Richard Brown

@jstackpo you might be interested in this thread.

A regular contributor to this forum, Dr. John Stackpole, has written an excellent article about why co-presidents or co- anythings are a bad idea. Keep checking back. He will probably see this thread and chime in with a link to his article. Are you here @jstackpo ? I do not have RONR in front of me, but there is a sentence in it to the effect that co-chairs are generally a very bad idea. I think the same principle applies to co-presidents. Also, if the bylaws refer to "a president" or "the president", that seems to me a clear indication that a single individual for the office is contemplated. Edited to add: Here you go, from the top of page 176: "If the committee's task is heavy and will require some time to complete, it often is advisable to appoint a vice-chairman. The anomalous title "co-chairman" should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position.

I agree with Bruce Lages. I do not see the situation as being analogous to the assembly merely ratifying an appointment or nomination by the chair. I see this as more of an ordinary committee recommendation which, once it is before the assembly, is subject to amendment as well as being voted up or down as presented. If there are Provisions in your bylaws which provide otherwise, then your bylaws would control. I suppose that if this is the way it has been done for years and through the selection of many pastors, the procedure you want to follow could perhaps be looked upon as a custom. Ultimately, it may require a ruling on a point of order by the chair as to whether amendments are permissible and then an appeal of the ruling to the assembly. The decision of the assembly on the appeal is final. Although none of us on this forum are members of your congregation and we do not get to vote on this, I think you will find little support among our regular contributors for your position. I think the vast majority of us are of the opinion, based on RONR , that this is an ordinary main motion resulting from a committee recommendation and that it is subject to amendment as are all original main motions. We don't get to decide it, however. Your presiding officer and your assembly are the ones who will ultimately decide whether it is amendable.

John, are y0u sure about that citation? If so, how is it relevant? In my 11th edition, that citation has to do with adjourned meetings. The next session is regarding annual meetings. We have not been advised that this meeting is either of those. In fact, the original poster said it is a special meeting.

Since our purpose here is to help people, I really don't think it serves a purpose to get snarky or sarcastic. Guest Luke's question is actually a rather common one on this forum and it isn't unusual for guests to ask whether amendments can be prohibited and if so, how. There are numerous threads on the subject. In fact, there are methods to prohibit amendments or at least make them more difficult to adopt. For example, a motion or special rule of order can be adopted which prohibits amendments in certain circumstances, but it would require a two thirds vote for the adoption of such a rule. And such a special rule could itself be suspended by a two thirds vote.

I agree and will add that I see nothing in RONR which directly prohibits a person from serving both as president and parliamentarian of the same organization. However, trying to do so can be quite problematic, as the restrictions on the extent to which a member parliamentarian and a presiding officer may participate in a meeting are significantly different. The restrictions on the extent to which a member parliamentarian can participate in a meeting are more restrictive than the restrictions on the presiding officer. I suppose, now that I think about it and look back over the previous posts, I am also agreeing with your first response in this thread. I think we agree on the problems with the presiding officer also serving as the organization's parliamentarian.

I agree with Mr. Huynh, who posted his answer as I was composing mine. I see nothing in the quoted portion of the bylaws which restricts the creation of committees to the board. Absent such a restriction, or a provision granting the board the exclusive authority to manage the affairs of the society, the membership has the inherent authority to create committees. Edited to add: A bylaw provision granting the board the authority to do something is not an exclusive grant of that authority unless the provision, or some other bylaw provision, grants the board the exclusive authority in that regard. Absent such a bylaw provision, the general membership also has the power to act. The board is subservient to the general membership and may not countermand actions of the membership. See Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13 on the main website: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

I agree with Tom Coronite. Much depends on the nature and specifics of the proposed amendment. Main motions are, by definition, amendable. RONR, page 80. So, the question becomes whether a particular amendment is in order.

You might read page the section on disciplinary proceedings, particularly the language on page 652, which says the chair must vacate the chair as soon as a motion to remove him is made and seconded. If he does not do so voluntarily, a point of order would be the appropriate motion. Here is the pertinent language from page 652: If the chair is not an appointed or elected chairman pro tem, a motion to declare the chair vacant is not in order. However, a motion can be made to Suspend the Rules so as to take away from him the authority to preside during all or part of a given session.** When such a motion is made and seconded, after stating the motion he must turn the chair over to another following the procedure described on page 395, and the remedy for refusal or failure to do so is that the motion may be put to a vote by its maker. (Emphasis added) (Note that this rule says the chair MUST turn the chair over to someone else when a motion is made to remove him from presiding. It's a "must" rule, not a "should" rule. He must vacate the chair as soon as the motion is seconded).

Atul beat me to it. I was just about to say that the elections are a special order of business if the bylaws specify that they should take place at a certain meeting, such as the annual meeting. So, the elections would come up at the appropriate place in the order of business for special orders, prior to new business.

I agree with Dr. Kapur. This is not about members' rights. It's related to parliamentary procedure only in the sense that a motion to terminate this person might need to be adopted. This is a personnel matter, not a parliamentary procedure matter. An attorney should be consulted about the relative rights between the association and the employee and what your options are regarding terminating the employee.

I'm under the impression that it is the current/outgoing president who the members are unhappy with, not the newly elected president. If it's the newly elected president, then I think Dr.Kapur has a point. But, if it is the outgoing president, it seems his term is about to expire and he will be out of office very soon, if his term has not already ended. I don't see much point in trying to remove an officer whose term is expiring within a month or so, but that is a decision for this organization to make. btw, there are options other than removal from office and formal disciplinary proceedings. A non-disciplinary motion of censure is an option, for example.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you are saying in this paragraph about the voting process and requirements. Perhaps others understand it, but I don't. Can you elaborate? No. Once an election has been completed and the winners announced and the meeting adjourns, there is no provision in RONR for re-opening nominations and having a new election except in very rare enumerated situations and this does not appear to be one of them.

Agreeing with the previous posts about the propriety or appropriateness of such a bylaw change, I urge you to change the wording of the vote requirement above. That language is ambiguous, leaving uncertainty as to whether the vote requirement is an ordinary two thirds vote of the members present and voting or the vote of two thirds of the members present. Which vote requirement do you think the current rule (and your proposed rule) call for? Two thirds of those present and voting or two thirds of those present? Those are two different standards.

I agree with all of the previous responses, but with a caveat: If the bylaws (or perhaps a special rule of order) specify that only items on the agenda may be considered at a meeting, that would create a problem and perhaps cause the proposed motions to be out of order as new business if they are not on the agenda. Some organizations have such a rule, or a variation of it, and those rules very often prove problematic because the can prevent the organization from taking up something important and urgent that cannot or should not have to wait until the next meeting. Organizations with such a rule usually require that all items of business be submitted to the chair or the secretary a certain number of days in advance and placed on the agenda in order to be taken up at the meeting. The better of such rules provide for unforeseen business to be added to the agenda or taken up with a super-majority vote of some kind. Such rules can also sometimes be suspended with a two thirds vote unless they are considered in the nature of a notice provision. A notice provision cannot be suspended or waived.

Well, take it up with the authorship team. It's their rule and has been the rule for quite some time. Several passages in RONR make plain that a motion to commend someone can be amended to become a motion of censure and vice versa. RONR is clear that a non-disciplinary motion of censure is permissible.

No. That footnote is not limited to offenses occurring in a meeting. It applies to any motion of censure. It is simply a statement that a motion of censure doesn't necessarily have to be in the nature of a disciplinary proceeding.

I agree. In this case, I think the self proclaimed "expert" is claiming that RONR provides for a method of disciplining members and that this organization is bound by it and cannot vary from it. On that point, the self proclaimed expert is dead wrong. I do agree, however, that there may be a legitimate question as to just which body has the authority to adopt this rule and also whether an email vote would be valid. Those issues do not seem to be what concerned the "expert".

Like this post says (It's the first post in the forum, which is pinned, and says "Important: Read this first": https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

Question 1: No. The minutes (and any corrections of the minutes) should reflect what was done at the meeting, not what people said and not what one member thinks what should have been done or even what the entire board (or the entire organization) thinks should be done. If someone is unhappy with what was done, that member can to rescind or amend it at a future meeting. But trying to do it by changing the motion is not the way to do it. Question 2: No, her grievances are not "correct". As to the disciplinary process and removing people from office, your own rules trump whatever is in RONR. RONR is the default: it is what you follow if you don't have a rule of your own which provides for something different. Your organization has every right to adopt a procedure that different from what RONR provides. I'm not sure what other thing she is questioning. If she was unhappy with the way a vote was being handled, she should have raised a timely point of order at the time of the breach. It is too late now. If the bylaws don't specify the day or time or place of regular meetings, the organization would normally adopt a motion in the nature of a standing rule to specify the date, time and place of the monthly meetings. As an alternative, the society can set each future meeting by a motion adopted at the previous meeting, sometimes referred to setting meetings by resolution. Some organization set meetings several months in advance. Also, bylaws frequently authorize the president or the board or a certain number of members to call special meetings (or even regular meetings). Do your bylaws provide for that? How are your meetings set now?

Based on your post, you are correct. All of the rules, including even the rules in the bylaws, cannot be suspended to let the majority do whatever it wants to do. However, I know of no way, other than going to court, to force other members to follow the rules. That's what disciplinary proceedings and elections are for. Elect people who will follow the rules. I don't know... and I don't know how you "impel" someone to do something. The only things I know to do are to keep trying to educate them and to elect new leaders at the next election. Or file suit to set aside something done without authority and in violation of the rules. You can try disciplinary action or removing one or more of them from office, but I don't see that a majority of the board is likely to go along with that. People have the right to be bone-headed and the right to be wrong. Perhaps others have better ideas.

If the requirement of a ballot vote is not in your bylaws, I agree with Mr. Katz that a timely point of order would have been required. If no timely point of order was made, the breach was waived. We sometimes refer to it as "you snooze, you lose".

By what rule or provision or motion was a ballot vote mandated? Is the requirement for a vote by ballot in disciplinary proceedings included in the bylaws?

You raise a "point of order" (or make a parliamentary inquiry) at the earliest opportunity. Assuming you think the motion is out of order and you want to raise a point of order rather than make an inquiry to the chair, you can and probably should raise your point of order as soon as the motion is made, without waiting on a second. You can, of course, wait to see if it is seconded, but if it is and if debate on the motion begins immediately, it may be too late for you to raise your point of order. Why take that chance? Make it as soon as the improper motion is made.

Who is this "they" that you referred to several times? Are you referring to the board or to a single individual, such as the president? If you are referring to a single individual, please use the pronoun "he" or "she". When you use the pronoun "they", we think you are referring to a group of people such as the board.