Dan Honemann

I respectfully disagree. Raising a point of order that a motion did not receive the requisite number of votes for its adoption does not reveal in any way ones views concerning the merits of the matter which was voted on. The member is simply doing what he ought to do, without indicating his views on the matter which was voted on one way or the other. Being required to openly vote on a motion to make unanimous a vote previously taken by ballot requires disclosure of ones views on the matter being voted on.

The mere fact that a motion not on an adopted agenda is voted on would not render the vote invalid. Perhaps some additional facts would be helpful.

This isn't going a bit further at all. As I said, there seems to be general agreement that this "officer-elect" can be removed through disciplinary proceedings prior to actually assuming the office to which he was elected, and the question is whether or not he can be removed simply by the adoption a motion to do so (by majority vote, if previous notice has been given).

And it's a good thing that you did because otherwise I probably would have moved it.

RONR has no rules of interpretation. Some principles of interpretation are set forth on pages 588-91, but these are not rules, and certainly not rules of parliamentary procedure. But having said that, I agree that it probably would not be remiss for the parliamentarian, if asked, to inform the assembly concerning these principles where applicable.

I'm not at all sure what it is that you find so astonishing in this discussion. As best I can determine, there seems to be general agreement that this "officer-elect" can be removed through disciplinary proceedings prior to actually assuming the office to which he was elected, and most of the discussion seems to have centered around the question as to how to describe (or what to name) whatever it is that he is to be removed from. 🙂 The question Guest Oliver very sensibly asks is whether or not this "officer-elect" can be removed simply by the adoption of a motion to do so (utilizing the procedure described on p. 653, line 27 to p. 654, line 3) in view of the fact that their bylaws use the term "or until a successor is elected" in describing terms in office. I don't know the answer to this question, and suspect that if an answer is to be found anywhere it will have to be found within the four corners of their bylaws.

"Subsidiary and incidental motions, questions of privilege, motions to Raise a Question of Privilege or Call for the Orders of the Day, and other motions may also be considered if they are related to these motions or to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum." (RONR, 11th ed. pp. 347-48) Election of a chairman pro tem and election of a secretary pro tem fall within this category.

The secretary submits his resignation and a member moves "that the secretary's resignation be accepted." While this motion is pending, a member moves "that the pending motion be amended by adding "with sincere thanks for a job well done over the past two years." I can think of quite a number of other illustrations, but one should be enough.

Yes, a motion to grant a member's request to be excused from a duty may be amended by the assembly in various ways, but not in such a way as to change the request itself into something which it was not. It seems to me that this is just a matter of plain old common sense. I suppose that a member who has made such a request could, while the motion to grant it was pending, ask leave to modify his request in some fashion, but that is also another kettle of seafood.

Your organization will have to decide for itself the meaning of its bylaw provisions relating to this question. There is nothing in RONR which prohibits a member from holding two positions on a board (although he will only be entitled to one vote, not two). As best I can determine, nothing in what you have quoted from your bylaws prohibits your newly elected president from retaining his position as a member of the board, but my opinion in this regard is of no real consequence. (In other words, I agree with Dr. Stackpole.) If your newly elected president resigns his office as a director, the resultant vacancy should be filled in whatever manner your bylaws provide for filling such vacancies. If they contain no such provision, the vacancy should be filled by whatever body elected him to that office in the first place.

This is a question which your board will have to decide for itself; there is no rule in RONR concerning the matter, and I gather that your organization has not adopted one. Assuming that both officers are members of the board: If this is a small board (not more than about a dozen members present at its meetings) operating under "small board" rules (RONR, 11th ed., pp. 487-88), the presiding officer is permitted to make motions (although he usually does so in an informal fashion; see the second footnote on p. 488), and motions need not be seconded. There are no restrictions imposed upon a secretary's right to make or second motions.

By "Notice of the slate" do you mean the report of a nominating committee setting forth the names of the persons the committee is nominating for various offices? If not, what do you mean? If the answer to my first question is yes, then there should be no motion to "accept the slate". Ordinarily, further nominations are made from the floor, and then an election is held. In short, Guest Lisa, quite a few additional facts would be helpful.

I'm not either, but I still think that an "officer-elect" (within the meaning of what is said on page 444 of RONR), holds an office (or position, or whatever you want to call it) from which he can be removed. The question as to whether or not the procedure described on page 653, line 27 to page 654, line 3 is available depends upon a proper interpretation of the bylaws.

If I was the parliamentarian and I was requested to respond to a Request for Information (within the meaning of such requests as referred to on pp. 294-95), I suppose my response would depend upon my understanding of the reason behind such an unusual request. Keeping within the bounds of the facts originally posited, I'm inclined to believe that I would decline to respond to a request for information concerning my opinion as to the meaning of what must be a somewhat ambiguous bylaw provision. Well, I think it obvious from the facts as posited that you are not asking about a Parliamentary Inquiry.

So I gather you do not share my view that, when RONR refers to a person whose election to an office has become final but who, because of the organization's applicable rules, does not assume that office until a later date as an "officer-elect", this means that such a person holds an office of some sort during the interval between election and assumption of office. Well, I can't say that I blame you. 🙂

I don't know, but if your next regular meeting is the one at which he (or she, which is it?) assumes office, why not wait until then?

I gather there's a question in here somewhere, but I don't know what it is. In any event, your bylaws obviously depart from the rules in RONR in this connection (time of assuming office), and so I think that the answer to most of your questions will depend upon a proper interpretation of these bylaw provisions..

As I said, I do not think that a parliamentarian is obliged to express an opinion on a question as to whether or not a particular motion conflicts with the bylaws. And I agree with you that, generally speaking, a parliamentarian is not obliged to answer requests for information (and probably ought not do so).

No, you don't have to accept it if you don't want to.

Well, once he has assumed the office of president in June, the question which is concerning you now will disappear.

According to the rules in RONR (p.444), "An officer-elect takes possession of his office immediately upon his election's becoming final, unless the bylaws or other rules specify a later time. If a formal installation ceremony is prescribed, failure to hold it does not affect the time at which the new officers assume office." If, in fact, your bylaws actually provide that your vice-president, who has now been elected to the office of president, does not assume this new office until months after his election has become final, it would appear that he now occupies the office of "officer-elect" (as that term is used in the passage quoted above), as well as the office of vice-president. Assuming (a BIG assumption) that the "or until a successor is elected" language in your bylaws applies to this office of "officer-elect", then it would appear that he can be removed from this office of "officer-elect" by adoption of a motion to remove him.

Why do you say that "they" (really?) have not yet been installed? Aren't "they" currently serving in the office of president-elect?

A parliamentarian advises on matters of parliamentary procedure, and hence may be expected to advise the chair that a motion that conflicts with the bylaws is not in order (with a few very limited exceptions). The question as to whether a particular motion does or does not conflict with the bylaws is not, in my opinion, a question of parliamentary procedure. As a consequence, I do not think that a parliamentarian is obligated to express an opinion on a question as to whether or not a particular motion conflicts with the bylaws. Although I certainly agree with Ann Rempel that this parliamentarian had better take a careful look at his contract. 🙂

In my opinion, the rule against the chair's participation in debate is not, strictly speaking, a rule of decorum, which is why it is included under its own subsection in Section 43 and not under the subsection dealing with decorum in debate. A chair's participation in debate may be a violation of the rules, but it is no more indecorous than is speaking for longer than ten minutes, or debating an undebatable motion. I can find no rule in RONR prohibiting employment of a mocking or sarcastic tone in debate.

Oh for heaven's sake, even I knew enough from previous posts to know that Nosey is talking about a small board using small board rules. 🙂