a rule. 

I would suggest that if the society wishes to retain a custom that varies from RONR, it adopt a special rule or bylaw to that effect.    I would also suggest that it would be much more advisable to that the customs be codified into written rules. 

On 4/11/2017 at 4:40 PM, Richard Brown said:

FWIW, some authorities, such as AIP's "The Standard Code",  do rank established custom above the rules in the parliamentary authority. RONR does not. It ranks custom last. 

Not anymore, though prior editions of the TSC do. 

16 hours ago, Guest D.Llama said:

 Hi  J.J. 

The bylaws are specific :

s. 27  

       The auditor is to be appointed at the annual meeting of the association .

 

So I'm not sure what-  depends  on what ?  The Board suggested an auditor - one member moved ,and it was seconded, that the proposed auditor be appointed . The motion was defeated . As were all other morons at the 2016  meeting . The Board  considering that it had no choice -given its by laws  responsibility to"  manage the affairs and business of the association "  hired the purposed auditor, as otherwise there would have been no audit work done in 2016  ,and the Board considered  that it was their responsibility under that authority- to do as much, and that they would be otherwise negligent in not doing so . 

Their other option was to d do nothing respecting  audit and allow the audit work to simply default - but this they considered would be negligent . 

Any further thoughts very - welcome.

D.lLama

My thought is, that by the letter of the bylaws, the board usurped a role of the assembly.  The assembly may ratify that.  They may also chose not to and could consider disciplinary action against the board members voting for that.

The board, collectively, could due one of three things:

1.  Follow.  Follow the wishes the assembly and let them pick the auditor, or pick no one.

2.  Fight.  Fight with the assembly.  Appoint the auditor and hope that the assembly comes to its  senses, as it were.

3.  Flee.  Resign from the board.

The members of the board have put themselves into the position where it must rely on the assembly to do the right thing.  If the assembly does otherwise, the board members have lost. 

If they are as hostile as you suggest, I would recommend that the board members who voted in favor of hiring the auditor prepare a resignation.  Perhaps the thoughts of losing their collective leadership will snap the "morons" into doing the right thing. 

You may wish to review "Follow, Fight, or Flee," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter, 2013.

That is probably not the answer you wanted. 

A lot will depend what the bylaws (a statute, if incorporated) say about appointing an auditor.  There is no requirement in RONR that an auditor be appointed. 

2 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

The board cannot unilaterally rescind its acceptance of a resignation, but it can agree to an officer's request for permission to withdraw his resignation if he makes such a request before his resignation has become effective. This may be done by unanimous consent, or by the adoption (by majority vote) of an incidental main motion to permit withdrawal of the resignation.

I would take it that rules could not be suspended to permit the board, unilaterally, to rescind the a resignation that becomes effective at a future time.  Is that correct? 

There are numerous organizations that limit the speech of their members; fraternities are an example.  Some political organization do as well.  Any organization that had an executive session would limit a member's speech.

I would note, even if this would be a violation of the Constitution, it is not a violation of a procedural rule of law, and therefor, not a sufficient ground to rule the action out of order.

4 hours ago, Guest Ralph said:

Can a President of an organization over rule a board decision?

If the bylaws grant him that power, yes. 

12 hours ago, Guest D. Llama said:

Thank-you JJ for this  reference  and this would perhaps have some application but for the fact that this body has specifically chosen not to adopt RONR - but to consider it but a reference and guide when and as it pleases . But for sure a more benign approach to RONR, however ,might see the status mentioned on  p 17, have some application .At least those  of an assembly who felt that way ( where adoption was not declined ) could argue as much . 

Obliged . 

 

D.Llama

If the body is using it, then the rule on p. 17 applies. 

8 hours ago, Guest Hal9000 said:

The "House Rules" includes the following entry:

<Start>

    Any member or Officer of the <organisation>. may be fined, removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both, for any of the following causes:

 

1.       Dishonesty, immoral conduct, intoxication, quarreling, or tending to reflect discredit upon the <organization>.

2.       Violation of all or any part of the membership obligation.

 

    The Governing Board has full authority and is required to strictly enforce the foregoing rules.

<End>

 

 

Assuming the House Rules were properly adopted by the assembly, the Governing Board would have full authority to "removed, suspended, or expelled from his office or the <organization>, or from both."    I agree with my learned colleague Mr. Mervosh that the ability to fine a member must be placed in the bylaws.

The process used for the Governing Board to exercise this authority as explained in the parliamentary authority. 

17 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

I don't particularly care for the idea of encouraging this member to make such a motion.  From the limited facts presented she seems to be the only one who cares enough to mention it to Guest Heather.

I would not object to the member requesting that the fact she abstained be noted.   That is a Request and would require a majority to approve. 

On 3/18/2017 at 9:14 PM, Guest D. Llama said:

Thank-you J.J.

 What "one person described it thus " is certainly of interest -but  I do not see that it better  resolves this  Inquiry .Indeed RONR p. XXiX provides  that RONR is "present day general parliamentary law".  

Mr Brown suggests that "general  parliamentary law" has a long standing application to this subject . You ( J.J. )  identify RONR as such an authority - a statement of " general parliamentary law " . But this Co-op has never adopted RONR as an authority applicable to the Co-Op . The consider it when they please as a resource - they have not bound themselves  to it .

 

D.Llama 

A parliamentary authority, or procedural rules may be established by repeated usage (p. 17, ll. 7-10).  See also page 19.

1 hour ago, Guest D. Llama said:

For sure Mr . Brown : 

 

BUT if, as you say ,there is relevant  long-standing   common parliamentary  Law on this subject where is that to be found ?  And when you refer to such common  law are you referring to court cases which would  create the common  law- or otherwise ? I have " Parliamentary  Law" by H.R. Robert ( 1923 ), but I understand that is not a book of the "common law "- it is a book done by the General .

 

Where does one find that  "long -standing parliamentary law " that you refer to ?  

Obliged for any response .

 

D.Llama

One person described it thus:

"In short, the general parliamentary law, is a broad, generally applicable, set of rules that apply to all assemblies, while parliamentary procedure refers to those rules dealing with a specific assembly or organization.  General parliamentary law is general in nature; it is the broad rules that are generally in effect if the society adopts no conflicting rules."

"Common parliamentary law" is synonymous "general parliamentary law."  A codification or expression of these rules can be found in parliamentary authorities, like the current edition of RONR.

Note:  The terms "common parliamentary law" and "general parliamentary law" are not synonymous with the term "common law." 

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

I agree. However, if the person who is making the motion to rescind really wants the motion to be rescinded, it might be wise to be prepared to explain to the other members why recession is in the best interest of the society. 

Agreed, however the motion was adopted without debate.  It could be such a bad motion, that debate (i.e. the reasons for rescinding), may not be needed.  

On 3/1/2017 at 2:45 PM, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Cry? Have its members kick each other for having adopted a bylaw provision that cannot be amended?

As best I can recall, virtually everyone has agreed that making a bylaw provision unamendable and incapable of being suspended is most likely going to turn out to be a bad idea.

Maybe they can agree to a revision procedure involving everything other than the unamendable section.

The society could possibly adopt a higher level rule that could supersede rules in the bylaws. 

I would also note that no reason would have to be given to rescind a motion. 

For the record, I did not write these bylaws. 

On 3/1/2017 at 7:11 PM, Richard Brown said:

Congratulations on coming "out of the closet", Joshua!!  I agree with Mr. Honemann:  You are very knowledgeable and your responses to questions are very helpful. it's time you started getting personal credit for your posts.

I do post under a pseudonym, abet an extremely transparent one. 

2 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

 

So what in sam hill, JJ??!!?

You can create a rule that rules in the nature of a rule of order in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

You can create a rule that prevents the bylaws from being amended.

You better adopt both if you don't your bylaws  to ever be amended. 

5 minutes ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I don't get it, are these two statements somehow consistent??

Yes.  A rule that says something can or can't be amended is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.

A rule that, for example, that says, "a secondary amendment may not be amended," is a rule of order, no matter if it appears in the bylaws, a special rule or a parliamentary authority.  There would be no problem suspending that rule.

What if instead of  "a secondary amendment" the rule, now solely in bylaws said "Article II may not be amended? "  Wouldn't sill be a rule in the nature of a rule of order?

I think to get the result of making this not subject to amendment, even under suspension, my hypothetical Article III would have include these clauses:

Section x.  "The provisions of this Article shall be incapable of being amended."

Section x+1. "Any rule in this Article in the nature of a rule of order cannot be suspended, unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension."   (That is based on an existing set of bylaws.)

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.