J. J.

I think p. 308, ll. 25 does speak to it, clearly. It notes that when "a person has been elected to or expelled from membership or office..." and is present or has been notified that act cannot be rescinded (with exceptions noted). The person, in this case, may not be holding office, but clearly has been "elected to" office. Based on that, disciplinary action could be applied to people elected to, but not yet holding, office. That would be enough to show that someone elected to, but not yet holding, office may be removed as per Chapter XX. I do have a problem with calling it the "position" or "office," because those things would need to be expressed in bylaws and standing rules. The difference is one of vocabulary.

For you, it is obvious that this would not refer to a Parliamentary Inquiry. For some else, it may not be obvious. I am of the opinion, at least at this point, that the parliamentarian is answerable to the chair. It would be legitimate for the chair to prohibit the parliamentarian to answer; that would be a legitimate order of the chair. That said, there is nothing that would prevent the assembly from suspending the rules, and electing a chairman, pro tem, and the chairman instructing the parliamentarian to answer the question. Like any Request for Information, the answer may be, "I decline to answer." The parliamentarian might also answer, "I don't know." In the case of a presumed bylaw ambiguity, where an ambiguity does exist, the parliamentarian could indicate that the assembly will have to interpret the bylaw. I think I have answered my own question, but I did so based on the answers. Thank you all.

I would agree, with a modification to the parenthetical part. I would say that the parliamentarian probably should not answer a request for information, unless requested to do so by the chair. I would that that I am not asking about a Parliamentary Inquiry, because that is directed to the chair.

Thank you. A member, by a request for information, requests an answer by the parliamentarian as to if the motion violates the bylaws. The chair says, "Don't answer that." Is the parliamentarian obligated to follow this instruction of the chair in this matter? Is the parliamentarian obliged to respond the member? Is it the parliamentarian's choice? There is the same circumstance, except the assembly has adopted a motion, "That the parliamentarian give his opinion on if [a specific main motion] violates the bylaws." The chair says, "Don't answer that." Is the parliamentarian obligated to follow this instruction of the chair in this matter? Is the parliamentarian obliged to give his opinion to the assembly? Is it the parliamentarian's choice? I will note, since it has come up, that there is no contractual regulation of this; I trying to find an answer as to RONR. I would assume that the parliamentarian is not obliged to answer a request for information, in general. He may decline to answer, even if the chair does not say, "Don't answer that." I really don't have an answer.

If that is the scenario, after the request is made, the chair says to the parliamentarian, "Don't answer that." Under RONR, strictly, is the parliamentarian obliged to follow the instructions of the chair?

In this case, the parliamentarian is a non-member.

Yes, I am seeing your point.

This is hypothetical, though it could come up (and may have for someone). Question 1: The parliamentarian advises the chair on if Motion B is in order; he does so quietly. The Chair rules Motion B a out of order on the ground that it violated the bylaws; the chair's ruling is appealed. A member requests that the chair tell the assembly what the parliamentarian's advice was. The chair declines. The member then moves "to suspend the rules and have the parliamentarian opine on if Motion B is in order." The motion is adopted, though the chair still objects. Is the parliamentarian obliged to state that opinion to the assembly? Question 2: Motion A, if in order, requires previous notice, but is not a bylaw amendment. Previous notice is required. The parliamentarian and the chair discuss Motion A prior to the meeting. They do not speak together about the motion during the meeting The Chair rules Motion A a out of order on the ground that it violated the bylaws; the chair's ruling is appealed. A member requests that the chair permit the parliamentarian to opine on if the motion is in order. The chair declines. The member then moves "to suspend the rules and have the parliamentarian opine on if Motion A is in order." The motion is adopted, though the chair still objects. Is the parliamentarian obliged to state that opinion to the assembly? Question 3 Is the same as Question #2, with this difference. The motion to suspend the rules is "to suspend the rules and have the parliamentarian state any advice he has given the chair as to if Motion A is in order." 3a. Is the motion in order "to suspend the rules and have the parliamentarian state any advice he has given the chair as to if Motion A is in order," in order? 3b. Is the parliamentarian obliged to disclose to the assembly any advice he gave the president prior to the meeting as to if Motion A is in order? What would you think the answer, under the rules, would be the to these questions?

"Overturning" the ballot could create that breach of a continuing nature. Assume that the ballot is valid. Saying that the rule is no longer in effect is the same as rescinding it; the only way to do that is by a mail/e-mail ballot vote. Failure to do that would create a continuing breach, the same one, depriving members of the right to vote (unless all members are present). The only way to know if the vote was valid, is to know: 1. The total number of voting members. 2. How many of the members cast votes. 3. The the result of the voting, specifically the number of votes for and against. Guest Ericka, or someone else familiar with the results, will have to provide that information.

That can be problematic and could, potentially, create a continuing breach.

This is not a case of incorrect notice; it is, potentially, a violation of the basic right of an individual member to vote.

The member should consult the bylaws. Something that somebody, or some body, says does not supersede the bylaws.

The mover of the motion. If the minutes had been released, a motion "That the board minutes be published," would require a majority vote.

I have to agree with Mr. Martin's premise on two different things. The assembly on a case by case basis, has the right to "suspend the rules and require the board minutes to be read at this meeting and afterward published." As a rule, the assembly has the authority to give orders to an officer. The rule that would be suspended is that only members of the particular body have a right to see the minutes. Second, Mr. Martin seems to be saying that a special rule would be require to do this permanently. I agree with him on that.

We don't know that both were closed on the 8th. It is possible that votes could be cast for the change balloting to still be open. If it wasn't, that would create the problem, leading to my second point, i.e. would this have effected the result? It very well could, but we don't know.

A point of order submitted to the assembly can be referred to a committee, inclusive of the board. It is likely that it was submitted to the assembly, perhaps not in correct form, since there were "somewhat heated discussions." If there was no objection to the president's action at the time, it was referred to board.

If the body authorized the board to do that, even passively, yes. At least in my mind, there are a number of questions that would before there could be a decision. It is possible for the bylaws to have been violated and for the vote to have been legitimate. The "worst" possibility is that, if the changes to the Member Practices were adopted, they would be null and void, but that could not be determined from your posts. Perhaps, if you posted the total number of members, and the voting result, I could say something a bit more definite.

I am not sure what you mean by "not being treated equally?" All the ballot cast by 5/15 would have to be counted, and there is no "closing" of the electronic "polling place." Anybody who wanted to cast a vote before 5/15 could and could cast it via mail or Internet; that is the situation I'm envisioning. Yes, when I say "every member" I mean every member. I would add that if it could be shown that the number of people who did not vote did not effect the result, then the actual balloting would stand. For example, the total membership is 100; a 2/3 vote is required. 80 people vote and 67 vote in favor of the amendment; in that case, the amendment was adopted. I think pp. 252-3 would cover the situation. See also pp. 445-6. I do not see this as a matter of notice, but of depriving members of the right to vote. I would note that a point of order could be raised that the bylaws were not followed, but that may not be sufficient to invalidate the vote.

If ballots that arrived between 5/8 and 5/15 were not credited, the vote was null and void. However, if they are counted, the bylaws have been followed in this matter. Basically, there would be two possible ways for this error to be corrected without re-balloting. 1. If all ballots that were received by 5/15 are counted, then there is no violation of the bylaws. The statement in conflict with the bylaws has no validity and any member could have consulted the bylaws to see the proper return time. Depending on how the electronic voting was handled, this might not have been possible. 2. Every member voted on or before 5/8. If any ballots arriving after 5/8 were destroyed, and it could possibly effect the result, then re-balloting will be needed. It might be necessary to have an adjourned meeting for thebresults to be announced. Before I would be willing to say that this is null and void, I would need more information.

If that is the bylaw, then, as Mr. Honemann, it would require the vote of a majority of the members present to adopt something. The president may vote when it effects the result. Assume that there are 18 members present, including the president. 9 members vote "yes." 3 votes "no." The president may vote because it would effect the result; a majority of members present is 10. If the president votes yes, the motion will have 10 voted and be adopted. If he votes no, or abstains, the motion does not get votes and is defeated. Neither the president nor any member can be compelled to vote (p. 407, ll, 12-15).

Voting by white and black ball is permitted, by the footnote on p. 412 . Those are not slips of paper.

I take it that the "business meeting" is a meeting of the members. I also take it that the board members are speaking out on a pending motion, e.g. a motion to approve or rescind something the board did. There is no prohibition on a member of the board, who is also a voting member of the assembly, from speaking on the issue, when that issue is pending. Unless your rules say otherwise, the members of the board need not speak with one voice at a business meeting.

Your colleague is incorrect. I just saw it within the last minute.

Yes, I would say the motion, that the motion "that the resignation be accepted" is an incidental motion (pp. 289-90). That said, something raised under the device of a Question of Privilege is not necessarily a main motion and would include an incidental motion. P. 225 does specifically refer to sections 32 and 33, the first be a Request to Be Excused From a Duty (and the second being Requests and Inquiries). Earlier in the thread, I think I mentioned that accepting the resignation of an officer would likely constitute a Question of Privilege; I do not know that this is the resignation of an officer. In this case, we are talking about removing a pastor. A pastor may not be an officer of the assembly. He may be an employee; in some denominations, the pastor/pastors are not actually members of that congregation. Is the post of pastor "essential to the functioning of a society or assembly?" From a procedural standpoint, no. Unless he some duty within the assembly, the meeting could be conducted without him. From a non-procedural standpoint, maybe. Edit: I did refer to the motion to remove someone, an officer, as being a question of privilege I do agree that a motion "that the resignation be accepted," could, in some circumstances, be raised under the device of a question of privilege.

Germaneness has nothing to do with this. It has not been ruled out of order because it is non-germane. There has been no suggestion that it has been. No, you must have missed: It is perfectly possible that one of these motions could be postponed and the other introduced. I would permit one motion to be subject to Lay on the Table, and once no longer pending, the other motion to be introduced.