Josh Martin

(Duplicate post in error)

I would first note that it is currently August, so it seems to me that in the current situation, the terms of the officers have ended in any event (unless applicable law provides otherwise). I agree that the rules should be clarified in the future.

That citation seems to address a situation where a delegate is already registered, and it is desired for the alternate to “temporarily” replace him. As the text notes, this is not permitted. The situation here appears to be that the delegate was not registered at the start of the convention, and an alternate was therefore registered to fill the vacancy. The delegate then subsequently arrived. It seems that in this case, the delegate takes his seat (although I wish the text was clearer on this point). ”Although this motion might appear to be one to amend something previously adopted (35), it requires only a majority vote for its adoption, since it is always understood that the roll will be added to and subtracted from as delegates arrive late or leave early, and alternates may thereby be shifted in status.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 617)

No. No. After this is all sorted out, it may be desirable to amend the bylaws to provide that “Officers shall serve for a one (1) year term from May 1 through April 30, or until their successors are elected,” in case this situation arises again in the future. If such a provision was in the bylaws, then board members could indeed continue serving in a situation like this.

If the Presbytery adopted a motion that the minutes of this church are approved with exception, then that is what the minutes should record. There is nothing to correct with respect to the minutes, since they are an accurate record of what occurred at the meeting. If the Presbytery now wishes to approve the minutes without exception, then it should adopt a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. That motion will be recorded in the minutes of the new meeting. As for how to report this correction with respect to the packet, that is at the assembly’s discretion - RONR has no guidance on that subject.

I have no disagreement that it is at least desirable (even if not strictly required) to specifically provide notice regarding the election of the new positions (pending approval), and it seems that this was done in the scenario presented here.

I concur with my colleagues that (short of an amendment to the bylaws), the deadline may not be extended. If all that the rule provides is that the meeting must occur by a certain date, however, the committee could (if it wished to do so) largely accomplish the same objective by calling the meeting to order, and then immediately voting to adjourn the meeting to a later date.

Assuming this position is not defined in your bylaws as , it seems to me that this is essentially a “committee of one.” Your bylaws may have rules for appointing committees. If not, a special committee may be appointed by a majority vote. The assembly could choose to elect the Sergeant-at-Arms itself or authorize the chairman to appoint one.

It is in order to fill the positions during the same meeting. The notice of the revision serves as sufficient notice of the election of the new positions.

I have no disagreement. I assumed the conversation took place during a meeting.

As I have said previously, nothing in RONR prevents a board from adopting a rule that a member (even a particular member) must copy the President when emailing management, or another board member. I am inclined to think that a conversation concerning a board member’s mental health is a violation of the rules of decorum. Any legal issues involved are beyond the scope of this forum.

Yes, I acknowledge that the wording of the particular citation is not ideal. The principal rule on this matter is that “A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. Some organized societies define additional classes of "membership" that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as "voting members" when it is necessary to make a distinction.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 3, emphasis added) Apparently this citation alone is believed to be insufficient because a committee is not, strictly speaking, an assembly. The text notes, however, that “The rules in this book are principally applicable to meeting bodies possessing all of the foregoing characteristics. Certain of these parliamentary rules or customs may sometimes also find application in other gatherings which, although resembling the deliberative assembly in varying degrees, do not have all of its attributes as listed above.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 2) The text then specifically discusses committee procedure on pgs. 500-501, describing the manner in which committee procedures differ from those procedures in an assembly. Nothing in those pages suggests that the meaning of the term “member” becomes different in the context of a committee, therefore, it stands to reason that it carries the same meaning (that it refers to a member of the committee, unless otherwise stated). Indeed, the text reinforces this concept when it notes that “When a committee is to make substantive recommendations or decisions on an important matter, it should give members of the society an opportunity to appear before it and present their views on the subject at a time scheduled by the committee. Such a meeting is usually called a hearing. During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 501) Since this last part specifically says committee members, there is no ambiguity. Additionally, since it is clear that only committee members have the right to be present, a discussion of what other rights guests might have is academic. As a practical matter, it is obvious from this sentence alone that the guests only have such rights as the committee permits, since it can always prevent guests from speaking further (for instance) by removing the guests from the meeting. Since committees are fully subordinate bodies, however, the parent assembly is free to provide instructions to the committee on this matter if it wishes.

In the context of a committee, this rule means that any persons who are not members of the committee who are permitted to be present, as guests of the committee, have no rights with reference to the proceedings, except to the extent that the committee has been otherwise instructed in this matter by the parent assembly.

Assuming that this does in fact mean a roll call vote, a member could move that the vote be retaken by roll call, provided the member does this promptly. After the assembly has moved on to other business, it would be too late. After that time, a member who voted on the prevailing side (that is, a member who voted against the motion) could move to Reconsider, and then (assuming that motion is adopted) move for a roll call vote. The motion may not simply be reintroduced. The motion itself (not merely the method of voting) must be different in order to make it a new motion. It should also be noted that unless the assembly’s rules provide otherwise, a motion for a roll call vote requires a majority vote for adoption. It may be helpful, however, if you could explain what a “per capita” vote is.

Yes, but policies applying to the Board of Directors itself is generally viewed as a significant decision.

It is at the board’s discretion.

Yes, when a report is pending, questions which are germane to the report are in order.

That is the manner in which the board makes decisions, from a parliamentary perspective, and main motions are recorded in the minutes, so yes. Although since the association’s lawyer is involved, I expect this will be more of a legal issue than a parliamentary one.

In my view, no rule in RONR prohibits a board from adopting a rule of this nature. Members do not have a parliamentary right to email other board members or management. As a consequence, adopting a rule concerning the sending of emails, even if for only one person, is not “discipline.”

I concur with the view of Mr. Kapur and Mr. Brown. It seems clear to me that a rule of this sort is in the nature of an instruction from the membership to the board, and therefore, it is not in order for the board to suspend it entirely, as this would defeat the purpose of the rule. On the other hand, I also agree that the board may adopt reasonable limits on the length of these comments, and that the rule in RONR concerning how long members of the assembly may speak in debate has no bearing here. No, a nonmember may not make a motion. If the board refuses to permit members to speak, it may be necessary to discipline the board members and/or by clarifying this rule in the bylaws, such as by adding a provision specifically stating that the board may not eliminate these comments or reduce them below a certain amount of time.

That is not what happened. The entire issue at hand is that the motion to postpone was not processed, let alone adopted. A member said “I would like to make a friendly amendment to postpone voting on this.” Another member seconded it. The original motion maker stated that she did not accept the request, and the assembly proceeded with consideration of the main motion, ignoring the fact that a motion to postpone (albeit a poorly worded one) had been made and seconded.

All that RONR says on this matter is the following: “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. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 407) So this would suggest that the chairman should not vote on any matters relating to his son’s employment (although he ultimately has the right to vote if he wishes), but nothing in RONR suggests that a person with a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members should refrain from participating in other ways, such as being present, speaking in debate, or asking questions. It is very possible that the school board’s own rules or applicable law have additional rules on this subject.

I have no knowledge of the the way your committees are managed, but I would note that nothing in RONR requires persons who are not members of a committee to be notified of or invited to the meetings of the committee, and therefore, a person who is not a member of the committee may not have the opportunity to discuss an idea in the committee first.

I read that as saying that no further discussion took place on the motion to postpone. I am not certain it was intended as a motion to postpone indefinitely. I get the impression that it was intended as a motion to postpone to a certain time, but the motion maker failed to provide the necessary details.

It should first be understood that a motion to postpone is not an amendment (friendly or otherwise). Nonetheless, I agree that discussion and a vote should have occurred... although the chair first should have asked for clarification on when the member wished to postpone the motion to (such as to the next meeting, or perhaps until a particular time in the same meeting). It is, however, too late to do anything about it now. Generally, a Point of Order must be raised at the time of the breach.