J. J.

In theory, both bodies could meet at the same time in the same place, or a subset of the larger body. It may not be advisable, but it could be done. They may also be situations where the the board has exclusive authority to have some action, and it becomes necessary for the board to conduct business. Bill Evans did opine that way, I think.

I'm not sure that is the case.

I may have missed, but I do not see a reference to statute.

I will first note that Robert's Rules of Order In Brief has very little on disciplinary action, generally referring the reader to RONR. Due to the complexity of disciplinary action, this is understandable. Robert's Rules for Dummies does give a great deal of explanation. As to learning the procedure, I would suggest that. Secondly, I will say that disciplinary procedure is exceptionally complex. This is one of the things where I advise you to hire a parliamentarian that is familiar with the process.

I'm looking at who has the ultimate authority to interpret.

A statute mandating a particular parliamentary authority for a type of organization would be a an applicable procedural rule prescribe in law (p. 251, c.). It could not be violated. I think that the best to handle this is to ask the secretary if a stop sign or a one way sign is "used as a guideline." If the answer is no, then you have probably have made your point.

"could, and could." The motion that "Member X be censured for insulting nuns" could be amended to "Member X be commended for insulting nuns." I probably wouldn't vote for the amended version, but it would be in order.

Because it is a different session. A lot of time has elapsed and it is more likely for people to have changed their minds. In some cases, e.g. a convention, there many be totally new set of members.

The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent for 2019, and that, for 2020, the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus fifteen percent." Again, if you think this proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why. If the proposal, made this year, without the other being adopted was, "That the annual dues for 2021 be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus twenty percent," would that violate the quoted bylaw. I am not following your logic, so that is why I am asking.

Let's go back to the rule itself, in toto. " The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary. The Secretary shall distribute the proposal and statement of necessity to all Members and Emeritus Members at least 60 days before the Annual Business Meeting and will facilitate discussion and submission of comments on the proposal from the membership prior to and at the Annual Business Meeting. The Secretary shall summarize the comments received. The proposed change together with the statement of necessity and the summary of comments shall be presented to the Members and Emeritus Members in good standing for final approval or rejection by secret vote." The board has the amount of dues, and has submitted the "proposed dues changes." Again, they could express this in a motion, "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent." That statement is the "proposed change in the amount of the dues." That is a standing rule as much as a proposal, "that the annual dues shall be $100," is a standing rule as adopted. The proposal "that the annual dues shall be equal to the annual dues of the previous year, plus 3 percent of the the previous year's dues, rounded to the nearest cent," Where X equals the previous year's dues, the current dues are X + (X/100 x 3), rounded to the nearest cent. That is the amount of the dues increase. That is not substantive different than adopting this proposal: "The annual dues shall be set for the stated amount for each year listed: 2019: $103 2020: $106.09 2021: $110.11 2022: $113.41 .................. (out to infinity)." The difference is that the second example expresses it in dollars and cents (and is infinitely longer). There is nothing in the bylaw quoted that says, "The dollar amount of the dues shall be included with the notice," "or "included in the proposal." The idea that a proposal, to be valid, must express things in dollar amounts is being read into the bylaws. I won't discuss future years in this question, but it does relate to the expression question. The proposal is "That the annual dues be set at the annual dues in 2018, plus ten percent." If you think that the proposal violates the bylaws, please indicate why.

Yes, the general membership has that authority, specifically, "Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws (p. 588, l.25)." Note that, if the meaning is clear, it cannot be changed by interpretation. The only exception would be if the bylaws, or some rule adopted by the assembly, grants the board the authority to interpret the bylaws.

I agree, unless it was as a persistent violation.

The first point was a reference to Zev's comment. I don't equivocate; I state it directly. Under the bylaw quoted, if there is a proposed change in the rule relating to the dues the rule regarding notice must be followed. It does not relate to the dues itself. In other words, it controls how the dues are set, not what the dues are. They bylaws could have been constructed, fairly easily, to require every time the dues were changed. Simply saying "any proposed change in the amount of the dues," would be sufficient. If the framers had wished to prevent something like a standard percentage, the could have, with ease; they did not. That may point to the intent.

I see nothing in the presented bylaw that would even hint that it was the intent of the framers to require the dues be approved each year. The dues differ. However, the bylaws to do not say that there must be notice and a vote any time the amount of the dues is different from the prior year. The bylaws refer to the "proposed change." In 2017, the proposed change was: "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." There was no proposed change in 2018, or 2019. Except by amending or rescinding the adopted rule, " That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," there will be no change in 2020 either. The dues and the adopted proposal are two different things.

The dues increase is 3% of the dues. Assume that this mean 3% of the dues annually when the proposal was adopted, for simplicity, and that this was adopted 2017. In 2017, the dues were $100 per year. In 2018, the dues were $103. In 2019, they are $106. In 2020, the will be $109. In 2021, they will be $112. The proposal is "that the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues," again for simplicity; that is the proposal as approved in 2017. What is wording of that rule in 2018? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." What is wording of the rule in 2019? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." In 2020, unless amended? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." 2021? "That the dues be increased by 3% annually based on the 2017 dues." There has been no change to that rule.

From the former amount to 3% per year. A 3% increase in dues changes the dues. The proposal "to increase the dues 3% per year," once adopted, does not change.

It isn't the **proposed dues.** It says the "proposed change." Two different things. The "proposed change" is 3% per year.

The bylaws do specifically state what needs to be approved, the "proposed change." It does not say **the proposed dues." The proposed change is: " "That in 2020, the annual dues be set at $50.00 and that the dues be raised to $60.00 in 2021." It is not **that the annual dues be set at $60.00 in 2021.** When the dues go up in 2021, there has been no modification to the proposed change.

Everything! The motion remains in effect. A 3% increase in dues per year remains in effect. Any proposal remains in effect until it is repealed. The proposal is "that the annual dues be increased by 3% above what they are in the previous year," presumably.

Assume that the motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is properly adopted at the 2010 annual meeting. The motion was neither rescinded or amended. In 2019, the annual dues are $25.00. There is nothing in the quoted bylaw that indicates that the effect of the motion has ended. RONR indicates that the motion remains in force (pp. 111-12; 251 b.). Further, attempting to make a motion "that the annual dues be set at $25," is out of order (p. 104, ll. 24-31); it would a reaffirmation. Yes, that motion can remain in effect indefinitely for may years, if not many decades. I do not agree with Mr. Brown that this is a bylaw interpretation question. I do agree with Dr. Kapur that it is an attempt at "reading something into the bylaws that isn't there." There is no requirement either in the quoted bylaw, in RONR, or in the motion as described,2 that would provide a "sunset" for these motions. 2 I will note that any of these sources could provide for the termination of the motion, without needing additional action by the assembly.

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.