Richard Brown

I take it your general membership elects the board and then the board selects the officers from among the board members. Is that correct? is that what what your bylaws provide for? Better yet, please quote for us exactly what your bylaws say about how and when the officers are selected.

Maybe even much less useful! Proper decorum, being able to raise points of order and being able to appeal from the ruling of the chair are three of the key ingredients to ensuring that the rules are followed and that order is maintained.

As Mr. Katz has already said, we must know how there came to be too many members on the board and what your rules say about how board members are selected in order to tell you what we believe is the best way is to remedy the situation. The last person selected is possibly not a member of the board at all. To answer just your last question, yes, the bylaws can be amended to provide for a different number of board members, but it is most likely the membership, not the board, that would have to adopt such a bylaw amendment. Even with such an amendment, however, the question could still remain whether the "extra" member was validly elected/selected in the first place. Authorizing an additional member in the bylaws does not automatically make the "extra" member a legitimate member. If he is not a legitimate member now, simply authorizing an additional member does not magically make him "legitimate". I agree with Mr. Katz that, at least for now, a point of order that one of the alleged "members" is not actually a member may be the best (or at least quickest) way to deal with it. If the membership really wants this person on the board, he can be elected once the additional seat is authorized. Bottom line: We need more information in order to give you a better answer.

I agree with Mr. Martin's position on this. In addition, we regularly advise visitors and new members who are complaining about their organization or its presiding officer not following proper procedure to be fully prepared when challenging the chair. We say, in essence, that you should wait for the right opportunity and have your ducks lined up. By that, we mean you should know exactly what your point of order is, you should be able to state it clearly and maybe point it out in RONR, and in the event you decide to appeal the ruling of the chair you need to know how (and when) to do it, you need someone who will quickly second your appeal, and, ideally, you need some fellow members who will speak in behalf of your position during the debate on the appeal. Since it often takes talking with fellow members and planning to pull that off, I would say that it is absolutely proper for you and a few fellow members to plan in advance and to be watching for the perfect opportunity to raise a point of order and to be ready to appeal from the ruling of the chair. In my opinion It is not unsavory to actually set up such a scenario by someone making a legitimate and non-dilatory motion to use as the basis for a point of order and appeal based on what you expect the chair's reaction to the motion (or the point of order) to be.

Normally the vice president automatically BECOMES president the instant the office becomes vacant. It is instantaneous and automatic. No other steps are necessary. It seems that your bylaws may provide differently. Exactly what do your bylaws say about a vacancy in the office of president?

Interesting question. I can see how the rule could be construed as creating an ambiguity, but I don't think it does. From my perspective, as a non-member, I believe the intent of the rule is simply to replace the "ten minutes per speech" rule in RONR with a "two minutes per speech" rule. If the rule was to be interpreted in the manner my friend Mr. Mervosh suggests, then it could also be interpreted to replace ALL of the rules in RONR limiting debate. It could mean, for example, that even the chair gets to debate every question twice for two minutes per speech. And that non-debatable motions in RONR have suddenly become debatable with two speeches of two minutes each regardless of whether RONR classifies the motion as a debatable motion. I think all of those interpretations are simply unreasonable. It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to simply change the ten minute rule in RONR to a Two minute rule. Ultimately, of course, it is up to this organization to interpret its own rules. It can do this with someone attempting to speak twice on an appeal and another member raising a point of order. The chair would make a ruling which will be binding unless it is appealed and overturned by the assembly.

I like Mr. Katz's version. It's shorter. And simpler. As in the KISS method.

The proper procedure under RONR would be for a motion to approve the agenda be made and seconded and then, once the adoption of the agenda is the pending item of business, a member would move to amend it.... exactly as any other motion would be processed. I suppose that some organizations might shortcut this procedure by the chair simply asking on his own once the meeting is called to order if there are any proposed changes to the agenda, but that is not proper. Approving (or adopting) the agenda is precisely like adopting any other motion. A member moves for adoption, someone seconds it, the chair states it (ideally), and then a member proposes her amendment and someone hopefully seconds it. Then the question is on the adoption of the proposed amendment. In your case, it would be the removal of the particular item. Once that is settled, the agenda itself can then be approved (unless there are further amendments). Most of that procedure is usually handled by unanimous consent.

I agree with Mr. Katz and was about to post the same thing. You might look at Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13 on the main website. Here is a link to 2006-12. 2006-13 is right below it: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

I think Thomas Jefferson said it very well in the following quote in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice: " It is much more material that that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members." The reference to "the caprice of the Speaker" is a reference to the presiding officer... the Speaker of the House, in this case.... not to the person speaking in debate.

I agree with the post immediately above by Josh Martin. I have concerns about trying to create this ladies auxiliary as a "standing committee". I just don't think it's a good idea for a variety of reasons, but I don't know the intricacies and customs of your organization. I think creating a separate class of membership or a separate organization is a better way to go. I also agree with his suggestion that you talk to members of several other fire companies regarding their practices and experiences.

I agree with the previous responses but will add that if for some reason there must be a delay before a new Treasurer can be selected, the organization or perhaps it's board may authorize someone to temporarily carry on at least some of the duties of the treasurer, such as writing checks and making deposits and keeping the check register current. This person would essentially have some or maybe even all of the duties of the treasurer, but would not actually be the treasurer and would not be considered an officer.

I tend to agree with Mr.. Katz . Based on the facts as I understand them, I do not believe the board is under any obligation to even take up the matter unless this organization has a rule to the contrary. just because an item is listed on the agenda, does not mean that the assembly must take it up or even that a member must make a motion on it. If no one makes a motion when that item is reached, the chair should simply move on to the next item. Note: I do agree with Dr goodwiller that if the assembly wants to take up the matter but does not want to make a decision on the merits, it may simply vote to postpone the matter indefinitely.

I do not understand all of the confusion and concern about the motion to censure someone. I think its purpose and use is explained perfectly well on pages 125, 137, 344, 451 and 643 (including the footnote on page 643) of RONR.

Nosey, of course those things are wrong, but there is no such thing as "The RONR Police Department" that you can call when there is a breach of the rules. People have to pretty much follow the rules voluntarily. If they don't, then, PROVIDED YOU HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, they can be disciplined, removed from office or expelled. If the membership itself isn't willing to insist that the rules be followed, there isn't much you can do about it other than (a) put up with it, (b) keep trying to convince others to join you, (c) leave the organization, or (d) consult an attorney and consider filing suit... something that is not very likely to enhance your popularity.

A personal attack is a breach of decorum and subject to a point of order. Here is an excerpt from pages 253-254 of RONR: When a member notices a breach of order that may do harm if allowed to pass, he rises and, without waiting for recognition, immediately addresses the chair as follows: MEMBER A: I rise to a point of order. [Or, "Point of order!"] Anyone who is speaking takes his seat. If the point relates to a transgression of the rules of debate, the form used may be: MEMBER A: Mr. President, I call the gentleman to order. The chair then asks the member to state his point of order, or what words in the debate he objects to. MEMBER A: I make the point of order that ... On completing his statement, the member resumes his seat. The chair then rules whether "the point of order is well taken" or "is not well taken," stating briefly his reasons, which should be recorded in the minutes. If the chair desires, he can review the parliamentary situation without leaving the chair, but standing, before giving his ruling. If the chair's decision requires any action and no appeal is made, he sees that the necessary action is taken before proceeding with the pending business. Thus, if the point of order relates to a breach of decorum in debate that is not serious, the chair can allow the member to continue his speech. But if the member's remarks are decided to be improper and [page 254] anyone objects, the member cannot continue speaking without a vote of the assembly to that effect (see pp. 645–46) Nosey, you REALLY need your own copy of RONR. Many.... most??.... of the questions you are asking are explained very thoroughly in RONR.

You get to remain an RP until it expires under the existing rules, but the procedure for becoming a PRP will be different. I don't know the exact date the new procedure kicks in.... I'm not even sure if NAP has announced it. The information in this link should help. Note: It's lengthy, doggone it: https://www.parliamentarians.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Presentation-NTC-2018-CommAppproved.pdf Edited to add: I'm not sure about the procedure for renewing an RP status. I think it's explained in the link.

The entire credentialing process, starting with the RP exam, is being completely revised. I believe it is to become effective in June or July, but members who have passed at least two parts of the current RP exam by June 30 may complete the RP process using the current exam within the currently existing time frame. I believe that is either six or twelve months. Edited to add: The PRP credentialing process is being revised, too.

Congratulations... and welcome! We are happy to have you as an official member of the forum.... and as a member of NAP! Passing the basic membership test indicates that you do have at least a rudimentary working knowledge of RONR. Now, on to the RP exam. . . . 🙂

Other members frequently think it is being impolite, presumptuous, self-serving, rude, etc. But it is perfectly permissible per RONR.

Josh, just being a bit nit-picky here, since everyone apparently left the meeting and went home, wouldn't it be more appropriate to say "the adjournment was not proper rather than that it "was not valid"? I think we all agree, as even you acknowledge by the second comment I quoted, that the meeting most definitely is adjourned. To say that the adjournment "was not valid" implies that it is still not adjourned and is still in session, just without a quorum at the moment.

Well, since it is made clear on page 488 that with the "small board rules" the chairman may essentially participate to the same extent as all other members, I would say that there is nothing wrong with the chair making her position known and advocating for that position in debate. Here is the applicable quote from page 488 regarding the chair's participation under the small board rules: "If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions" The footnote on that page goes on to say, "Informal discussion may be initiated by the chairman himself, which, in effect, enables the chairman to submit his own proposals without formally making a motion as described on pages 33–35 (although he has the right to make a motion if he wishes)"

Why do you think it is inappropriate to make any changes regarding voting (or voting rights) prior to the voting taking place at an election meeting? Can you cite any of these references? It is not unusual for organizations to adopt bylaw changes affecting voting procedures, terms of office, term limits, creating new offices, and even affecting voting rights immediately prior to conducting an election. It is usually done with the specific intent that the newly adopted provisions, which usually take effect immediately, be in place for the election which is about to take place. On what basis do you think you could rule a properly proposed bylaw amendment out of order? Ruling a proposed bylaw amendment out of order if it violates a specific controlling rule is one thing, but ruling it out of order because you just don't want any last minute changes affecting voting is not a valid reason for ruling something out of order. Am I missing something?

Having read the rest of the comments and your analysis, I agree.

Emphasizing the first sentence in the response by by Mr. Katz, a motion for a ballot vote is a motion and requires a second and a majority vote in order to be adopted. No single member has the right to demand a ballot vote. If there was a second to the motion, the chair should have put it to a vote. It is a non-debatable motion. However, if there was no second, the chair should have responded that the motion dies for lack of a second and moved on. As Mr. Huynh pointed out, anyone who was unhappy with the ruling of the chair could have appealed the ruling to the assembly, but the appeal would have required a second. I also agree that the member should get a copy of RONR or RONR in Brief rather than relying on Wikipedia for questions of parliamentary procedure.