Richard Brown

Guest Mike, if your organization is incorporated or otherwise subject to state laws governing certain types of associations, such as homeowner and condominium associations, check those statutes for a "holdover" provision which provides that officers continue to serve until their successors are elected. That is becoming a rather common provision in some state corporation and homeowner association laws. Any such provision would trump the rules in RONR.

We ordinary members are no longer permitted to delete posts, but an administrator can do it.... and I'm sorta hoping that one comes along and deletes all of the posts made in this thread in the past couple of days.

I think that assuming the society itself ever had its own copy of its parliamentary authority, rather than relying on some member's copy, might be a leap of faith in and of itself.

Depending upon your bylaws, it might be possible through disciplinary proceedings to prohibit him from running for the board in the future. You cannot remove his right to run for office through a simple motion, however. It must be done through formal disciplinary proceedings. I suggest you get a copy of the 11th edition of RONR and read chapter XX on discipline. It is 26 pages of rather detailed procedures.

A Special Rule of Order can be adopted making it a permanent practice

Yes, technically he may make the motion and the wife May 2nd it and they both can vote on it, but it will probably be considered bad form to do so. This is assuming, of course, that they are both voting members.

I'm late to this party, but in my opinion, if the original motion has not been rescinded, it remains in effect. I see nothing ambiguous about that. To me it is clear that if a motion to reaffirm fails, the original motion has not been rescinded and therefore remains in effect. There might be some confusion among the members as to the new situation, but from a parliamentary standpoint the previous motion has not been rescinded.

Kay, have you looked 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

It looks to me like they are indeed removing specific amounts from the standing rule and the new rule, if adopted, will merely specify that an amount for these items must be included in the budget. The actual amounts will be set in the budget from year to year and might well be different from year to year. Guest Marian, is this correct?

No, not in my opinion. However, I am not a member of your organization and it is your members who must ultimately interpret your bylaw provisions. Personally, I do not believe one day's notice of a proposed bylaws amendment is reasonable notice. A member can certainly raise such a point of order. In my opinion, the point of order would be well taken because I do not believe one day's notice of a proposed bylaw amendment is reasonable notice. Again, though, it is your presiding officer and/or your membership which would ultimately make that decision. This is a matter of bylaws interpretation, something only the members of your organization can do. You must decide what is "reasonable notice" or adequate "prior notice" under all of the circumstances and based on your bylaws. If your members decide that one day's notice is reasonable, so be it. I think that since the twice yearly biannual meeting can be called with one week's notice, a one week's notice seems reasonable to me when it comes to giving notice of proposed bylaw amendments. That is my personal opinion, knowing only the bylaw snippets we have been provided. If it is reasonable to call a biannual meeting with one weks's notice, it seems reasonable to me to provice one week's notice of proposed bylaw amendments.

I agree with Mr. Harrison. I see nothing in the bylaw quotes provided that requires that notice of bylaw amendments be mailed to the members at the time that the call (notice) of the meeting is mailed, even though that is customary in many (or even most) organizations. These bylaws simply require that prior notice be given. All things considered, since one week's notice of the biannual meeting is all that is required and no specific date for mailing notice of proposed bylaw amendments is specified, I believe that mailing notice of proposed bylaw amendments at least one week prior to the meeting would suffice.

I'm wondering what he is talking about, too. I have not even commented in this thread until this post. I also agree with Mr. Katz that if someone doesn't like the language in RONR that each new edition automatically supersedes all previous editions and becomes the parliamentary authority of an organization unless a specific edition is specified, it is easy enough to "fix": Just have the bylaws of all of your organizations specify a particular edition as suggested in RONR. Done. Fixed. If you are afraid that language won't be strong enough, then add the words "and only that edition" when you specify the particular edition that you want to be the parliamentary authority.

I deleted this post because of problems with trying to edit it and replaced it with the post below.

Guest Sara, the unhappy member does have a parliamentary maneuver at his disposal: As long as all or part of the motion he objects to has not yet been carried out, the objectionable member is free to introduce a motion to amend or repeal the previously adopted motion at the next meeting... or even at each future meeting.... until the provisions of the motion he wants repealed have been fully executed and amending or repealing it has become moot.

Guest Sarah, while I understand your consternation, I agree with the response by Mr. Katz. Nothing in RONR requires that, once a motion is adopted, all members quietly acquiesce and forever go along with with whatever the decision was that they disagree with. While no member should actively attempt to undermine or thwart the will of the assembly, nothing prohibits those members who disagree with the decision from engaging in old fashioned lobbying to try to get it changed. If their lobbying becomes such a nuisance that it is creating disharmony or interfering with the objects of the society, they can be disciplined for it... even expelled. Perhaps it's a fine line, but members are free to lobby other members on issues affecting the society, even to attempt to change their minds on existing policies. For what it's worth, here is (I believe) the complete quote that Mr. Katz referred to from General Henry Robert on the issue. It is on page xlix in the introduction to the 11th edition of RONR and comes from a statement by General Robert in his book Parliamentary Law which he published in 1923: "In an often quoted statement, the original author said: "The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal." (Emphasis added) Pay particular attention to the last few words: ". . . until they can secure its repeal". It looks to me like this is what your "objector" is doing. If it becomes obnoxious or disruptive, the society can always consider disciplinary action. Such action can range from a simple reprimand or censure to expulsion. A polite request from the president or a trusted friend to "please just drop it for now" might well suffice.

No, it's not correct. The motion should have been discussed /debated If there was anyone who was anyone who wanted to. It is a debatable motion. It also should have been subject to requests for information. Edited to add: there also should have been a vote on the motion unless it was adopted by unanimous consent.

No, I'm sorry but we do not have that information and it is outside the scope of this forum

I'm afraid there is nothing in RONR about a "dress code" of any sort.

I suspect that the second statement is either custom or based on a ruling that write in votes are permitted in subsequent ballots as well as on the first ballot. I don't know that that necessarily creates a conflict, it may just be this organization's interpretation of a rather strange and strangely worded rule.

Actually, per the footnote on page 441, the rules may be suspended to drop from the ballot the candidate(s) with the fewest number of votes, although the candidate is merely dropped from the ballot and still remains eligible to be elected by means of write-in votes. The same thing can be done by means of the adoption of a special rule of order. Only a rule in the bylaws, however, can make such a "dropped" candidate ineligible for election. Nominations may re re-opened by a majority vote.

As others have pointed out, including the original poster, it seems clear that this is the state central committee of a political organization and is almost certainly in the nature of a board of directors, rather than a "committee" in the usual sense of the word.

Is it board members or general members who are missing these meetings? Do you even have a membership as such, or only a board? Not off the top of my head, but stay tuned and keep checking back. Someone may post some sample language. It's not that unusual a provision. There is no such language in the sample bylaws in RONR. If you do add such a provision, I urge you to proceed slowly and cautiously and to have several people critically review the proposed language. Hastily adopted language too often leads to interpretation issues and unintended consequences. Don't rush into it!

I'm not so sure, based on the latest post by Guest Susie: Based on Guest Susie's posts, it seems that there can indeed be some latitude in the start time of meetings, provided certain specified criteria are complied with.

The system is not letting me edit my response above, so I am posting my "edit" as a new post here: Edited to add: by "new members", are you referring to new board members or new members of the organization? Once a person becomes a member of the board, that person is entitled to all information which is available to other board members, including prior executive sessions. Such new members are not limited to information about executive sessions occurring only after they become members. They are entitled to see and be informed of prior executive session actions, as well. As long as they are on the board, they can see all of the board records, secret or otherwise, that they want to see. Once they are no longer board members, they no longer have this right of access... not even to minutes of meetings that took place while they were members.

By "in-camera meeting" I assume you mean what RONR (and those of us who post regularly on this forum) refer to as an "executive session". Your board is free to disclose whatever information it chooses to disclose about what transpires in an executive session, but the decision to do so should be documented in the minutes in order to avoid someone later being accused of violating the secrecy of the executive session. Your discussion with the new members may be in executive session or not, as the board deems appropriate. Note that all persons who attend an executive session are bound by the secrecy of the executive session unless that secrecy is lifted by the board itself. In the case of approving new members, the new members will almost certainly be made known to the general membership at some point, right? Or is their membership in the organization going to forever remain secret? 🙂