Richard Brown

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.

I think that it would be within the purview of the committee to recommend that the member simply be censured for his actions, especially when the particular actions are not in dispute. I think the committee's recommendation, therefore could be that it be handled as a formal disciplinary matter with formal charges or merely as a motion of censure.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. I have nothing to offer in addition to what doctor stackpole said because this arrangement is simply too far from the typical arrangement of a subcommittee to its parent committee and the parent organization as described in RONR.

Oh, jeez.... I remember it all too well!!! A valuable lesson was learned with that incident: the presiding officer should never leave the meeting room without assuring that someone else is available to take over and maintain order in his absence!

That might work, but I'm sure the counter-argument will be that serving less than half a term does not count as a term and that therefore electing the former president to a new term would violate the term limit provision unless he sits out at least half of a full term.... six months, if I'm understanding things correctly. I don't know that sitting out the presidency for just a few days or weeks will work. But, it's ultimately up to this organization to interpret its own bylaws, so, who knows. . . . And, there is one more rather major complication to the scenario you proposed: When the newly elected "temporary" president resigns, the vice president will become president. There will not be a vacancy in the presidency to fill. The vacancy will be in the office of the vice president. But, if the current outgoing president is willing to be elected as vice president, and then shortly after the new terms begin the new president resigns, well, . . . . It's too early in the morning for me to figure that out. The elections are apparently still months away. They should just amend the bylaws to get rid of the term limit provision if they don't like having it. They could even make the change effective for only one specified term if they so desire and then hope that they don't wind up in the same situation at the end of that next year. And they can consider the other options Dr. Kapur suggested in the very first response.

Guest Gale, you are being very stingy with providing us with the bylaw language and facts we need. And what you have posted is rather confusing. Your first post leads us to believe that the term of office of the president is two years and that his two-year term is ending. But, your quote from the bylaw language makes it appear that the term of office is perhaps only one year (although nothing you have posted actually says that) and the president is limited to two one-year terms. There is a difference. Do I assume correctly that the president's term of office is actually one year, the president may not serve more than two consecutive terms, and the current president is actually completing his second consecutive one-year term?

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see anything wrong. However, as Joshua pointed out, the member can raise a point of order at the next meeting that the motion was not properly adopted or that it exceeded the authority of the membership and you, as chair, will rule on it. Any two members (a mover and a seconder) can appeal your ruling to the assembly. An appeal is subject to limited debate (one speech per member, except for the chair, who can speak first and last). It takes a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. I suspect the bottom line is whether the bylaws grant the board (or executive committee) the "sole and exclusive" authority to set the guest fee. Personally, I do not think it does, but that is a matter of interpreting your bylaws, something only your membership can do. The fact that the board is given the authority to o something does not necessarily mean that it has the exclusive authority to do it. Normally, unless the bylaws grant the board the exclusive power to do something, the membership has the right to have the final say on the issue. btw, I have several reasons for thinking that nothing inappropriate happened, but I hope to not have to get into it.

I think the action of the president (and any other officers) in spending the money which had not properly been authorized can be ratified as long as the expenditure is something which could have been ratified in the first place. If it is an expenditure prohibited by the bylaws, then I agree that it cannot be ratified. This situation seems to be covered by the third bullet point in the following quote from page 124 of RONR: "The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include: • action improperly taken at a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present; • action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not mentioned in the call of that meeting; • action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority;" (Emphasis added).

Guest Loreen, I agree with Dr. Stackpole and was just about to start my post with the exact same six words that he started his with... until I saw that he beat me to the punch! In my experience, such a rule usually turns out to be a very bad idea, despite the fact that at the time of its adoption everybody thinks it is a perfectly good rule. The members just aren't really thinking things through or are having a knee-jerk reaction to something that happened which they don't like. The the law of unintended consequences rears its ugly head and you are stuck with a bad situation. There needs to be some allowance for genuine emergencies and for taking action on something that almost everyone (or maybe even EVERYONE) agrees must be dealt with asap, but your "no exceptions" rule is preventing the society from dealing with it. Come up with a high vote threshold for adding something to the agenda if you must, but please think twice before adopting a rule that ONLY items which are on the agenda prior to the meeting can be taken up. btw, if you aren't talking about amending the agenda at the meeting but rather some members who just want to start yakking about something which isn't on the agenda, that is already pretty much prohibited. You just need the chair to enforce the rules.

If the bylaws specify that the vote is to be by ballot, a ballot vote MUST be taken in order to be valid. See the following language on pages 412-413: "When the bylaws require a vote to be taken by ballot, this requirement cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. A vote ordering a ballot vote on a particular question (see 30) can, however, be reconsidered as long as the balloting has not yet begun. [page 413] When a vote is to be taken, or has been taken, by ballot, whether or not the bylaws require that form of voting, no motion is in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote or views on the matter. A motion to make unanimous a ballot vote that was not unanimous is thus out of order, unless that motion is also voted on by ballot—since any member who openly votes against declaring the first vote unanimous will thereby reveal that he did not vote for the prevailing choice. Whenever a vote is to be taken by ballot, it is out of order to move that one person—the secretary, for example—cast the ballot of the assembly"

That would be true only if the bylaws used language indicating that the president shall serve actual calendar years, such as from January 1 2016 through December 31 2018 or "for the calendar years 2016, 2017, and 2018". However, we have seen nothing indicating that that is the case and we have not been quoted any bylaw language providing that the president's term commences or ends on January 1st. Guest Mike W., if there is a bylaw provision that the president's term commences or ends on January 1st, please quote that provision verbatim. I feel that something is missing and we have not been quoted all of the relevant bylaw Provisions regarding the terms of office and particularly when the president's term of office actually begins or ends. Where does this January 1st date come from? Also, we have never been quoted any language specifying what the "specified term" is that you quoted in your original post in response to a question by Dr. Kapur.

It's confusing to me, too, and I haven't had any codeine cough syrup or anything else that messes with my head for a couple of weeks. Edited to add: I'm glad to see that it is confusing to Mr. Katz, too!

Because according to page 17, to amend a special rule or order requires either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. Here's the pertinent language: "Adoption or amendment of special rules of order that are separate from the bylaws requires either (a) previous notice (pp. 121–24) and a two-thirds vote or (b) a vote of a majority of the entire membership."

I agree.

I agree with Mr. Gerber. I think the rule can be made non-suspendable, but doing so is probably unwise. However, it seems to me that such a special rule of order can be rescinded or amended just like any other special rule of order, so at least the society isn't stuck with an unwise rule forever. Notice of intent to rescind or amend the rule can be given at one meeting and then voted on at the next meeting. Or it could be done at the same meeting with the vote of a majority of the entire membership. Finally, it might be possible to call a special meeting for the purpose of rescinding or amending the rule if the members want to change the rule before the next regular meeting.

Guest Mike, the following language from pages 573-574 of the current 11th edition of RONR, regarding content of bylaw articles, refers to what happens if there is no provision for an officer to serve until his successor is elected. "The length of the terms of office should be prescribed; and unless the terms are to begin at the instant the chair declares each officer elected, the time when they are to begin must be specified. (In either case, the terms of the outgoing officers end when those of the incoming officers begin.) To ensure the continued services of officers in the event, for example, of public emergency or of difficulty in obtaining a nominee for an office, the [page 574] unqualified wording "for a term of . . . year(s)" should be avoided, because at the end of that time there would be no officers if new ones had not been elected. The exact wording that instead ought to be used depends on a further consideration, namely, the manner in which the organization wants to make it possible to remove officers before the expiration of their normal term." (Emphasis added).