J. J.

On 3/19/2024 at 9:06 AM, Anthony said:

We have exhausted all of our options and are now looking for a lawyer.  Does the court have any say in a County Party organization?

I will add:

"Ask a lawyer, able to practice in your jurisdiction and, preferably, familiar with the organization type and the issues involved."

On 3/18/2024 at 7:56 PM, Guest rockbust@gmail.com said:

Our bylaws require the board to send a copy of the letter of charges filed by a member against a fellow member when the board votes in exectutive session to have a hearing. In a recent situation a copy of the complaint was sent to a member notifing them charges were filed against them. It seems that person has now sent this letter to many other club members in an effort to rally some sort of support. Does sharing this complaint breach confidentiality? 

IMO, it does not violate executive session, because this letter was sent outside of the meeting.

If this is some violation, separate charges would have to be filed for that. 

On 3/16/2024 at 11:17 AM, Guest Andy E said:

The Judicial Committee shall decide cases involving alleged violations of these bylaws or resolutions.

 

That bylaw means exactly what it says, the decision of if something violated the bylaws is ultimately determined by that committee. 

There can be situations, in a committee, for example, where the chair, and upon appeal the committee, can make determination, but that would be subject to the ultimate determination of the judicial committee. 

Note that if such a clause creating a judicial committee did not exist, this ability will be granted to the assembly.  That is more of a bylaw interpretation question.

ETA:  I do not see any disagreement that it should be the bylaw should be given more weight, in fact all weight. when it conflicts with a provision of RONR.

On 3/12/2024 at 5:13 PM, laser158689 said:

Is RONR available in a plain text format or other common electronic format for research purposes?

This is intended for the authors.  Happy to discuss my semi-baked idea privately.

A CD rom is available https://robertsrules.com/books/newly-revised-12th-edition-cd-rom/

I believe it is searchable. 

Does some rule or bylaw require a "posted agenda?"  RONR does not. 

On 3/12/2024 at 8:14 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Yes, the minutes should reflect exactly what occurred. 

You say that, immediately after the vote, the proposal and vote was deemed null and void.  The minutes should also reflect exactly what action was taken by the assembly to make this determination.  What action was taken by the assembly to make this determination?

I would take it that you would except something expunged? 

On 3/12/2024 at 3:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Thank you for clarifying.  Yes that's correct; even an assembly member who was on the committee, and who made Argument 1 in committee, can make Argument 1 in the assembly debate on the committee's report, but without alluding to the actual deliberations.

There are many cases where you cannot use the information obtained in an executive outside of that session.  That is not the case with a committee that met in open session. 

On 3/12/2024 at 12:55 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

You and I seem to have a different interpretation of the words No one.

The rule does not say "No committee member", it says "No one".

I am not suggesting that the observer (assembly member) can claim "Committee Member A made Argument 1 against the proposal."  I am suggesting that the observer can make Argument 1 during debate in the meeting of the assembly. That is no allusion to anything.

To follow up a bit on this.

This is still a special convention.  Within the convention rules, the rule establishing a standing committee is included.  Under the society's bylaws, there is no specification of standing committees in the bylaws and 50:8 and 50:9 apply.  No notice is given of the rule. 

My questions are:

1.  May a special rule of order, included in convention standing rules, that has some application outside of a meeting, be adopted without notice at a special meeting. 

2.  May a special rule, that has application outside of a meeting, be properly included within convention standing rules.  That is, even at a regular meeting, would (or should) the assembly have to adopt the rule of order separately.

On 3/12/2024 at 12:14 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, not absolutely none.

In 51:65 we find:

[I]n debate on any written or oral report in the assembly, any member of the reporting committee who does not concur has the same right as any other member of the assembly to speak individually in opposition. No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent.

Non committee members can sit in the meeting, and repeat the arguments (pro/con) that they heard.

On 3/10/2024 at 7:21 PM, Rob Elsman said:

RONR (12th ed.) 50:27 tells us that only committee members have the right to be present during the committee's deliberations.  In other words, the deliberations themselves are not carried out during a hearing.  The purpose for these closed deliberations is, as I have already said, "...to give committee members the freedom to make frank arguments and reach frank conclusions".  In other words, in preparing the committee's report, the members of the committee may need to say things freely that they would not feel comfortable saying in front of a crowd.

Well, if that is the case and there is no rule prohibiting it, they can go into executive session.  Without that, there is no confidentiality. 

On 3/11/2024 at 7:48 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

If you have adopted RONR as your parliamentary authority, then the rules in RONR are yours too. 🙂

If 100 seats are being filled, RONR would require that voters be able to vote for up to 100 people.  And if I understood what you said earlier, your bylaws do authorize plurality voting and ranking by vote count.  If not, you can't use plurality voting.

I disagree a bit.  A special rule could be adopted to elect delegates by plurality (44:11).

On 3/10/2024 at 9:18 AM, Atul Kapur said:

 

I think it would also be reasonable to have each member vote for up to 50 individuals, as there are significant differences between delegates and alternates, so they could be considered not equivalent (in that mindset, you're just electing 50 delegates and a ranked list of backups).

The question is, however, if this would be different due to the election being conducted by a plurality.   I see no difference based on that.

I think that each member could still vote for up to 100 individuals.  Plurality deals with the number of votes needed to elect, not the numbers of votes that may be cast by a member.

The society permits a specific number of local units to call a special convention.  The notice covers the items of business to be considered, but does not specify convention standing rules as one of those items.  May the convention adopt convention standing rules? 

On 3/9/2024 at 11:13 AM, Rob Elsman said:

The correct answer to the second question depends on facts not in evidence.

Actually, it seems to depend on a situation not applicable in this case. 

On 3/9/2024 at 10:18 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I simply don't understand this at all. When such questions are asked, why not suggest moving to suspend the rules which interfere with prohibiting any amendment?  Why do you see a need to suggest doing it in your extraordinarily convoluted solution?

I would have taken Mr. Gerber's initial post to be just that (if expressed a bit tongue in cheek).  

A motion "to suspend the rules and prohibit amendment of the main motion," would have the effect of limiting debate.  Motions to amend are debatable when the motion to which they are applied are debatable.  If amendments are prohibited, then the ability to debate them is also prohibited.  

On 3/7/2024 at 10:34 PM, Father Cadan said:

I wouldn't say that notice is required, but is given sometimes in the form of the agenda going out before the meeting. The agenda though would just be the topic: 'Donation to X' or 'Event X'.  We have had special meetings of the board in the middle of our membership meeting to comply with the 'board first' requirement.

As there is no requirement for notice, the rule is one that could be suspended.  Further the violation of it would require a timely point of order. 

On 3/7/2024 at 8:29 AM, George Mervosh said:

Like Mr. Martin, I'd like more information.  Depending on the answers to his questions, there may be something here in the nature of a rule protecting absentees.

That is why I said, "to the extent." 

A rule requiring some other subordinate body to originate a main motion is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  The part of the rule stating that a motion be "considered and shaped, first, by the board of directors," is suspendable.  A requirement, hypothetical at this point, that the board send out notice, is not suspendable. 

The motion would just be to go into executive session.  You would not adjourn to executive session as adjourning ends the meeting.

You do not need to announce the reason for executive session, unless your own rules require it. 

To the extent that rule required something to be done prior to the introduction of business, the rule is a rule in the nature of a rule of order.  A motion to, "suspend the rules and introduce a motion that was not 'considered and shaped, first, by the board of directors'" would be in order, IMO.  It deals with introducing business within a meeting. 

On 3/6/2024 at 9:35 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

No. This question answers itself. 

Then it wouldn't be an "earlier adjournment."  This is the same motion.

On 3/6/2024 at 3:26 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

I think this may be where we disagree. It is not the adjournment previously set that is being taken up early. Rather, a new, earlier adjournment, is being moved. 

If it is an "earlier adjournment," could it be privileged, at least if raised when something else is pending (which would violate 21:3 #2).

On 3/5/2024 at 9:11 AM, Dan Honemann said:

I would be interested in learning a bit more about the reasoning behind this distinction you seem to be drawing between the vote required for adoption of subsidiary improper motions and incidental main motions to adjourn prior to a time already set for adjournment in an adopted agenda.  In this connection, I think you will agree that:

1.  If a time for adjournment is set in an adopted agenda, that adjournment has been made an order of the day, and will constitute either a special order or a general order as those terms are defined in RONR.  

2.  An order of the day created by the adoption of an agenda cannot be taken up before the time for which it is set except by suspending the rules by a two-thirds vote, since an affirmative vote adopting an agenda cannot be reconsidered.  

3.  If an incidental main motion is made to amend the previously adopted agenda to change the time set for adjournment, adoption of such a motion will require either a two-thirds vote, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. A majority vote will not suffice.

All three of these statements are clearly set forth in 41:40-42, 41:58-59, 41:63

Though, in theory, it could end up with just under 1/3 of the assembly twiddling its thumbs for a while, there is logic in this position.   Adjournment is set a 5:00 PM, but the finial  item of business is completed at 3:00 PM.  A member might leave the meeting at 1:00 PM, planning to return at 4:00 PM to move to reconsider, raise a point of order, or give notice.  That member would know that, absent a majority of the entire membership, 1/3 of the members could prevent  the meeting from adjourning until 5:00 PM.

My problem is, that is not t6-t6 # 3 says.   

On 3/4/2024 at 11:25 AM, Josh Martin said:

So to be clear, the previously elected Vice Chair is still serving?

So I suppose that technically, a member could raise a Point of Order that the Chairman was not validly elected due to the absence of a quorum at the convention when the results were announced. Except to the extent the bylaws provide otherwise, however, such a Point of Order could only be raised at the next convention of the body in question. (It should also be noted that a Point of Order concerning the lack of a quorum requires clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, which may be difficult to obtain for a convention which occurred a year ago).

Assuming that, following the chair's ruling and any subsequent appeal, the convention does make the determination that the election is invalid, the convention would then proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Chair from the convention held the previous year.

It may well be, however, that in the circumstances it is best if everyone agrees to just let sleeping dogs lie.

In any event, after that is all settled, the convention should also proceed to complete the incomplete election in the office of Vice Chair from the previous convention.

It could make the announcement at the new meeting, if the ballots were secured.