Richard Brown

I agree completely with the response by Chris Harrison and would add only that your board has the ultimate authority to decide what goes in its minutes and may decide to include additional detail as to what transpires during the Open Forum.

I'm a little confused. What kind of committee is this? Committees usually have chairman, not presidents. I'm not sure we are talking about a committee in the usual parliamentary sense of the word.

The secretary is the person who would normally sign the minutes per RONR. However, if these are minutes of a committee which has no secretary, they would normally be prepared by and, I suppose, signed by the president committee chairman. At any rate, the minutes should be signed by the person who took them.

Then it is clear that the rules in RONR are are not just guidelines but are rules which your organization is bound to follow by virtue of a provision in its bylaws.

I agree that an executive session should have its own minutes, but the minutes, whether of a regular session or an executive session, should not be repeating what was said or the arguments made in executive session, but should merely be a record of what was done in the executive session

I agree with most of this statement, but I'm not so sure I necessarily agree with the last sentence which says the answer is no. I think we need more information and the answer depends on the exact details of this situation. I can visualize a situation where although the meeting is being conducted an executive session, it may be of such a nature that the object of the meeting, such as the expulsion of a member, is well-known to the general membership. Although it is improper to disclose what was done or said in an executive session without the consent of the assembly, it is not, in my opinion, improper for a member to say how he intends to vote on something or what he intends to say about something or to urge others to vote a certain way on the matter in the executive session. The executive session has not yet occurred. That is not disclosing what transpired in the executive session. And example we sometimes use is an executive session to discuss whether the moon is made of green cheese. Although the meeting might be for the purpose of discussing in executive session whether the moon is made of cheese, that does not prevent such a member from commenting outside of the executive session that he believes the Moon is in fact made of green cheese unless he says he (or someone else, such as Jack Smith) made the statement in the executive session that the moon is made of green cheese. Back to the situation at hand, it is one thing to talk about how people voted in the executive session but it is quite another to say in advance of the executive session how you hope people will vote, assuming that the purpose of the executive session is already known, which is frequently the case. The bottom line is that I don't think we have enough information to State unequivocally that the answer to the original poster's question is an unequivocal no.

Oh, I doubt that very much. However, if RONR is not their adopted parliamentary authority, then it is true that they don't have to follow it but may use it for guidance only.

You might start off by telling us what you mean by "a letter of committment" and just what this letter would say or do. A letter of commitment is not even mentioned in RONR. When I think of a letter of intent or letter of commitment, I think of a football player committing to a team.

Unfortunately, when the members don't want to follow their parliamentary authority and want to believe the rules in it are only "guidelines", there isn't much you can do except to keep trying to educate them.... or resigning and joining another organization. Sometimes giving the board members a copy of RONR or RONR in Brief does the trick. RONR In Brief is short enough and easy enough to read that some just might read it. it's drawback is that it is very basic and does not get into many complex issues of the sort you have. Sometimes pointing others to this forum or printing out relevant threads to show to them helps. Good luck!

If your bylaws don't provide for the president to accept a resignation and/or for him to single handedly fill the vacancy, this selection of the person with the next most votes is invalid and is null and void. The board (or the general membership) must accept the resignation and either the board or the membership, depending on your bylaws must fill the vacancy. The president has no such power unless your bylaws expressly grant it to him. Someone should raise a point of order at the next meeting that the acceptance of the resignation and the appointment to fill the vacancy are both void. If the president rules the point of order not well taken, two members (the one appealing and someone to second the appeal) should appeal from the decision of the chair. Note: It is a bit hard to follow whether you are talking about board meetings or general membership meetings. It is important to keep them separate and to accurately describe to us which body was meeting. Your board may or may not have the power to accept resignations and fill vacancies, depending on the exact language of your bylaws. Do your bylaws expressly give the board this right? If not, do they give the board the power to conduct the business of the organization between meetings of the membership. If so, then the board can likely accept the resignation and fill the vacancy. Finally, was the "offer to resign" an actual letter of resignation? It can certainly be argued that there is a difference. What did the letter say? Was it in writing? If not in writing, was it made at a board meeting or expressed to the president privately? All of these things make a difference. Edited to add: btw, as I believe someone said, if the bylaws don't contain a provision for filling vacancies, they you must have a new election to fill the vacancy.

Good! Hope it helps! Note of caution, though. Be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair and have as many fellow members as possible lined up to support you. You need at least one other member to second your motion. Catching people by surprise rarely works. Be prepared to order your appeal based on Robert's Rules.

Guest Diane, I have reviewed the current bylaws of the NFRW (National Federation of Republican Women) and do not see anything that changes my earlier opinion that you are a full member of your local unit/club with full voting rights from the moment you join by by submitting your application and the dues required at the time you submit your application. I have also reviewed recent, but not current, bylaws of our Louisiana Federation of Republican Women and see nothing there, either, to change my opinion. I see nothing in either sets of bylaws that makes payment of dues to the national and state federations a prerequisite for membership in a local club. Rather, it seems to be a duty of the local clubs to pay a portion of your dues over to the state and national organizations in order for the local clubs to maintain their own good standing. I don't see where payment of those dues has anything to do with your status as a member of your local club. Since I do not know what state you live in, I have not reviewed your state bylaws unless it happens to be Louisiana. So, based on the information I seen, it remains my opinion that you are a full member of your local club from the moment you submit your application and pay the dues required at the time you submit your application. But, if you want to be assured that you can vote at your upcoming elections, you might ask if it will satisfy the powers that be if you pay either a pro-rata portion (or even the full amount) of your local dues for the remainder of the year and/or the portion of your dues that would normally go to your state and national organizations for the remainder of this year. It seems that the local clubs are all over the ball park on how they handle this issue. The issue really is up to a ruling of the chair and then of the assembly if the president's decision is appealed. It might be better to resolve it amicably rather than to force the issue. That is a decision you have to make. btw, I agree with whoever it was who said that it might be best for another member to make make the appeal on your behalf if the president rules against you because, as of the moment of that ruling, you are likely deemed not a full member in good standing. Also, I wouldn't be surprised if they try to claim that "you are a member but one that doesn't yet have voting rights" even though your bylaws make no provision for such a quasi-member. Good luck!

LOL ! That's what happens when I use voice to text on my cell phone! Fixed.

First off, the chair should recognize him. If the chair knows that he has already spoken twice, the chair might inquire "for what reason does the member seek recognition?" But if the chair continues to ignore the member, the member can and should raise a point of order that he has been seeking recognition for the purpose of making a proper motion which is not subject to the two speech rule. He could even say I rise to move the previous question which is a proper motion even after having spoken twice in debate. If the chair rules that doing so would be out of water order, he may appeal the ruling of the chair.

Yes, he can. Edited to add: he can also move the previous question at the conclusion of his remarks in debate

I think you mean page 32, lines 25 through 27. However, he is misinterpreting that provision. The chair has no choice but to state the question once a proper motion has been made and seconded. He has no discretion to say no, I don't like that motion I'm not going to allow it. Perhaps you should show the chairman page 37 lines 20 through 26. See also page 39 lines 8 through 11. The chair cannot refuse to state a motion simply because he doesn't like it. He may refuse to state the question only if the motion is out of order or the wording is not clear. In that case, the chair should offer to help the maker perfect the motion. Edited to add: by the way, if the chair rules that the motion is out of order, his ruling may be appealed to the assembly.

Mr. Akers, as Mr. Novosielski asked you back on November 9, we really need to know what YOUR organization's bylaws say about your elections and also about vacancies. Please don't paraphrase, but quote the applicable provisions from your bylaws exactly. Unfortunately, RONR does not deal specifically with what happened in your situation but does provide some guidance which can be helpful. First, though, it will help us if we know what YOUR bylaws say. The provisions in some other organization's bylaws simply are not applicable.... but might serve as a guide for amending yours. In my opinion, there is a real question whether this person actually consented to serve if elected. By consenting to run, I would say he did. Then, prior to election, he apparently decided he doesn't want the office after all. The question (or one of the questions) is whether that amounts to a withdrawal of his consent to serve if elected... and whether it is even possible to withdraw the consent once given. If he did not consent to the election, and if he declined to serve immediately after being elected, it can be argued that there is an incomplete election. But, if he is deemed to have consented to the election and that his consent was never validly withdrawn, then he has been elected whether he likes it or not. A resignation would then be necessary, or certainly advisable. Knowing what your bylaws say might help us, but ultimately I think it is going to be up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws (particularly the election and vacancy provisions) and determine whether there is an incomplete election which is merely completed as soon as possible, or a resignation, which must be filled according to your vacancy filling provisions. I don't think RONR provides a clear answer and I suspect you will get varying opinions as to the status of this individual and how to deal with it. But, quote us your bylaw provisions and we will go from there. btw, if it turns out he was ineligible for election, that tends to lead me to say the situation should be treated as an incomplete election rather than a vacancy, especially if he accepted the job prior to the election being final.

Guest Diane, I am going to throw a bit of a monkey wrench into things. I am familiar with several Republican Women's clubs and have been an associate member of one. My wife is currently a member of one. It is my understanding, at least with the Louisiana clubs, that a portion of the dues you pay to the local club is sent to the state and national associations and that a person is not considered a member until the required dues portion is forwarded to the state and national organizations. I have been told that different clubs handle this "end of the year" joining differently, but that the clubs my Republican women friends are members of or familiar with don't consider a person a member until the state/national dues have been paid. In Louisiana, I believe that is $18. I have been told that some clubs waive their own club dues for members joining late in the year, but that in order to be an official "member in good standing with voting rights", the state and national dues must be paid and that there is no waiver provision for that. I think some clubs waive their own dues near the end of the year, but require payment of the portion going to state and national if the new member wants to have voting rights prior to the start of the new year. So, you might check the bylaws of your parent state and national organizations for more information on whether payment of dues to those "parent" organizations is a prerequisite for membership in a local club. And check the rest of your own local bylaws for such a provision. Ultimately, as I believe we have already said, it is up to your own club to interpret its bylaws and to sustain or overturn the ruling of the chair if there is an appeal of his ruling. My opinion as a parliamentarian, based solely on your own bylaw provisions which you have provided, remains that you are a member and should have the right to vote. However, that opinion is somewhat conditional and is contingent on whether there are any superior rules (such as state and national bylaws) which have a bearing on the issue... or some other provision on point in another section of your own bylaws. Edited to add: See my next post for an update

Bruce3431, following up on my previous post above, when do you actually conduct the elections? November or December? Or some other time? If the elections do not actually take place until the December meeting (or later), and if the bylaw amendment is adopted first, you don't have a problem. The office of Financial Secretary will no longer exist and there will be no need to elect one and if one is elected, that election (to that office) will be null and void because there is no such position. If someone gets nominated for the position in November, it will surely be with the knowledge that by the time the elections take place in December, the position will probably have been eliminated.

That's a tricky question and the answer depends partly on exactly what your bylaws say. However, per RONR and probably per your bylaws the office of Financial Secretary is an office that should be filled according to your current bylaws. If no one is nominated for that position AND if no one receives a write in vote for that position, then one will not be elected and you will have a vacancy that should be filled asap. I think a better course of action is to elect the rest of your officers at the November meeting, but to adopt a motion postponing the election of Financial Secretary until the December meeting. Once the elections are the pending item of business, a motion to postpone one or more of the elections to the next meeting is in order. In fact, all of the elections could be postponed until the December meeting, but I am not suggesting that. It would require a majority vote to postpone one or more of the elections. The postponement cannot be beyond your next meeting and must be within a quarterly time interval. I suspect that December is your next meeting and that is the meeting you would postpone the election to. Then, at the December meeting, take up the bylaw amendment first, or at least before the election for Financial Secretary. Since bylaw amendments become effective immediately upon adoption, if the amendment is adopted the office of Financial Secretary will have been eliminated and no longer exist. The election of a Financial Secretary will then become moot. Others may have other ideas, so stay tuned. Edited to add: btw, if the bylaw amendment fails, then just proceed to conduct the election.

Guest Merry, please post your question as a new topic, following the procedure in the first pinned post in this forum which says, "IMPORTANT: Read this first": https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

RONR provides that a ballot vote may be ordered by majority vote unless your bylaws provide otherwise. All that is needed is for someone to move to vote by ballot, second the motion, and a majority vote.

I believe it is gust Diane's position, as well as the position of at least two or three of us who have responded in this thread and the other thread, that members who join between September 1st and January 1st are indeed members from the date they join and pay the required dues, even though the dues are for the coming year. It seems to me they are members from the moment they join but are simply not being charged dues for the last 4 months of the year. The question is, when do members who join between September 1st and December 31st actually become members? Also, how to appeal a ruling of the chair that such a person is not yet a member in good standing.

What, EXACTLY, do your bylaws say about the president being a member of all committees? Please don't paraphrase, but quote the provision exactly. btw, if there is no such provision, then he is not a member of any committees unless explicitly made a member by some provision in the bylaws or by the motion creating the committee or appointing the members to it if it is a special committee. A provision making the president a member, ex officio, of all committees except the nominating committee is a common provision in bylaws, but if it isn't there, the president is not automatically a member of the committees.

Well, then, I guess the two disagree with General Robert and are not aware that provisions for settling election ties by lot are rather common. And I suppose you would rather an organization that uses mail ballots to elect officers to have to resort to another expensive and time consuming mail ballot to settle a tie than to settle it by lot. It is quite common, for example, for bylaws to provide that election ties be settled by lot, such as the flip of a coin. And it is quite common for two candidates who are tied to agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw and that they will decide who will withdraw by a coin toss. You also must disagree with General Robert who said the following on page 234 of Parliamentary Law regarding a tie vote when voting by mail, "If there is a tie vote, it should be decided by lot". And the following statement on page 238; "In electing members of boards by ballot, if a majority vote is received by more than there are places to fill, those places are filled by those receiving the highest number of votes. If a tie interferes, the tie is decided by lot, unless the assembly continues the balloting, which latter is much more satisfactory and should be done if time permits." If the term of office of the members of the board elected at one time varies, those receiving the greatest number of votes take the longer term. All ties are decided by lot." That makes at least three references by General Robert in Parliamentary Law to settling ties by lot. But, I guess our sarcastic unknown guest thins that reading and studying Parliamentary Law is not a good step in obtaining a good education in parliamentary procedure. For that matter, it looks like both of you think that becoming familiar with Parliamentary Law is a bad thing, not a good thing. The parliamentarian who suggested it at least three times in his book is the one who we most revere. SMH. Just to make sure there is no misunderstanding, I did not endorse the coin toss for declaring a winner as was supposedly suggested by this organization's attorney, but rather I said that it is quite appropriate for the candidates themselves to agree that one of them will withdraw from the race based on a coin toss. I very carefully DID NOT say that the coin toss itself would substitute for a majority vote in determining the winner. It is quite common for two candidates, especially when they are friends, to agree between themselves that one of them will withdraw from the race based on a coin toss. And it is quite common for parliamentarians to suggest that some organizations, depending on the size and nature of the organization and the nature of its elections, to include a provision in their bylaws that election ties shall be settled by lot.