Dan Honemann

No need for a motion. If a person does not seek office, all he need do is say so.

I agree that, based solely upon what has been posted, this committee appears to have no authority to rule any proposed amendment out of order, but I think it would be entirely proper for it to report a recommendation that a proposed amendment not be adopted for the reason that, if adopted, it will conflict with another provision in the bylaws that will remain in effect.

I'm afraid that you will find nothing in Robert's Rules to help you out in this regard.

Well, this is something I said in an earlier thread: "If and when a point of order is raised concerning the effectiveness of the one day late notice given for the proposed bylaw amendment, S. Nelson's organization's assembly will have to decide for itself whether or not there has been what amounts to substantial compliance with its rule, and if so, whether or not such compliance is sufficient to permit its consideration and adoption of the proposed amendment. The assembly's decision will be final unless, of course, the amendment is declared to be adopted and someone feels that his ox has been gored to such an extent that he is willing to sue, in which event the question may ultimately be decided by a court. The court, of course, will be looking at applicable contract law, not parliamentary law, to reach its decision." But since I'm just a dumb lawyer who don't know nothing about parliamentary law, pay me no mind. 🙂

If by this you mean that the chair is interrupting you as you speak in order to counter what you are saying, then this behavior is not at all in order, and should not be tolerated even in small boards. If other members don't seem to be bothered by it, however, there may be very little that you can do about it as a practical matter.

I say again, complaining about this sort of thing here in this forum won't help.

Well, complaining about it here in this forum won't help.

But nothing in RONR prohibits the presiding officer at a meeting of a board using "small board" rules from participating in debate.

No.

"Where there is no law, but every man does what is right in his own eyes, there is the least of real liberty. " —HENRY M. ROBERT

No confusion is caused by what is said in RONR on page 104, lines 24-31. That wording is perfectly clear, and I certainly wouldn't expect to see it changed any time soon.

"The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 93)

I am rather surprised that the ambiguous situation which apparently continues to exist due to rejection seven years ago of a motion to reaffirm has not long since been resolved as a consequence of a point of order being raised, leading to a ruling, perhaps followed by an appeal, all as described in Sections 23 and 24 of RONR. I do not agree, however, that this could have been done, or should now be done, simply by raising a point of order asserting that the decision made by the assembly not to reaffirm the previously adopted motion is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach. No point of order having been raised at the time the motion to reaffirm was made, it is now too late to raise such a point of order. Instead, what should happen, and ordinarily does happen, is that, at some point in time, an action is proposed to be taken, or is taken, relying upon the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion, and a point of order is then timely raised concerning the validity of this subsequent action, necessitating a ruling as to the continuing validity or invalidity of the originally adopted motion. As I said, I am surprised that this has not happened long ago. Perhaps the rule should be that rejection of a motion to reaffirm is null and void, giving rise to a continuing breach, but I am not willing to agree that it is now the rule.

The appointment and duties of an organization's parliamentarian (as that term is defined in RONR) are outlined on pages 465-67 of RONR, and questions and discussions concerning this subject are certainly welcome here in this forum. I'm not sure what you mean by " … other aspects of being a parliamentarian". The most recent posts here in this thread dealt with matters relating to NAP's credentialing of its members, and this sort of discussion wanders too far afield from a discussion of the rules in RONR.

This is all very interesting to folks, I'm sure, but please remember that this forum has been provided to "allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

Well, no, I think that boards and executive committees are to decide for themselves the extent to which they will be governed by "small board" rules, as General Robert tells us on page 251 of PL.

Try page 483, lines 6-9, and page 577, lines 23-29. See also RONR Official Interpretation 2006-12.

Page 251 (b) deals with the adoption of a motion that conflicts with a motion previously adopted and still in force. I suppose one might argue that rejection of a motion that reaffirms a motion previously adopted and still in force amounts to the same thing, which helps explain why RONR says that rejection of a motion to reaffirm creates an ambiguous situation. 🙂

The original motion was still in effect when the second motion was made, but 251 (b) is clearly inapplicable.

I do not agree that the rejection of a motion by a society's assembly accomplishes nothing. If a motion to give money to a cause fails, the society has decided that it will not give money to that cause. If a motion to endorse an issue or candidate fails, the society has decided that it will not endorse that issue or candidate. These decisions will remain in full force and effect unless and until reversed by the society itself at some later session, and until then they are binding upon any subordinate body, even one vested with full power and authority over the affairs of the society between meetings of the society's assembly. In the first instance, the society has decided that it will not "Reaffirm that we give $1000 annually to support the ongoing operations of X", thus creating an ambiguous situation. You say that, to you, "when the motion to reaffirm failed, 'nothing happened' in the sense that the club continues to give $1000 annually." I think that the society's Treasurer, who I assume is charged with sending out the $1000 check each year, may have some doubts about it. In the second instance, you fail to provide exact language, so I shall provide my own. At one of it's biannual meetings the society adopts this motion: “That the Society will support the candidacy of James Thornton for election to the office of U. S. Senator.” At its meeting six months later, the same motion is made.* This motion is not in order because it is, in substance, a motion to reaffirm the previously adopted motion, but no point of order is raised. The motion is considered and rejected. Are you sure that nothing of significance has happened and that the society's decision to support Mr. Thornton remains in full force and effect? ------------------------------------------------------------- * I'll admit that this example I have provided is overly simplistic, but as frequent visitors to this forum will recall, motions which are, in substance, motions to reaffirm previously made decisions take many different forms. They seldom use the word "reaffirm", but they are motions which are not in order solely because they are, in substance, motions to "reaffirm", as referred to on page 105.

Probably needed new tape.

And in Answer 310 he said that a motion can be made to rescind the negative vote on a motion to purchase some typewriters. You aim to hang your hat on this too? 🙂

Okay, for the third and last time, I'll say again that, in dealing with questions of this nature, the answer often depends upon the specific facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. Mr. Zook, are you telling us now that the rejected motion to "reaffirm" being discussed in this thread was a motion "that would express a particular opinion" such as that referred to on page 105, lines 15-23? If this is true, then I agree that its rejection is not the same thing as adopting a motion expressing the opposite opinion, but I think that, in order to help us understand why it is, in substance, a motion "that would express a particular opinion" you will need to give us its exact wording. By the way, up above somewhere you say the following: "The body failed to agree to a motion. Therefore, it did nothing." I respectfully disagree. Rejection of a motion is a significant action taken by the assembly; it is a decision not to do whatever it is that the motion proposes.

I don't like to keep repeating myself, but I do think it is important to note that, in dealing with questions of this nature, the answer often depends upon the specific facts and circumstances involved in the particular case. Here we are dealing in generalities, not with specific facts, and in my opinion this is what gives rise to this notion that what RONR says in this regard requires some clarification. RONR says that motions to "reaffirm" (by the way, please note that these motions come in a number of different forms and varieties) are not in order, pointing out, among other things, that rejection of such a motion creates an ambiguous situation. That this is, in fact, generally the case seems to be clearly evidenced by what few facts we have been given here. What I find surprising is that we are told that the vote which rejected this motion to "reaffirm" (in whatever form it took) took place over 10 years ago, but apparently the association has not as yet been forced to decide for itself the effect of this rejection.

It seems to me that the facts, as you present them, make it rather clear that the rejection of the motion to reaffirm has created an ambiguous situation, with some members believing one thing and others believing something else. As previously noted, if an issue arises which requires a determination as to whether or not whatever it was that the assembly refused to reaffirm is still controlling, the assembly will have to decide who's right, ordinarily by the point of order, ruling, and appeal process.