Richard Brown

DTM??? Devine Toastmaster? Devout Toastmaster? Damned Toastmaster??

If the society should decide that these are guidelines rather than by-laws, I suggest that the society go about adopting a set of bylaws forthwith.

If the society should decide that these are guidelines rather than bylaws, I suggest that the society go about adopting a set of bylaws forthwith. please ignore this post. I am trying to delete it as it was intended for a different thread

I think it is ultimately going to be up to this organization to decide for itself, possibly through someone raising a point of order and an appeal, weather these "guidelines" are in fact bylaws and have been properly adopted. Such an appeal would be decided by a majority vote.

Nothing in RONR prohibits holding more than one office simultaneously. Any such restriction would have to be in your own rules. However, unless you're rules specify otherwise, a member serving in more than one position still gets only one vote. You count heads, not hats. Edited to add: a member who serves on different boards or committees can have a vote on each board or committee that he serves on, but he can only have one vote on each such board or committee

Perhaps I'm overlooking something in RONR, but it seems to me that your organization can adopt a special rule of order that permits the president to select a chairman pro tem to preside whenever the president chooses not to preside. I think you can do that even if the bylaws specify that one of the duties of the president is to preside at meetings because that provision would be in the nature of a rule of order and therefore suspendable. However, I don't really think that is necessary since RONR permits the chair to select someone else to preside by unanimous consent or, if there is an objection, by majority vote (as long as there is no vice president ready and willing to preside who objects). It's my understanding you don't even have a vice president. If you do, he has a right to preside whenever the president vacates the chair unless the assembly, by a two thirds vote, selects someone else. See pages 395 and 462 of RONR. I therefore suggest you not adopt such a special rule of order because it can cause problems later, especially when you have a vice president willing to serve. Such a special rule would make it easy for the president to keep him from presiding. I agree with the previous post that suggested you sign correspondence as "Secretary/Treasurer" or "Secretary and Treasurer". People are used to the term "Secretary/Treasurer" since in so many organizations it is a combined position. As to your president not feeling comfortable with presiding, perhaps buying him a copy of RONR in Brief will help. There should not be anything difficult about presiding over a three member board, even one that is contentious at times. Perhaps you can coax him into presiding over time. http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Some might cringe at this statement, but if two out of the three of you are in agreement, you have a two thirds vote and can do most anything you want to... within reason....and as long as it doesn't violate the bylaws. With a two thirds vote, for example, you can suspend most rules in RONR. Not all of them, but most of them.

Agreeing with the response above by Dr. Kapul, I believe this provision from "Principles of Interpretation of Bylaws" starting on page 588 of RONR is what he was referring to. This particular provision is # 4 and on pages 589-590. Note particularly the last sentence: If the bylaws authorize certain things specifically, other things of the same class are thereby prohibited. There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws [page 590] without some reason for it. There can be no valid reason for authorizing certain things to be done that can clearly be done without the authorization of the bylaws, unless the intent is to specify the things of the same class that may be done, all others being prohibited. Thus, where Article IV, Section I of the Sample Bylaws (p. 585) lists certain officers, the election of other officers not named, such as a sergeant-at-arms, is prohibited. "

No, some of see it a bit differently. I think it is not so clear-cut as some would like it to be.

Based on guest Andela's last comment, I suspect that we are dealing with something other than an ordinary deliberative assembly. I question to what degree RONR is applicable.

The presiding officer makes the initial ruling on points of order and whether a motion is proper. If no one appeals his decision or makes a point of water order about him allowing a motion, then his decision stands.

I don't believe it is quite as cut and dried as the previous posters have indicated, but I am in a meeting and unable to elaborate at the moment. I'll post more later unless someone else says what I want to add.

Nothing in RONR prohibits it. Any such prohibition (or requirement) would have to be in your own rules. RONR would not even prohibit the person from serving in two offices simultaneously, although the person would get only one vote if both positions are board positions.

Guest Angela, more information will be helpful. For example, how is this committee established? In the bylaws? By means of a motion or rule adopted by the assembly? How are the members on it selected? Is there a rule in your bylaws or some other rule as to how committee vacancies are filled? I'm assuming this is a standing or special committee that is part of a larger organization and that it isn't the actual organization. Please provide us with a bit more information. Also, have your resignations been accepted? If not, you might all still be on the committee. However, once you are officially no longer a member of the committee, you have no more say in the committee than any other member of your organization.

Do your bylaws require a ballot vote in all elections? If so, this is improper and a ballot vote MUST be taken in all cases even if there is only one nominee. It is a provision that cannot be waived or suspended. Here is the language from pages 441-442 re the need for a ballot vote: "If the bylaws require the election of officers to be by ballot and there is only one nominee for an office, the ballot must nevertheless be taken for that office unless the bylaws provide for an exception in such a case. In the absence of the [page 442] latter provision, members still have the right, on the ballot, to cast "write-in votes" for other eligible persons." If there is only one nominee and your bylaws do not require a ballot vote, and if one hasn't been ordered by means of a motion adopted at the meeting, then it is quite proper, after nominations have been closed, to declare the lone nominee elected. Here is the applicable language from page 443 of RONR: "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or "acclamation." The motion to close nominations cannot be used as a means of moving the election of the candidate in such a case. The assembly cannot make valid a viva-voce election if the bylaws require the election to be by ballot."

Note: I see that one of the administrators moved this thread from "Questions about the Message Board" to the "General Discussion" forum.

Guest Lori, I agree with the previous answers. However, in the future please post your questions in the "General Discussion" forum rather than here. This particular forum is for technical questions about issues with the message board itself, not for questions about parliamentary procedure. Those should be posted in the general forum. Thanks!

Well, all of the NAP RP exam test questions I have seen on "approving" the minutes use variations of "approving" the minutes. Not once did any of the questions or answers use the terms "accept" or "adopt" in reference to approving the minutes. btw, I just did a quick check of some other parliamentary authorities that I had within arm's reach. The AIP's The Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure, Canon's Rules of Order, and Keesey's Modern Parliamentary Procedure ALL refer to APPROVING the minutes, not once to adopting the minutes.

Not quite. When I accept the package from FedEx, I am accepting it on behalf of the society. And I am most certainly not adopting it on behalf of the society. But, all of this digression is causing us to lose sight of the point that I tried to make several posts ago. You complained that your colleagues complain when you refer to minutes being adopted rather than approved. I responded that we do that because RONR is very clear, throughout its 800 pages, that minutes are approved, not adopted. Since we are supposed to be answering questions based upon RONR, I suggest that when responding to questions about the treatment of the minutes when they are up for APPROVAL per the first item in the standard order of business (Reading and APPROVAL of minutes), that we use the terminology consistently used throughout RONR and speak in terms of approving the minutes, not adopting the minutes. The heading of that first item in the standard order of business is "Reading and Approval of Minutes", not "Reading and Adoption of Minutes".

I disagree. It is hardly dilatory to ratify an action that is of questionable validity and which the assembly clearly wants to ratify. If anything is dilatory, it would be raising a point of order that the adopted motion is null and void due to the absence of a quorum when it was adopted when there is not clear evidence... at that moment... whether a quorum was or was not present. To force the chair to rule on the validity of the motion, and then his decision get appealed to the assembly to hear and consider the debatable appeal of whether the motion was validly adopted would, in my opinion, be closer to being dilatory. Then, if you factor in that if the assembly rules that the motion was indeed not validly adopted, the assembly will then go through the process of ratifying the motion. Having to go through the whole point of order and appeal unnecessarily is what would more likely be dilatory. If the chair and/or the assembly decides on the point of order that the point of order was not well taken and that the motion was validly adopted, that decision is not permanently binding on future sessions! At any future session weeks, months or years later a new point of order can be raised, based on newly discovered evidence (or perhaps based on a different group of members being in attendance) and at the future meeting the assembly can decide, with a majority vote (at least if previous notice was given) that the motion was not validly adopted after all. Here is the definition of a dilatory motion from page 342 of RONR: A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation. It hardly seems dilatory to ratify a motion whose adoption is questionable and subject to challenge in the future... especially if the assembly clearly wants to ratify it. From a legal standpoint, it seems to me much more prudent to simply ratify the motion and be done with it rather than to rely on a ruling from the chair and an appeal that is subject to reversal in the future. Nowhere does RONR say that it is dilatory to ratify a motion whose validity is subject to question. To the contrary, that seems to me to be the prudent thing to do. I would not hesitate to urge an assembly to ratify a motion which has been adopted under circumstances which could possibly lead to its being declared null and void in the future.

Heck, it took me almost two years to get two secretaries of an unnamed local parliamentary organization I belong to to quit typing in the minutes that "The minutes of the previous meeting were accepted". Aaarrgghh!!! I ACCEPT the FedEx package when the carrier delivers it and I sign for it, but I don't APPROVE of the contents until I open it. And I never ADOPT it!!!! (Unless maybe it's a puppy. . . . )

Yep. Sounds like ASPA to me!

Never leave home without it!!!!

That is because RONR does not even once use the term "adopt" the minutes. Not once in all of its 800 or so pages. It repeatedly and consistently refers to "Approval of the minutes". The following excerpt from pages 364-465 is typical: After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are [page 355] there any corrections [or "further corrections"] to the minutes?" the chair says, "There being no corrections [or "no further corrections"] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or "are"] approved [or "approved as read," or "approved as corrected"]." The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it. It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. I challenge you to cite a single instance in all of the 800 pages of RONR where it makes any kind of reference to "adopting" the minutes.

Guest Joe D., your organization does have options other than just packing up and going home, in the absence of a quorum. RONR expressly permits the following actions in the absence of a quorum. 1. Recess. That time can be used to wait for late arrivals or to contact absent members. 2. Take action to obtain a quorum. This would normally involve calling absent members in an attempt to get them to come to the meeting. 3. Fix the time to which to adjourn. In semi-layman's language, that means set an adjourned meeting, which can be, for example, later the same day, the next day, same time next week, etc. It can be any time before your next regular meeting. An adjourned meeting is technically a continuation of the same session. It is not the same thing as a special meeting and although no notice need be given, it is usually a very good idea to give notice since the object is to get more members to attend so you can take care of necessary business. An example of such a motion would be, "Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn until 7 pm tomorrow night at the clubhouse". 4. Adjourn. In that case, whatever was planned for this meeting can be taken up at the next meeting or, if the situation is rather urgent, a special meeting can be called. In addition, if emergency action is really necessary, such as repairing the damage caused by burst water pipes or a tree falling through the clubhouse roof, those members present can vote to take whatever action they deem necessary and then hope that the membership ratifies the action at the next quorate meeting. The members voting to take such action do so at their own risk, however, as the society has no obligation to ratify their actions.

Agreeing with Mr Mervosh, I doubt that anything in your own bylaws permits it either.