Dan Honemann

I looks to me as if two votes were taken. The first to "call the bill to question" (whatever that means), and then another vote to either adopt it or reject it. If so, it looks as if rules are in play which are found nowhere in RONR.

Yes.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, giving previous notice of intent to make (introduce) a motion is no more than that. It is not the same thing as actually making a motion.

You might want to switch to my edited response for the citations I provided as well as to the 11th edition. By the way, if you use the language on page 569, lines 31-35, in that old edition of yours you won't have to worry with making future changes.

As to votes cast by persons not entitled to vote, look at page 402, lines 30-34. As to election of ineligible candidates, look at page 244, lines 4-26, and focus on lines 10-11. The 11th edition, on page 445, lines 19-22, makes this clearer, so why in the world is your organization still using the 10th as its parliamentary authority?

As I mentioned a while back, I don't like facts being made up as we go along, and there are too many facts relevant and material to the question asked which have not been provided. The facts provided are as follows: "Suppose the assembly adopts the following motion, and that it is adopted without objection: 'The vice president shall send out notices of special meetings at least five days prior to the special meeting'. Nothing more. It's not proposed as any particular kind of rule, just as a 'garden variety motion'. And since it was adopted without objection, it was adopted by unanimous consent with also meets any requirement of a two thirds vote. Let's even assume that previous notice was given of the proposed motion." The question asked is: "What kind of rule is that? Is it a standing rule or a special rule of order?" The problem I have with this is that we are not told anything at all about what the bylaws of this organization provide concerning special meetings, the duties of its officers, its parliamentary authority, etc., and if its bylaws contain anything approaching what they should contain the answer to the question asked will be that the motion which was adopted creates no rule at all.

But I still would first like to know whether or not this organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, and if so, how.

I don't like facts being made up as we go along. So tell me, has this organization whose assembly adopted this motion adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, and if so, how? But before you respond to the preceding request, please let us know if you understand the response which I gave to the unedited version of your question.

If the organization whose assembly adopted this motion has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, it already has a rule of order prescribing that a duty of the secretary is to send out notices of meetings. As a consequence, the only thing which this motion does is to create a standing rule prescribing the number of days' notice to be given.

If you say so.

The mere fact that a duty which an officer is to perform is to be performed outside of a meeting does not mean that it is not a rule of order. Sometimes it is obvious that a particular duty of an officer, which will be performed outside of a meeting, is designed to facilitate the orderly transaction of business in a meeting, and the smooth functioning of the assembly. For example, the presiding officer at any meeting should have at hand "a memorandum of the complete order of business listing all known matters that are to come up, shown in proper sequence under the correct headings—or with their scheduled times—as applicable", and it is the duty of the secretary to prepare this memorandum for the presiding officer's use prior to each meeting. (p. 451, ll. 3-6; p. 459, ll. 24-28). Sometimes this connection is not so obvious, but I would suggest to you that your best bet is to regard all of the rules in RONR which prescribe the duties of officers as being rules of order. General Robert himself was a bit more clear about this. He refers to "the duties of the officers", without tacking on the words "in that connection." (ROR, p. 267; see also pp. 244-250)

I suggest you look carefully at what is said in RONR (11th ed.), on pages 94-95, concerning annual meetings, and also what is said on page 372 regarding instances in which adoption of an agenda is customary. I'm not sure you need to include an order of business for your Annual Meeting in your bylaws (if you do not do so, the one outlined in RONR, pp. 353 ff., will be the order of business), but if you do, you may want to specifically include all those items of business set forth in paragraph 2 of Section 2 of your bylaws, and not just some of them.

I think Mr. Goldsworthy had it right to begin with. What is said on page 252 relates to situations in which one or more members are denied the right to vote at a regular or properly called meeting. "In any case, a board can transact business only in a regular or properly called meeting of which every board member has been notified ..." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 486)

In a nutshell: A rule prescribing the number of days' notice required is not a rule of order. It is administrative in nature, just as are rules prescribing the date, time and place of meetings, and hence it is a standing rule. The rule in RONR prescribing that it is a duty of the secretary to send out the notice is a rule of order.

Well, first of all, what's the difference between a "special resolution" and one that isn't "special"?

I gather that regular business meetings of your congregation are held throughout the year, presumably at least as often as once every three months, and that one of these meetings is the "Annual Meeting". Is this correct?

Probably not.

Nothing in RONR requires that a committee's reporting member respond to questions, and so, in this respect, he was right. It makes no difference one way or the other, but are you sure this was a subcommittee and not a plain old committee?

Yes, I think you've got this right.

Yeah, " becomes immaterial" is a good way to put it. "After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded." (RONR, 11th ed., p. 37, ll. 9-12):

I'm glad that Mr. Tesser has pressed me on this, because I think I may have been a bit too hasty when I said that, if the number of days’ notice is not prescribed by the bylaws, it may be prescribed by a special rule of order. Upon further reflection, I suppose that such a rule will be a standing rule and not a special rule of order, and if it is prescribed by the bylaws (as it should be), it would not be a rule which could be suspended.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, it is the duty of the secretary to send out to the membership the notice referred to on page 89, lines 10-15. If the number of days’ notice required is not prescribed by the bylaws, as it should be, this notice must be sent out a reasonable time in advance of the meeting. This may be prescribed by special rule of order or by the resolution adopted by the membership (or by the Executive Committee if authorized to do so) fixing the date for a particular meeting. What is or is not a "reasonable time" will vary depending upon the circumstances, and so it is up to each organization to decide for itself what is or is not a "reasonable time". The bylaws, as quoted, appear to be in a bit of a mess in that, not only do they do they fail to specify the number of days’ notice required, they authorize either the Executive Committee or the members to order that regular meetings be held sometime other than within the first seven days of the month, but say nothing about fixing a date within those first seven days. Perhaps there is something elsewhere in the bylaws which will shed some light on whether or not the Executive Committee is authorized to do this.

Well, you must have noticed that the chair's stating the question on a motion that has not been seconded is used on page 250 (and there you are all the way up to page 251) as a shining example of an instance in which a point of order must be raised promptly at the time the breach occurs. And don't think you're kidding us into thinking that you don't already know that all points of order must be timely, even in instances where the breach is one of those mentioned on page 251. We're on to you and your little tricks.

And after you make this substitution, the fact remains that only items 3, 4, and 5 on the list are fundamental principles of parliamentary law, as Josh Martin has already noted.

You will find a number of them listed in RONR (11th ed.) on page 263, lines 15-28. Earlier on in this thread I said that "[t]he principle that 'only a two-thirds vote can rightfully suppress a main question without allowing free debate' is not a 'fundamental principle of parliamentary law' within the meaning of that term as used in RONR", and that I would agree that the reference to page 216 in the index under "fundamental principles of parliamentary law" should be deleted. Since then, I've had second thoughts about this, but I don't suppose we need to get involved in this particular question again.