Richard Brown

I agree with Mr. Huynh's response but have a question: You said the "president should then have been required to vote but that did not happen". Do you have a special rule of order or bylaw provision that REQUIRES the president to vote? In RONR, the president is not required to vote but MAY vote whenever his vote will affect the outcome. In fact, per RONR, the president usually does NOT vote except when his vote will affect the result. From page 53 of RONR: "Chair's Vote As Part of the Announcement, Where It Affects the Result. If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or a committee, however—unless the vote is secret (that is, unless it is by ballot; 45)—the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome, in which case he can either vote and thereby change the result, or he can abstain. If he abstains, he simply announces the result with no mention of his own vote." I note that you said the board is comprised of 13 members. You might well consider that to be a small board which follows the small board rules, in which case the president can vote with everyone else.... if he chooses to vote. No rule in RONR requires that he vote.

D. llama, if there are no rules, we on this forum cannot possibly help you interpret rules that don't exist. Your organization is flying by the seat of its pants. That is fine, obviously, as long as things roll along smoothly. But, when problems arise, there is no rule to look to, no rule to apply, no rule to interpret. There is only the question of what your society wants to do. Edited to add: Once your society does something which would violate a rule in RONR, but RONR is not your parliamentary authority and you have no other rule on the subject, you have not violated any rule. You have simply done what you have done. No rule has been violated if there are no rules. There is no rule to say what you should do when a "rule" has been violated because there was no rule to violate and there is no rule that says how to correct it. Edited again to further add: I suppose, though, if the assembly decides after the fact that something it did violated a non-binding rule in RONR, it could decide to voluntarily use the rules in RONR to get itself out of the jam that it got itself into by not following the RONR rule in the first place.

My answer above is based on the assumption that the society has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, but instead uses it only "as a guide" (whatever on earth that means). If it is only a guide, by whom and how is it determined when it will and won't be followed and what happens if it isn't followed? But, for the same sake of argument, if it IS the parliamentary authority (or is to be followed nonetheless), here is what RONR says on page 453 about an invited temporary presiding officer: "Invited Temporary Presiding Officer. In certain instances in an ordinary society—for example, if an adjourned meeting or a special meeting (9) must deal with a problem that has intensely divided the organization—it may be that such a meeting can accomplish more under the chairmanship of an invited nonmember who is skilled in presiding. (Sometimes this may be a professional presiding officer.) If the president and vice-president(s) do not object, the assembly, by majority vote, can adopt such an arrangement for all or part of a session. Alternatively, the rules may be suspended to authorize [page 454] it, even over the objection of the president or a vice-president. Cf. pages 652–53" (Emphasis added).

I typed a long response but just deleted it. Upon further reflection, it seems to me that if this organization is using RONR only as a guide and has not adopted it as its parliamentary authority, we are in no man's land and anything goes. I question whether we on this forum can be of much help. The organization has brought this upon itself and must sort it out by itself.

Yep, good point. I agree.

No, the president cannot "delegate" or appoint someone to run a meeting. If the president is not there, it is the vice president's job to preside. However, there are procedures that allow someone else to preside with the consent of the assembly regardless of whether a vice president is in attendance. The president cannot arbitrarily "appoint" someone to preside, however.

A couple of questions here, as I'm not entirely clear as to what is going on. Question 1: Was the new rule regarding spouses adopted at the same meeting as the request of the president to approve the committee chair? Question 2: Was the rule adopted at a special meeting or a regular meeting? Question 3: If it was a special meeting, was the motion for the new rule listed in the call (or notice) of the special meeting as something to be considered at that meeting? If the rule was adopted at a special meeting and was not listed in the call or notice of the special meeting as something to be taken up at that meeting, its consideration was out of order at that meeting and in my opinion is null and void. It violated a rule protecting absentees and constitutes a continuing breach. In addition, since your bylaws seem to address qualifications for committee chairmen, I think the new rule forbidding spouses from serving as committee chairs conflicts with the rule in the bylaws and would be null and void. I am assuming that the president wanted to appoint a spouse as the committee chair and that the spouse is a member in good standing. If not, that changes things.

I'm second guessing the post I made above about this "rule" being a special rule of order and apparently being validly adopted. I still believe that is true, but now I'm wondering if qualifications for holding office (or a committee chairmanship) must be in the bylaws. I question whether a special rule of order would suffice. I'll start researching that, but I welcome someone who knows the answer weighing in. Edited to add: I'm confident that qualifications for holding office must be in the bylaws, but I'm less certain about a qualification for serving as a committee chair. I'm thinking the same principle applies, but don't know that I have ever seen it explicitly stated.

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?