J. J.

Notice protects absentee rights, in general.  I would permit unnoticed items to be considered if there were no absentees. 

That said, if this a local government, there is almost certainly is statute covering this.  That would supersede RONR.

On 3/26/2024 at 10:54 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Words mean something, and there is a substantial difference between moving that a rule be declared null and void and moving that it be rescinded.  Furthermore, the basis for moving that something be declared null and void will almost certainly have to be disclosed in debate on the motion, and if cast in the form of a resolution, will most likely be set forth in a preamble.

I was just trying to give you the simplest form of motion to declare a rule null and void that came to mind.  It will not be at all difficult to incorporate in such a motion a declaration that the rule in question conflicts with such and such a provision in the bylaws or constitution.

The fact remains that a point of order must always relate in some way to (be incidental to) the business at hand. If not, a main motion is needed to bring the matter before the assembly.

I am seeing enough of a distinction, in the phrasing of the motion.  Much may be said in debate that may not be accurate and would not, properly, be recorded. 

If you were attempting to have the assembly adopt the motion, "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void," and the intent was to declare some action void because it violated the bylaws, I would rule the motion out of order because of vagueness.

I would suggest something like, "I move that the assembly rules that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00, be null and void, as it violates (citation) of the bylaws."  Very clearly, the assembly can rule on this. 

An amendment that makes the adoption of a question equivalent to rejecting it is out of order (12:22 2), but that applies to any form of amendment, note merely substitution. 

On 3/26/2024 at 7:25 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Well, J.J., such motions can range from something as simple as "I move that the rule adopted on February 1, 2024, requiring applicants for membership to pay an initiation fee of $50.00 be declared null and void" to a complex resolution with preamble and multiple resolving paragraphs, but I don't think that an experience parliamentarian such as yourself should be inquiring as to how to draft a main motion. 

No, I would have a problem if someone claimed this was actually a motion to rescind (and required a higher vote threshold). 

Even this motion, as worded, could be a back door method to rescind that motion of 2/1/24 by less than the vote threshold required.

(I would note that if some form of a point of order could be raised as an incidental main motion, that would address this.)

12:22 in general. 

On 3/25/2024 at 7:48 PM, Dan Honemann said:

That's easy.  They bear no resemblance to each other, and differ in virtually every respect.

So, how would you phrase the incidental main motion? 

On 3/25/2024 at 7:22 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted are applicable to bylaws, rules, policies, decisions, or choices which have continuing force and effect due to having been validly adopted.  It is for this reason that it takes more than just a majority vote for the adoption of these motions.

 

I agree, but I am asking why (or how) you would distinguish been a R/ASPA and a Point of Order. 

On 3/25/2024 at 8:40 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I agree with Mr. Elsman's response to this question, but would note that a point of order can be raised only if and when one of the resolution's conflicting sections (which is therefor null and void) is affecting business that is pending during a meeting of the assembly.  If it is desired to correct the problem before such opportunities arise, an incidental main motion can be made while no business is pending, and adopted by majority vote, declaring that the conflicting sections are null and void.  

 

And how would that not fall under the rules for rescind/amend something previously adopted?  6:23 does not cover it specifically. 

No, though they possibly could move to rescind it at the next meeting.

On 3/24/2024 at 1:33 PM, Guest Bylaws Referenced said:

The Bylaws specifically state under Delinquency:

A. When a member fails to meet a financial obligation, he/she will be placed in delinquent status and remain in such status for a period of thirty (30) days. After this time if financial obligations have not been met, the individual automatically loses all privileges, including the right to participate in activities and club trips.

This has been interpreted to mean the individual referenced by the writer, who is not current with membership dues, cannot nominate a member for an office from the floor. Is this interpretation correct?

Yes, and no. 

A nomination could be ruled out of order because the mover is no a member, but only at the time of the nomination.  If the point of order was not make at the time, it is too late to raise it (23:6). 

On 3/24/2024 at 11:18 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

In fact, although it is quite certain that members in good standing may make nominations, it's not clear from the rules in RONR that members not in good standing cannot.  There is not enough information in the phrase not in good standing to be able to know how and to what extent the members rights have been suspended—in particular, whether the right to make nominations is among them.  What is known is that failure to keep up with dues payments does not automatically do anything without a provision in your bylaws.

The rule requiring that only members can make motion, even suggestions, could be suspended.  If a nomination was made by someone not entitled to vote, and there was no timely point of order, the nomination itself could not be challenged at a later point on that ground. 

On 3/23/2024 at 11:11 AM, rockbust said:

I understand this. So to that end anything that comes out of exectutive session by way of resolution, action that is sent to any one person can be shared by that party to anyone since they were not a participant in that session?  

I said sharing it does not violate executive session.

A claim could be made that distributing this material disturbs the well-being of the society and charge the member with that (63:24). 

Nothing in RONR would prevent it.  A separate set of minutes would be created for the executive session.  They would be approved in executive session. 

On 3/22/2024 at 12:24 PM, Josh Martin said:

But J.J., are we not already told that the board did meet in executive session concerning this matter?

While I suppose it is, of course, correct that the letter itself was sent outside of executive session, I don't think this lifts the protections of executive session.

"The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend). However, action taken, as distinct from that which was said in debate, may be divulged to the extent—and only to the extent—necessary to carry it out. For example, if during executive session a member is expelled or an officer is removed from office, that fact may be disclosed to the extent described in 63:3. If the assembly wishes to further lift the secrecy of action taken in an executive session, it may adopt a motion to do so, which is a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35). In making or debating such a motion, the members must be careful, if the assembly is not in executive session, to preserve the existing secrecy." RONR (12th ed.) 9:26

It was necessary to send the letter to the accused "in order to carry it out." And as I have noted above, the accused also has the right, in my view, to share the contents of the letter to the extent necessary to prepare their defense. I'm not sure this gives the accused an unlimited right to share the contents of the letter with anyone whatsoever.

The subject of the letter, the accused, was not in the executive session.  I question how anyone can claim that the accused could violate an executive session of which he did not attend, and, apparently, had no right to attend. 

That said, it would be possible to bring an additional charge against the accused, though not for violating executive session in this regard. 

I'm not sure that this rule could be suspended.  Authorization would have to be given by the parent body. 

On 3/20/2024 at 5:05 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I suppose they might mean members.  But I think it's unenforceable in the case of the accused.

I disagree.  A member can be punished for his actions, if it is felt that the actions "disturbs the well-being" of the society.  However, that will involve forming an investigating committee that may recommend charges, a new set of charges.  The member could be acquitted on the first set and found guilty on the second. 

On 3/20/2024 at 3:24 PM, rockbust said:

And are you saying the resolution that came out of executive session along with a copy of the complaint are not confidential? It seems Robert's rules says otherwise

 

I am saying that it is not in executive session.

The answer is still the same.  The assembly must be in session to have an executive session.  The committee can meet in executive session as well. 

Go back and re-read my answers. 

On 3/20/2024 at 12:16 PM, Josh Martin said:

I haven't given this a great deal of thought, but yes, generally I think a special rule of order would also be sufficient. I can't think of a particular reason why it wouldn't be.

I think where this gets somewhat complicated is that convention standing rules often contain a mixture of rules of order and standing rules. As a result, I think a rule in the bylaws might be cleaner, in order to avoid having to adopt both special rules of order and standing rules to meet this objective.

I'm not disagreeing. 

This actually came up about a fortnight ago. 

On 3/20/2024 at 11:26 AM, Guest TCC2 said:

A resolution to approve a purchase is in the agenda for a committee. The committee wants more information and tables the motion. A week later the resolution appears in the Board meeting agenda. The Board is aware of the committee's tabled action and decides to vote in favor of the resolution despite the committee having tabled it. Committees make recommendations to the Board. Can't a Board ignore the committee's decision and vote.  Is it improper?

The matter may reached by using the motion Discharge a Committee (36). 

Could the organization adopt special rules of order that apply to the next convention?  

On 3/20/2024 at 9:39 AM, Joshua Katz said:

In my copy of RONR, this is not among the penalties a society may impose.

Executive session.  LOL. 

On 3/19/2024 at 7:39 PM, rockbust said:

It is my understanding that all matters involving the disipline are exectutive session even if not held in that session. the charges, the investigation and the trial even including after the trial where the accused can not say what charges were brought against him or her. It seem illogical for someone to file charges on another that may contain extreemly sensitive matters only to have it spread through the membership by the accused. 

I also found this discussion just now. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/35255-confidentiality-of-chargesdisciplinary-action/   Are we saying before trial is acceptable to say what they are being disciplined for but after trial they can not?  Why would the investigation have to take place in secret but then charges not? why can the accused share this information but others can not? 

There can be no execution session outside of the session of the assembly.  As a consequence, no one can be charged with violating executive session for disclosing a letter sent out in regard to disciplinary action.  Nothing in that discussion says anything differently.

That said, IMO, the assembly might determine that circulating the letter is conduct which would "disturb its well-being," and be grounds for a new charge (63:24). 

Note that even if the accused did actually violate executive session, i.e. disclosed something that happened during the trial that was in executive session, a separate process would be needed to investigate and charge the member. 

On 3/19/2024 at 5:58 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

It seems to me that the right of confidentiality exists to protect to the recipient of the letter.  If the member wishes to reveal the charges against himself, I don't see where the board would have any valid complaint.  The fact that the letter "arose out of" executive session is not persuasive to me.  By sending a letter, the board has effectively decided to make the facts in it available outside the meeting.  They can't very well keep the charges secret from the person being charged, so although the proceedings of the meeting are secret, the contents of the letter they decided to send are not, and the recipient is not bound by the rules of a meeting he did not attend.

While I agree, there could be other grounds to charging the person who released the letter.

On 3/19/2024 at 4:39 PM, rockbust said:

Hmm. It seems there would be some duty of secrecy with the complaint letter?  Would that extend to the board also. Is everyone free to discuss these charges and share this letter with anyone outside of what is "discussed" in ex session?   It seems that since the letter is forwarded ONLY to the member of the alleged misconduct and it has arrisen out of exectuve session they would be duty bound to maintain its secrecy?

Our bylaws procedure is this. member files complaint to secretary. Board meets in ex session and decides if any actions alleged in the complaint would, if proven, constitute conduct, which is prejudicial to the best interests of the Club. If yes, Secretary forwards complaint and informs them they have 30 days to request a hearing. Hearing is also held in ex session. 

The meeting is covered under executive session, because it is a meeting. An executive session cannot extend to the nail box, letter carrier or mail slot outside of a meeting.

The society may consider additional charges for releasing the letter, but not, strictly, a violation of an executive session.