J. J.

I think we are too the point of trying to clarify what the question is, and what the disagreements are.

There is, at least from a parliamentary standpoint, a difference between the dues increasing, and a motion to increase the dues. The proposal, effectively a motion, is what needs the notice. That proposal may trigger a different dues amount at some point, but there is no requirement that the dues themselves be approved. Only the proposal is what comes before the assembly. A motion, "That the annual dues be set at $100 per year" is in order, however, so are other forms. This is a hypothetical proposal, "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021." In 2020, the dues are $50.00. In 2021 the dues are $60.00. The dues have changed. The proposal, however, has not changed. It is still "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021." That proposal does not violate the bylaws, because no requirement that the dues be set annually. I cannot find a reason for finding that motion somehow improper. The framers of the bylaws could have easily written something into these bylaws that would require a yearly approval of dues. They could have referred to the "amount of the dues" being voted on, instead of the "proposed change." They didn't do either.

I think that is it. The difference of opinion is not if the assembly can set its dues by motion. Both Richard and I agree on that point; the bylaws permit the setting of the dues by motion. I think Josh is on the same page in that regard, but I don't want to put words int his mouth. The difference of opinion is on if this specific motion constitutes a change in the dues. This is the original rule: The question is if a motion setting the dues as being increased by a fix percentage constitutes a "change." This bylaw does not require that the dues be set on a yearly basis. A motion "That the annual dues be set at $25," would be in force year after year, until it is subject to rescind/amend something previously adopted. The bylaw does not specify that dues be expressed in a specific monetary amount. A motion could be adopted "that the annual dues be set at $25.00 in Canadian money." It could be motion " "that the annual dues be set at 2 troy ounces of 0.999 fine silver." That motion would not change, though the value of those things, measured in American dollars, would probably fluctuate over time. Now, we come to a motion that says that the dues shall be based on a 3% increase, each year, on that current year's dues. That is not a change in the motion from year to year. The board recommends, under this rule; their recommendation is 3% of what the members are paying in a current year, a fixed amount. It does not specify a specific dollar, but there is no requirement for a specific dollar amount. There is no requirement that the dues be set on an annual basis, so that not can be a ground for declaring it void. The "proposed change" is that the dues be a 3% increase above the current year, each year. That was the "proposed change." No additional motion is needed to continue the effect of that "proposed change" of 3%. The rule applies to the changing of the dues, not to the dollar amount, in US dollars, of the dues. The dues proposal need not be expressed in dollars to be valid.

First, thank you for the explanation. I was not seeing it. I would the change to be change from a parliamentary sense; the authorization for the dues for a specific year has not changed. This has to do with if the motion setting the dues has been changed. There is nothing to suggest to me that the setting of the dues is limited to a year; a motion setting the dues will be in effect until rescinded or amended.

Respectfully, I think you are. The bylaw in question permits the assembly to establish dues by rule. Even if RONR had a rule that said, "The amount of annual dues for the members must be included in the bylaws," which it doesn't1, the bylaw would supersede it. The bylaw authorize the method for the setting of the dues. 1RONR does mandate that the right of memberships cannot be abridge by dropping a member for not paying dues, unless the bylaws so provide.

No, because the assembly is authorized to set annual dues.

Respectfully, the issue is on how this rule conflicts with the bylaws, with the presumption that the bylaws are otherwise silent on the issue. Can you elaborate on how this rule does conflict with this bylaw? That is the problem that I, and I think a number of others, are having with the premise. I would certainly agree that the 3% per year increase could be ended by following the process in the bylaws.

It may be inflammatory, but it is accurate. I have seen instances where some person insisted that a particular phrase authorizing some action was in the bylaws. No such phrase existed after both a detailed study of the bylaws and a document search. That was not the only case. Just to be clear, I am not referring to this particular instance.

I am seeing nothing in this quote that indicates that the dues amount much be reauthorized each year. Because a motion generally remains in force until rescinded (see p. 111, especially the footnote), a hypothetical motion "that the dues be set at $50.00 per year" adopted in 2012 would remain in effect today, unless that motion was rescinded or amended as something previously adopted. I would find nothing out of order about a hypothetical motion being adopted in 2012 "that the dues be set at $50.00 in 2013 and increased to $75.00 beginning in 2015." This effectively, specifies the time when the effect of setting $50.00 dues per year, and replaces it with another amount. We see this effect in relation to provisos, where one effect begins sometime after the proviso is adopted (p. 597). I think that there is general agreement that a proviso could apply to a main motion. I would see nothing out of order with a motion setting a 3% annual increase anymore than I would with a motion that said, "that the dues be set at $50.00 for 2012, $51.50 in 2013, $53.05 in 2014, $54.16 in 2015, $56.28 in 2017, ..." ending at a distant time in the future. If this is all that the bylaws say, then the members at a meeting may adopt a change in the dues as provided in this compact. Assuming that board submitted a recommendation, that proper notice was given to the adoption of this recommendation and, finally, that the vote was by a secret method (e.g. ballot). I see no violation of the bylaws, at least in regard to the quoted passage, by adopting a 3% annual dues increase.

The first one is very clearly a rule in the nature of a rule of order as it deals with the transaction of business within a meeting (p. 15, ll. 9-11). An order of business is specifically mentioned as something that is a rule in the nature of a rule of order (p. 16, ll. 7-9). Likewise, the setting of a vote threshold deals with the transaction of business within a meeting. That is a rule in the nature of a rule of order as well.

Setting the legality, the motion might be in order, if such a motion was clear to all members (and the secretary) and/or was written, especially the latter. Reading a long motion, perhaps pages, could be skipped, without objection (p. 33, ll. 31-33). That would not remove the secretary's duty of including the motion in the minutes, as appropriate, verbatim. Nor would this prohibit any member of this board from demanding that the motion be read prior to it being put to a vote (p. 299, ll. 4-8).

Did the voting take place at a meeting?

The voter, in order to identify how he votes, could be required to sign his ballot in the presence of the secretary, or somehow publicly verify how he voted. That would prevent me from signing the name "Shmuel Gerber," or saying that I voted no when I voted yes. It might be advisable for Mr. Greenberg to see the article "On the Record," National Parliamentarian, Fourth Quarter 2000. I do not have a digital copy, but one could be gotten from the National Association of Parliamentarians. I think it covers the very legitimate situation issue you are raising.

The only thing that I think could possibly create a problem is if there was a special rule requiring the ballots to be "official" to be credited.

The questioner said " since it was presented to the department ahead of time," so that may not apply. Yes, if notice was required by the bylaws, it would be null and void. There is a possibility of using a majority of the entire membership in some cases. Say hello to the condors for me.

Unless the vote was by ballot, or required to be by ballot, it sounds like it is too late to raise a point of order.

I think it should be treated like an election, at least if the motion is adopted with a blank; that would include the possibility of reopening suggestions. However, the 11th edition does not say that.

Who elected the vice president? Does the vice president have to be a board member?

If you are asking the general question, "Can a person be eligible to run for election and become a director on our Co-op board if they do not meet the eligibility requirements for office as expressed in our bylaws or superior rules," the answer is no (p. 445, ll. 19-22). The question will be if someone runs or is elected a director is, in fact, ineligible. That second question is one that your organization will have to answer.

Or, you could just contact the author, who would happy to send you the text.

Usually. I'm not hanging out with J. J. that much anymore.

As I've indicated, this could be a bylaw interpretation question. It would be better to amend the bylaws to state if this a matter of "continuing eligibility" or a requirement at election. I hate giving the bylaw interpretation answer, but it often is.

And I.

Agreeing with you, I would note that some, if not most, of those types of hearing are governed by RONR.

I found it. Precedent and RONR, National Parliamentarian, Third Quarter 2012. I'm sorry, but my memory is going. Edit: I am attaching a copy because it sounds so much like this thread. NP 31.doc