Richard Brown

You think that a rule providing for who is eligible to serve as a committee chair is a standing rule rather than a special rule of order? Unless the bylaws provide otherwise, adoption of a special rule of order would require either previous notice and a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. The vote on this "rule" fell far short of that, but if the rule was declared adopted and a timely point of order was not raised, it might be a done deal anyway.... except that special rules of order can be suspended by a two thirds vote. And can, of course, be rescinded.

The committee members can be disciplined only if the membership is willing to discipline them. Are they? Is the membership really up in arms over this? Even though I know nothing about this organization, I have my doubts. I think setting a policy for the future is a better idea, but that's just me. And maybe appoint different members to the committee next year. ? You might stick around and see what others have to say about this tomorrow.

I agree. As to what the assembly should do now, I suggest that they do better next time.

I don't know if I would say that the officials who sent candidate A's bio out with the ballots exceeded their authority. What rule prohibited it? Did candidate B have the same opportunity to submit a bio? What has been the custom within the organization in previous elections? Have other candidates submitted bios? If so, were they sent out with the ballots? It may just be that candidate A was a bit more resourceful. Or it may be that there was some collusion with some of the committee members trying to give their preferred candidate a little boost. That is one of the problems with having a nominating committee propose two names for each office rather than just one name. They might propose one person who they really want to be elected as one nominee and then for the second person nominate someone who they know doesn't have a chance of being elected.

I see that the time stamps are back. Maybe it was a new year's eve thing, sort of like the new millennium computer disaster we all worried about 17 years ago. It just hit our little forum a few years late . ?

Guest Bob, does your organization have a vice president, secretary and treasurer now? You haven't weighed in since your original post. It would help us if you would give us more information on what the situation or issue is.

I agree. Rev Ed's statement doesn't make much sense with the word "not" in there.

Why are there suddenly no more time stamps on our posts? Everything posted today says simply Dec 31. No more "30 minutes ago", etc? Is this just temporary and has to do with a new year starting 25 minutes from now on the east coast?

Guest Zev, don't you agree that the real question here is whether the mistake required a timely point of order in order to correct it or if it constitutes a continuing breach and can be subject to a point of order months after the mistake was made? If it's not a continuing breach, a point of order at the next meeting would not be timely. Of course, even if the point of order is not timely, I guess the chair and the assembly have the "right to be wrong" and can decide the issue any way they want to, even if wrong. But, if they want to be right, it must first be determined if the breach (mistake) constitutes a continuing breach. As to who is responsible, I agree that it is probably the assembly itself (or the board) unless some officer has the specific duty of certifying the eligibility of candidates. I am at a loss, though, as to why the BCCP Board is fixated on laying blame rather than on moving on and not making the same mistake again. I suppose the chair erred by erroneously announcing that the motion passed. But, it looks to me like it cam also be considered a group mistake.

LOL!!! I knew that it might be some sort of quasi-governmental agency of some sort, but I also knew it might not be. I was a founding member of a search and rescue unit on the Mississippi gulf coast years ago and we were incorporated as a non-profit corporation. We got lots of donations from governmental agencies, etc, but we weren't part of one. And I'm not in the habit of Googling the names of organizations of people who post on here. I figured I would leave it to Guest Bob to know what his group is. And my comment about possible controlling state statutes was also directed at others who might come along with a similar problem and read the thread. I want them to see that info, too. OK? Well, shucks, I appreciate you being on my side, but as far as the esteemed members of the authorship team are concerned, it's probably the wrong side. But, it's still my side. And has been for a few years! Dan and I have had this discussion before. And, yeah, I bet Shmuel or somebody unknown a Whopper in another thread, so Dan suggested I not bet more than a Quarter Pounder in this one. I might have messed it up, though: I said I would bet a McDonald's Whopper, but now that I think about it, Whoppers might come from Burger King. I dunno, really: I never get one. I get the 99 cent burger. Nothing else, just the cheap burger, unless I'm splurging and treating myself, in which case I add a small coke or small fry. And couple of times a year I really splurge and get the 99 cent burger AND a small fries AND a small coke. But the 99 cent burger costs over a buck now. I'm trying to conserve calories more than money, but what the heck. The two seem to go together. Now, who makes the Whopper? And when are you gonna check your email? I sent you one a couple of days ago. Cuz you don't accept forum messages. Or your mailbox is full. Oh, and how's the sliver Porsche?? I started to bet it, but I think the title is still in your name.

I think it's safe to say we disagree on this issue except when the statute says "unless the bylaws EXPLICITLY prohibit X". This has long been a sore point with me. I think it is the height of (something.... I started to say arrogance....) for the authorship team to try to elevate their little book to a status equivalent to bylaw status. Sure, it's a good book, and I guess it isn't so little at 700 + pages (around 800, actually), but you get the point. I think I can safely say that 99 percent of the time when an organization adopts RONR as its parliamentary authority, the members have NO IDEA they are adopting something that contains provisions that the authors say are equivalent to bylaw provisions and which provisions the members don't even have any idea are in the little book. That is far different from a mutually negotiated contract which contains provisions that say it incorporates the provisions of certain other documents. There, the courts hold that the parties knew what they were negotiating. When societies adopt RONR, they have no idea that certain provisions are in the book that try to elevate it to being equivalent to bylaw provisions. (btw, I think RONR tries to do that only in the case of proxies. It doesn't use that language when it comes to telephonic meetings). Now, if the statute says an organization "can do X unless prohibited by the bylaws or its rules of order" the situation would be completely different.

That if the statute says the prohibition must be in the bylaws, then that is exactly what it means. Words mean things and that seems about as clear as anything can be. That's my opinion whether I'm wearing my lawyer hat, my parliamentarian hat or my John Q. Public hat (but the lawyer hat is probably exerting the most influence!).

I'll bet my money that if the issue ever winds up in court, the plain language of the statute will prevail. If the statute says the prohibition must be in the bylaws, then in the bylaws it must be, the language in RONR purporting to elevate itself to bylaw level notwithstanding. And on this I will bet a helluva lot more than a Whopper.

No, not necessarily (if state law authorizes conducting business by teleconference). The bylaws might be silent, but if state law authorizes it, they can do it. Whether Mr. Huynh's answer applies in such a case depends on the exact wording of the statute. Mr. Huynh's answer was a flat "no". But, I know you are going to tell me I am missing something. . . .

Official interpretation 2006-18 might also be helpful in this case: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

I agree that having the exact wording of the applicable bylaw provision might prove helpful. In the meantime, this very lengthy thread with 73 responses from a year and a half ago might prove enlightening: Based on a very cursory review of that thread, my initial opinion is that the mistake probably does not constitute a continuing breach and that the chair's announcement of the result stands. I think it would have required a timely point of order. I'm not willing to bet much more than a Whopper at McDonald's on whether that is the correct answer, though.

I think that is the question, isn't it?

Shmuel, read my entire answer. I said that I believe the provision could be interpreted either way, but that I personally interpret it as meaning that the person elected at the annual meeting serves for the remainder of the original term of the member who resigned. And I said (two or three times) that it is ultimately a question of interpreting the organization's bylaws, which is something only the members of the organization can do. I stand by that answer. And I stand even more firmly by it after Keefe later quoted the bylaw provision about one third of the members being elected at each annual meeting. In my opinion, that solidified things, but we did not have that little piece of information when we first answered. Edited to add: If there was ever any doubt as to what I was saying, I made it quite clear in my response to Greg Goodwiller, which is the third or fourth response in the thread. And I have maintained that position throughout.

Mr. Brown has NEVER suggested that.

Well, there is no question that the person appointed by the church council serves only until the annual meeting. I don't see where that is even in dispute or why it is being discussed. The question is, "How long does the person elected at the annual meeting serve"? Does he complete the term of the member who resigned or does he serve a complete three year term? THAT is the question. I said quite clearly that I interpret the pertinent bylaw provisions as meaning that the person elected at the annual meeting completes the original term of the member who resigned. I don't see how my answer can be construed as saying otherwise.

No, but I figured somebody would have something to say about my answer. Perhaps I could have worded it a bit differently. I think what Guest Dee is looking for is something with, say, more examples of situations where a resolution might be more appropriate than an ordinary motion and perhaps more examples of resolutions. I think RONR goes more into the mechanics of resolutions. I agree that it actually says a fair amount about resolutions (as evidenced by the three page references I gave her), but I suspect it isn't exactly what Guest Dee is looking for. Perhaps it is. We don't know, do we?

I gather that does seem to be what Kim is saying, but I disagree with that interpretation. Kim's interpretation wreaks havoc with the bylaw provision that one third of the directors shall be elected annually. It is simply not compatible with that provision. I also still maintain that it is ultimately up to this society itself to interpret its own bylaws.

Resolutions are just motions that are usually submitted in writing, contain a preamble (the "whereas" clauses), and are often bit more complex than ordinary motions. They are a bit more formal than ordinary motions. RONR probably doesn't go into as much detail as you would like, but it does discuss resolutions in several places, primarily on pages 33, 100 and 105 of the 11th edition. As Mr. Huynh said, it is ultimately up to your organization (and the sponsor of the motion/resolution to determine whether to propose it as a regular motion or as a more formal resolution. There are no hard and fast rules.

I agree with the answers by Mr. Huynh and Mr. Goodwiller. I would add, however, that if your organization is incorporated, you might check (or have an attorney check) your state's non profit corporation laws for any applicable provisions. It is possible that state law authorizes your council to conduct business via teleconference unless prohibited in the bylaws.

Huh???