Richard Brown

9 hours ago, George Mervosh said:

What if the additional duty they want is to have President (let's call her Nancy N. but not name her in the rule) be a signatory on all checks (or cheques for you canads) issued by the organization?

1 hour ago, Gary c Tesser said:

I'm on the fence, but are you thinking about p. 450, #10?

I think a rule authorizing someone to sign checks should be a standing rule. It is purely administrative and has nothing to do with meetings, other than perhaps paying for the president's gavel and the rent on the clubhouse, but that's a real stretch. 

4 minutes ago, mjhmjh said:

Article X -- Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Council in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Council may adopt.

The bylaws do contain the precise language from page 588 (the Council is the short-hand name of the organization). I suppose the question now is whether the duties should be special rules of order or standing rules. Based on my understanding of RONR, if the duties relate to meetings, they have to be special rules of order, whereas administrative duties have to be standing rules.

I think you've got that right!  Also, I believe that even if the rule applies outside of a meeting, but relates to the efficiency or conduct of meetings, it should be a special rule of order.  If it is purely administrative, such as who can write checks, it should be a standing rule.

12 hours ago, mjhmjh said:

The bylaws read as follows, "The officers shall perform the duties prescribed in the parliamentary authority and these bylaws"

Can additional duties be prescribed as standing rules, so long as they are not inconsistent with higher governing documents? If not, how should the bylaws be amended to allow this?

6 hours ago, jstackpo said:

If your bylaws include the standard phrasing found in the sample RONR bylaws, Article VIII, page 588, that will cover it.

It appears, however, that mjhmjh's bylaws do not contain that precise language.  Or maybe they do.  mjhmjh has not told us what his bylaws say about the parliamentary authority.   mjhmjh, can you tell us EXACTLY what your bylaws say about the parliamentary authority? 

So, the question is: Can they prescribe additional officer duties by standing rule (or, perhaps more appropriately, by special  rule of order)?

Even if the bylaws do not contain the language indicated on page 588 about the parliamentary authority, I am inclined to say that they can still impose additional duties by means of a special rule of order (or perhaps even a standing rule), but I can see how others might disagree.  I reach this conclusion because RONR clearly gives the society the right to adopt special rules of order that differ from the rules in RONR.

Edited to add:  As to whether such additional duties, assuming they can be added, should be listed in standing rules or special rules of order, I simply don't know.  I give up on that issue for the time being.  My head is still spinning from the last time we got into the weeds of standing rules vs special rules of order when it comes to officer duties.  I guess I need to look for a couple of those recent threads.

Unless you have customized agenda rules to the contrary, the assembly that is meeting, not the president, has ultimate control over the agenda.  The president may have a proposed agenda or one for his own use as a guide during the meeting to stay on track and not omit something, but a proposed agenda does not become THE agenda until it is adopted by the assembly by a majority vote.  The  assembly may add to it, take from it and rearrange it as much as the assembly wants to.  Once it is adopted, it can still be amended by a two thirds vote.

Councilman, since this is apparently a public body, I suggest you check your State's open meetings laws and ethics laws regarding the circumstances under which a member of the public body should or must abstain or recuse himself from voting or perhaps even refrain from participating in the consideration of a matter. Those matters are outside the scope of RONR and are frequently covered by state laws.

Whether there are applicable state laws and whether those laws permit a member to participate in the debate or voting on subsidiary and incidental motions is a matter of interpreting your state law.

Other than the above caveat, I agree with the comment by Guest Who's Coming to Dinner.

Edited to add: it is my understanding that the motion to postpone was in fact adopted by a majority vote

1 hour ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Maybe.

As best I can determine, adoption of a motion to postpone a pending motion for 60 days is almost sure to be meaningless unless the motion is made during a session which will continue for 60 more days.

So, if the adoption of the motion to postpone the pending motion for 60 days is meaningless, what is the status of the motion that was sought to be postponed?  Has it died?  Is it unfinished business that should come up automatically at the next session, assuming it is within a quarterly time interval?  Has it in essence been postponed until the next session (assuming it's within the quarterly time interval) at which time it can be taken up as a general order?   Some other status?

btw, I agree that the postponement for 60 days was likely improper, but that still leaves the issue of "What is the current status of the motion that they tried to postpone?"

7 hours ago, Guest Bob said:

Administrative Board voted to table a motion for 60 days to further investigate the issue in question.  A new meeting has been scheduled 25 days from the meeting date where the motion was tabled (not 60) with the intention of voting on the original motion. Provided some committee members still require additional time, how should this issue be handled during the new meeting provided the meeting can't be rescheduled?  Please elaborate on significance of specific timelines voted on by committees, etc.  (I'm new to this)  Thanks.

6 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Your Administrative Board is confusing the motion to Lay on the Table with the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time. Take a look at the answer to FAQ #12.

As to postponement:

"In a case where more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will elapse between meetings (for example, in an annual convention of delegates or in a local society that holds only an annual meeting), a question cannot be postponed beyond the end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not beyond, the next regular business session." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 183)

"When the time to which a question has been postponed arrives and the question is taken up, it can be postponed again if the additional delay will not interfere with the proper handling of the postponed motion."  (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 183-84)

Perhaps  my understanding of the question/issue is a bit different from Mr. Honneman's.  But, in order to fully answer Guest Bob's question, I believe we need more information.  For example: 

1.  How often does this board have regular meetings? 

2. Was the motion postponed to a time beyond the next regularly scheduled meeting? 

3.  Was a meeting (regular or special) already scheduled for 60 days hence at the time the motion to postpone for 60 days was adopted?

Beyond those questions, it is my understanding that the matter was postponed for 60 days, but the board has now scheduled a special meeting to be held only 25 days from the original meeting date for the purpose of taking up the motion that was postponed for 60 days.  Assuming for the sake of argument (which I believe is very much in doubt and is dependent on the answers to the questions above) that the original postponement for 60 days was proper, I believe it would take a two thirds vote to suspend the rules and take up the postponed motion at the upcoming special meeting.  The postponed motion MAY be taken up prior to the date to which it was postponed, but only by a two thirds vote to do so (as I understand the rules).

Am I missing something?

Agreeing completely with the comments by Messrs Gerber, Tesser and the Dinner Guest, I would add that not only does RONR say that minutes should be a record of what was done and not what was said, but all other parliamentary authorities that I am familiar with say the same thing. I submit that there is good reason for that.  Some, such as the AIP's Standard Code,  are very explicit on that point.  As is RONR.  The society, of course, is free to adopt its own rule that provides otherwise.

Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, I would add that pursuant to RONR elections take effect immediately, instantly, unless you have a rule to the contrary.

2 hours ago, Guest Lisa said:

If a standing committee has been in existence for over 5 years, can board members or the president alone add to that committee without the permission of the existing committee members?

The answer depends on two or three factors. First, how was the committee established? Was it established by the bylaws or was it created by the society by means of a subsequent motion? Second, is the size of the committee specified? Third, who or what body is authorized to appoint the members of the committee?

If the size of the committee is fixed in the bylaws, then you are stuck with that until you amend the bylaws. If the committee was created by the society by means of a motion to create the committee, and the motion fixed the size of the committee, then the society itself can change the size of the committee by adopting a motion to do so.

If the size of the committee is not fixed by any rule or motion, then the person or body who appoints the members of the committee may appoint as few or as many members as it so desires.

As to replacing the members of the committee, rather than adding additional members, the person or body who is authorized to make appointments can also remove and replace members unless there is a contrary rule in place.

The existing committee members should not have any control over the appointment of new members. Their permission is not needed unless you have a very strange rule in place. The committee doesn't "belong" to the committee members. It "belongs" to the society. The society, not the committee members, determine  who is on the committee.

Note: if by some chance the motion that created the committee named the people who are to be members of that committee, then those members can be removed or replaced only by amending that motion.

I'm afraid you might be pretty much on your own when it comes to defining a "member in good standing".  That is something your bylaws should do.  Here is what little RONR has to say on the subject in the newest 11th edition.  This comment is contained in a footnote on page 6:

"Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see pp. 406, 571–72). If only some of an individual's rights as a member of the assembly are under suspension (for example, the rights to make motions and speak in debate), other rights of assembly membership may still be exercised (for example, the rights to attend meetings and vote)."

I'm going to throw in a personal comment here:  if the Pastor can't convince his family that they should stay away from that meeting so the rest of the congregation can debate and vote on his salary without them being there, it just might speak to his, well, let's just say fitness for office.  I think that if I were a member of that congregation, I would not take kindly to these tactics at all and would be inclined to want a new pastor....and pastor's family.  That's from me, not from RONR.

btw, RONR does address the fact that those with a pecuniary interest in a motion not in common with the other members should at least abstain from voting.  If the pastor is the sole support of his family, they certainly have a pecuniary interest not in common with the other members. Here is the quote from page 407:  "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization".

2 hours ago, Godelfan said:

  I would recommend consulting with a PRP or CPP in your area as we're unlikely to be much help on questions involving an in-depth understanding of your organization's rules.

Guest Catster, a PRP is a Professional Registered Parliamentarian with NAP (The National Association of Parliamentarians).  A CPP is a Certified Professional Parliamentarian with AIP (American Institute of Parliamentarians).  Here is contact information on both groups.  They both have referral services.

National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)
213 South Main St.
Independence, MO  64050-3850
Phone: 888-627-2929
e-mail: hq@NAP2.org  
www.parliamentarians.org

American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)
618 Church Street, Ste 220
Nashville, TN 37219
Phone: 888-664-0428
e-mail: aip@aipparl.org
www.aipparl.org

I agree with Hieu and Gary.  If the family members are members of the organization, they have a right to be there, as uncomfortable as it might be.  They can be ASKED to let the body deliberate in secrecy, but there is no way to force them to do it consistent with the rules in RONR. 

Edited to add:  Keep in mind that RONR applies to conduct IN MEETINGS".  You and the other members are free to discuss the salary issue privately among yourselves in a restaurant, a bar, by phone, by email, or anywhere else.

The secretary should not be perusing the ballots to try to determine how people voted. RONR says that the secretary should keep the ballots under seal until the time within which a recount may be ordered expires, but it provides no further guidance in that regard. I would think that placing them in a sealed envelope or box or lock box would be appropriate.

On 2/16/2017 at 2:32 PM, Godelfan said:

No, I have no need to spy on my spouse.  Thank you though.

LOL!!!   (Only those of us who are truly regulars on this forum and were here at a particular time a couple of days ago will understand Godelfan's comment).   By way of explanation, I'll just say that a few inappropriate posts got slipped into the forum and were rather promptly deleted.  And the poster was presumably blocked.  But not before Godelfan responded.

Thanks, John!  Mind if I copy it and paste it into a word document to use in the future?  I'll be happy to give you credit for it!

I agree with the response above by Mr.Huynh, but since guests often don't completely understand the motion to reconsider and use the term incorrectly, I will add this:  In addition to using the motion to reconsider, an adopted motion may be rescinded or amended at any future meeting as long as it is still in effect and has not been carried out.  There are also other caveats and certain notice and voting requirements which apply.  A motion which failed at a meeting may be renewed, that is, re-introduced, at any future meeting just as if it had never been considered before.

On 2/16/2017 at 0:45 PM, Guest Jim Beckner said:

I am a Board member of a state association, a 501c3.  Is it possible to have my vote on a particular motion recorded in the minutes by name?  For example, if I voted NO on a motion, is there a way to have the minutes reflect something like...Vote was five in favor, four against, with <name> voting against?

If this is possible, how do I ask for this in the meeting?

Although it can be done by formal motion as suggested by Mr. Goldsworthy, in my experience, such a request is usually handled simply and quickly by unanimous consent.  Mr. Jones:  "Mr. Chairman, I would like for the minutes to reflect that I voted no.".  The chair:  "If there is no objection, the minutes will reflect that Mr. Jones voted no.".  If there is an objection, then it takes a majority vote to approve the request (adopt the motion).

As Mr. Mervosh pointed out, such a request is usually done only when you request represent a constituency and you want them to know how you voted.  It is also done when, in the opinion of a director, a board has voted to do something which, in the opinion of a director, might expose the directors to liability and there is a state statute that purports to absolve a dissenting director from liability if his dissent or objection is noted in the minutes.  This will vary from state to state.

If the request was not made at the time of the vote, when the minutes are up for approval, a member can move that the draft minutes be amended to reflect that he voted no on the motion.  That can be done by majority vote or by unanimous consent.  It can also be done even after the minutes are approved by using the motion to amend something previously adopted.

On 2/16/2017 at 4:42 PM, Guest LEE said:

Can you announce the vote tallies after a secrecy ballot?

As the others have said, or at least hinted at, not only "can" you announce the vote totals, you "should" announce the vote totals. In fact, you "must"announce the vote totals according to RONR.  That's the rule, in case you don't have the book and can't refer to the section cited by 1st Church.

Here's what RONR says at the bottom  of page 318 re the tellers' report:  "The tellers' report is entered in full in the minutes, becoming a part of the official records of the organization. Under no circumstances should this be omitted in an election or in a vote on a critical motion out of a mistaken deference to the feelings of unsuccessful candidates or members of the losing side."  (Emphasis added). 

At the meeting, one of the tellers and the presiding officer both read the complete teller's report, then the presiding officer declares the result. (Yes, the teller's report is read twice). 

1 hour ago, Godelfan said:

Is there any chance of banning the person who is making every single thread show up as unread?

Did you report it? I'm sure a moderator will see our reports sooner or later

3 minutes ago, Guest Kim K said:

I have a question on suspending officer eligibility requirements. My organization's bylaws state that a member must have attended certain conferences in order to be eligible to run for president. In the past, the organization voted for and approved suspending that requirement to allow a member to run for president that year as long as the member agreed to attend the next available conference. That person was elected president. Was that improper?

Yes, that was improper. Qualifications for holding office cannot be suspended.

Note: in the future please start a new topic when asking a new question

I'm not sure that Mr Huynh and I are interpreting the question the same way. It may or may not be necessary to refer to specific bylaw Provisions in the charges against a member or officer. The answer to that likely depends on the exact nature of the charges.

However, if the question is about making the bylaws available to members, the complete bylaws should certainly be made available to all members of an organization.

13 hours ago, Godelfan said:

It would seem to me that the rules that apply here would be the same as the rules that apply for scope of notice.  For example, if the original proposal were to raise dues by $50, it would be in order to amend it to $40, but not to $60.

I agree based on our not knowing exactly what the bylaws say. This is ultimately a matter of interpreting the bylaws. The bylaws could be worded in such a way that no amendment of any type can be approved by the membership without having first been approved by the board. The devil is in the details.

It would take some pretty strong language, however, to convince me that amendments within the scope of notice would not be permissible at the membership meeting.

2 hours ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

Q. You have three bodies involved in the process?

Because of this complexity, no answer is possible from Robert's Rules of Order, since your method of amendment is so unusual, so unique.

Someone will have to read your bylaws and interpret the text.

 

I suspect guest Philip is using the terms executive committee and executive board interchangeably, but, regardless, it is still a question of interpreting his organization's bylaws