Josh Martin

The wording you suggest seems fine. I think any of the things you describe are in order. Formal disciplinary procedures would be required if it were desired to actually suspend or remove this person from membership or the rights associated with membership. For removing a person from office or from a committee, formal disciplinary procedures may or may not be required. Be sure to also see what your bylaws say on this matter. I do not think that full disciplinary proceedings are required in this matter if all that is desired is to adopt a motion of censure, or other motions which merely express the assembly’s opinion of this matter (such as the press release or the motion calling for her resignation). If disciplinary measures beyond that are desired, then in my opinion formal disciplinary procedures are still required for any punishment related to the person’s status as a member of the organization. To the extent that the person holds any positions as an officer or committee member within the organization, and it is desired to remove this person from those positions, formal disciplinary procedures may or may not be required. See FAQ #20. Some of the steps could potentially be abbreviated since the actions in question are a matter of public record. The meeting of the investigative committee, for instance, may be rather brief. I do not think, however, that the steps involved (especially the trial) may be skipped entirely on the basis that the actions are a matter of public record. The purpose of a trial is not only to establish whether the member committed the actions in question, but also what punishment (if any) should be applied, and the member is entitled to speak in her defense in that regard. Again, you should also be sure to see what your bylaws say on this matter. I don’t know about any time (that’s another debate), but I agree that a nondisciplinary motion to censure is entirely in order in the circumstances presented here.

I would be cautious in making this determination based solely on the limited facts provided here. If there are in fact serious concerns regarding the impartiality with which a Registered (or Professional Registered) Parliamentarian is performing his duties as a parliamentarian or presiding officer, especially if this done in such a way which does not reflect his honest judgment regarding the proper application of RONR and the organization’s rules, those are very serious allegations and the OP should look here: https://www.parliamentarians.org/documents/ Among other things, the documents available here include the NAP/AIP Joint Code of Ethics for Parliamentarians, and rules concerning the submission of ethics complaints. I am in no way suggesting myself that the individual described here is in violation of the code of ethics, since I lack sufficient knowledge of the facts with which to evaluate these claims, and have no intention of making unfounded allegations against a fellow parliamentarian and fellow member of NAP. I provide this information merely for informational purposes, and leave it to the involved parties to make their own determination regarding the facts and the appropriate next steps to take. That would be at the assembly’s discretion.

The former.

As has already been stated, the board has no authority to overrule a decision of the membership. This is the case whether or not the decision is made because it is believed that the motions are not in order, and it is the case regardless of when the announcement is made. As to the chairman, who does have the authority to rule a motion out of order, subject to appeal, during a meeting (although this requires a continuing breach if done after the fact), the text clearly provides “All of the duties of the presiding officer described above relate to the function of presiding over the assembly at its meetings. In addition, in many organized societies, the president has duties as an administrative or executive officer; but these are outside the scope of parliamentary law, and the president has such authority only insofar as the bylaws provide it.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 456, emphasis added) One of the duties “described above,” which (as the rule notes) may only be performed during the assembly’s meetings, is to “To decide all questions of order (23), subject to appeal (24)—unless, when in doubt, the presiding officer prefers initially to submit such a question to the assembly for decision.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 450) If it is in fact correct that some of the motions conflict with the bylaws, those motions are null and void. Notwithstanding this, however, a ruling regarding this matter may only be made at a meeting of the membership. There is nothing in RONR requiring that “all motions must be sent out to the membership prior to the meeting,” and since you say this is not in your bylaws either, this is not legitimate grounds for ruling the motions out of order. I would personally suggest that it might be time for some new board members. See FAQ #20.

Yes. The board does not have the authority to rule motions adopted by the membership out of order. At a meeting of the membership, the chair could rule the motions out of order (if it was due to a violation of the rules which caused a continuing breach), subject to appeal. What was the stated reason why the motions were said to be invalid? “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, ll. 23–33). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483)

I am still satisfied with the answers I gave above concerning this as a general question. As to some of the specific questions: As with all questions of order, the chair rules, subject to appeal. Ultimately, the assembly itself decides. Well, whether or not this is correct, the only way to change this would be to persuade the members of the importance of parliamentary procedure or to replace some or all of the members of the assembly with members who understand its importance. It is ultimately up to the assembly itself to enforce its rules, and if the assembly is only willing to enforce them to the level of “substantial compliance,” whatever the assembly decides that means, then I suppose that is what will happen. I would also note that the rules of parliamentary procedure, in and of themselves, are not enforceable by the courts. It may well be that certain aspects of parliamentary procedure are also codified in statute for a particular jurisdiction, or that those aspects which are included in an organization’s rules (especially its bylaws) may form a sort of contract, and therefore could be enforced by a court, but courts cannot and do not enforce “parliamentary procedure” itself.

You are an ordinary society in the sense RONR uses the term. In RONR, “ordinary society” essentially means “pretty much any society except for a state or national legislative assembly.” Despite the fact that student governments frequently name and model their organizations, to varying degrees, off of state or national legislative assemblies, they have far more in common with nonprofit associations (and may share some functions which are similar to local legislative or administrative bodies) than with such assemblies. As a consequence, RONR is far better suited to the conduct of business in student governments than Mason’s. As a former student senator myself, I should make clear that I say this with all due respect for student governments.

None of this additional information changes the fact that only members of the Finance Committee have the right to raise a Point of Order (or to make any other motion) at a meeting of the Finance Committee. I should additionally note that a Point of Order does not give anyone an opportunity to defend themselves from personal attack, in the sense that the person would speak in his defense regarding the substance of the attacks. The purpose of a Point of Order in this regard is to make clear that the attacks are not in order, to stop the attacks, and to attempt to prevent such attacks from being made in the future. There is a different motion if it is desired for the subject of the attacks to speak in his defense concerning the substance of the attacks, which could be made instead of or in addition to the Point of Order. Specifically, this is a question of personal privilege. If a motion is pending, Raise a Question of Privilege is the proper method to introduce a question of privilege. It may still only be made by a member of the Finance Committee. “Questions of personal privilege—which seldom arise in ordinary societies and even more rarely justify interruption of pending business—may relate, for example, to an incorrect record of a member's participation in a meeting contained in minutes approved in his absence, or to charges circulated against a member's character.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 227)

Well, technically, what RONR says on this subject is this: ”When a question is pending, a member can condemn the nature or likely consequences of the proposed measure in strong terms, but he must avoid personalities, and under no circumstances can he attack or question the motives of another member. The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 392) Generally, when RONR uses the term “member,” it refers to members of the assembly. In this instance, however, I think it could be reasonably argued that it refers to a member of the society. Therefore, since the subject of the attack was “an appointed member of another commitee,” it seems reasonable to conclude that the attack on this person was a violation of decorum. In addition, it seems to me that as has been suggested previously, such comments are still not in order on the grounds that they are (generally) not germane to the pending question. “In debate a member's remarks must be germane to the question before the assembly—that is, his statements must have bearing on whether the immediately pending motion should be adopted (see also Principles Governing the Debatability of Motions, pp. 396–99).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 392) Personal comments regarding another person, whether those comments are positive or negative and whether or not that person is a member of the assembly (or of the society), generally have no bearing on whether the immediately pending motion should be adopted. The chair could have argued against the member’s arguments, but not against the member’s character. As noted above, however, during a meeting of a committee, only a member of the committee has the right to raise a Point of Order or Appeal. If the committee is not willing to address these matters itself, they should be reported to the committee’s parent assembly.

“Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election, even if he has not been nominated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439) Is that explicit enough?

RONR does not prohibit the use of the word “slate,” but whether or not this word is used for the list of nominees presented by the nominating committee, members are free to vote for any eligible person for each office. There is not a single yes/no vote on the “slate” in its entirety. ”Votes can be cast for any person who is eligible for election” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 439)

“In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see p. 577, ll. 23–33). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 483)

I strongly suspect that the board did not have the authority to adopt such a resolution in the first place. “The executive board of an organized society operates under the society's bylaws, the society's parliamentary authority, and any special rules of order or standing rules of the society which may be applicable to it. Such a board may adopt its own special rules of order or standing rules only to the extent that such rules do not conflict with any of the rules of the society listed above.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 486) First, the rule in question conflicts with at least the parliamentary authority (assuming that authority is RONR), and is therefore not in order on that basis. Second, the rule cited above says that a board may adopt “its own” rules. A subordinate board is not authorized to adopt rules for the society’s meetings unless so authorized by the society or its rules. If the rule was not properly adopted, the proper course of action is not a motion to Rescind, but a Point of Order (or a ruling by the chair on his own initiative) that the rule is null and void, followed by an Appeal if necessary. If the board wishes, the board may adopt a new rule specifying that expenditures above $X require the membership’s approval. I think this is acceptable as it merely constrains the board’s actions rather than infringing on the rules of how the society conducts its own business. Specifying a majority of members voting is not required, since this is the default in RONR. In the unlikely event that the board did have the authority to adopt the rule in question, the board may still certainly rescind or amend it. There is no doubt that the board may rescind or amend rules which the board itself adopted. It seems to me that the rule in question is in the nature of a special rule of order. As a result, the threshold to rescind it is a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board). Assuming, of course, that the rule was properly adopted. I think it does matter. It seems to me that a Point of Order is the correct route to go. While it is correct that the end result will be the same for this rule (the rule will no longer be in effect), this will create a precedent that the board does not have the authority to adopt such motions, which can be referred to by the presiding officer in the event that a board member moves to create a similar rule in the future.

All I am saying is that the rules in RONR concerning a parliamentary authority being binding, including the rule in question, address situations in which the authority has been adopted by the organization itself. To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing in RONR addressing the specific issue of a parliamentary authority being imposed upon it by statute (although there are rules concerning the status of applicable procedural rules in statute generally, which I discuss below). If an organization is required by statute to use the rules in RONR for its meetings unless the bylaws provide otherwise, and the bylaws do not provide otherwise, then I am inclined to think that the rules in RONR are at least as binding (and possibly even more binding) than if the organization had adopted RONR itself, but this is due to the rule in statute, not due to any rule in RONR. If it is felt that is necessary to provide some backup from RONR (although if members do not find state law to be persuasive on this matter, I am not sure why they would find RONR to be more persuasive), these would seem to be relevant passages: “Aside from rules of parliamentary procedure and the particular rules of an assembly, the actions of any deliberative body are also subject to applicable procedural rules prescribed by local, state, or national law and would be null and void if in violation of such law.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 3-4) ”Within this framework under the general parliamentary law, an assembly or society is free to adopt any rules it may wish (even rules deviating from parliamentary law) provided that, in the procedure of adopting them, it conforms to parliamentary law or its own existing rules. The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 10)

Yes. No. The default requirement for adopting a motion in RONR is a majority vote. You say that the motion originally required a 2/3 vote, but it is not stated why this was the case, Because of the freedom of each new session. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 86-88. Also, it should be noted that Reconsider only requires a majority vote.

I agree that the reports shouldn’t be approved at the same time, but additionally, most reports shouldn’t be approved at all. Generally, for reports which contain information only, no action whatsoever is taken on the report. It is merely placed on file. If the report contains recommendations, one or more motions are made to implement the recommendations, but not to approve the report in its entirety. A motion should only be made to approve the report if it is to become an official record of the society, such as if the report is to be published in the society’s name. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 506-508 for more information. In the case of the Treasurer’s Report specifically, for most reports, no action is taken on the report, and it is placed on file. For the annual report, it is submitted to the Auditing Committee (or to professional auditors, depending on the size and complexity of the society’s finances), and the report of the auditors is approved after it is received. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 479-480 for more information.

Does the statement in question apply in this situation? ”The book is also designed as a manual to be adopted by organizations or assemblies as their parliamentary authority. When the manual has been thus adopted, the rules within it, together with any special rules of procedure that may also be adopted, are binding upon the body and constitute that body's rules of order.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. xxix) As I understand the facts, the organization has not adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. Rather, state law provides that it shall be used unless the bylaws provide otherwise. I don’t think there is anything in RONR regarding such a situation, but I agree that it is binding because of the state law.

No, not at all. I have no objection to expressing the increase as a percentage.

I’m not sure this paragraph is entirely applicable, since it appears the organization has not, in fact, adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority. Rather, state statute appears to provide for this (unless the bylaws provide otherwise). I nonetheless agree that it is binding (to at least the same extent that it is binding in an organization which has adopted RONR of its own accord), but this is because the statute says so, not because of any rule in RONR.

Thank you for the clarification. In that event, the motion would be in order and the point would be timely. One thing that may help... “When a member notices a breach of order that may do harm if allowed to pass, he rises and, without waiting for recognition, immediately addresses the chair as follows: MEMBER A: I rise to a point of order. [Or, "Point of order!"]” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 253) This is properly a special rule of order, not a standing rule, but in any event, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own rules. It seems the presiding officer could use some training in this regard. As noted above, this statement is not correct. It is not correct that all motions are out of order until someone has actually voted. Until that time, in circumstances such as these, the chair should ask “For what purpose does the member rise?” This is because the purposes for which the floor may be granted at this time are limited, and the chair must ascertain if the member is seeking the floor for a proper purpose before granting it. He can. As noted above, this is not correct. Do your rules actually specify this? Finally, since it appears that the parliamentary problems your organization has are fairly extensive, it may behoove the organization to consider hiring a professional parliamentarian in your area to assist the organization in such aspects as providing parliamentary trainings, assisting in drafting amendments to your rules, and possibly serving as advisor to the chair at select meetings. The National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals.

You should make this switch permanent as soon as possible. Mason’s is used by bicameral state legislatures (often in conjunction with extensive special rules of order). It is ill-suited for use in ordinary societies. I would also note that I am not sure germaneness is a requirement in legislative assemblies (or if it is, it does not seem to be enforced), which may make the original question moot. Yes, these are all very stupid rules for an ordinary society, so you made the right decision to switch to Robert’s.

JJ, the original sentence in question states “The Board shall recommend the amount of annual Dues for each class of membership and shall transmit all proposed Dues changes, with a statement as to their necessity, to the Secretary.” The sentence does not say anything about a proposed change in the rule establishing the dues. The word “rule” does not appear in the sentence at all. I don’t really see how this is all that different from saying “any proposed change in the amount of the dues.” So I don’t find this argument about a change in the rule versus a change in the dues to be all that persuasive, since the rule refers to changes in the dues (and since you find this wording to be important, also refers “the amount of annual dues” in one place). I find the argument by Mr. Brown and Mr. Kapur it be somewhat more persuasive. As I understand it, their argument is that while the society is required to approve each change in the dues, there is nothing preventing them from approving multiple changes (or even an infinite number of changes) in advance, which is what the assembly did here. This seems to be a reasonable enough argument, but I am not inclined to agree with it. The very purpose of the rule is clearly to require membership approval of changes in the dues. Permitting a motion which no longer requires such approval for dues increases of no more than 3%, in my view, conflicts with the rule. I also certainly agree with Mr. Brown that this is a question of bylaws interpretation for the society to decide for itself. I am not persuaded by the arguments on either side suggesting there is only one reasonable interpretation of this rule. It seems to me it is sufficiently ambiguous to be open to interpretation, and it is ultimately an interpretation for the society itself to make. In any event, I would recommend the society amend the bylaws when all is said and done so the intent is clear.

Yes, I have no doubt of that. If the society had voted to increase the dues by 3%, then the dues would increase by 3%, and then would remain at that amount until the assembly again agreed to change the dues. That is a single change in the dues. In this case, however, it appears that the assembly voted on a 3% increase in the dues (a change in the dues) and further provided that changes of up to 3% per year (each of which, it seems to me, is a change in the dues) may be made in the future without further approval from the assembly. In my view, this is not consistent with the rule in the bylaws.

A motion to lay on the table is technically in order after the Previous Question has been ordered but before voting has begun, but it should be noted that the proper use of a motion to Lay on the Table is to set the pending motion aside temporarily so that the assembly may take up another matter which requires immediate attention. It seems doubtful that the other matter is so urgent that it cannot await the completion of the vote. I wonder, therefore, if the motion to lay on the table is being misused (as it usually is). See FAQ #12 and FAQ #13 for more information. As for the Point of Order, I am not certain whether this point is still timely after the chair has already taken the vote on the motion for the Previous Question. If the chair admits a motion for the Previous Question from a member who has not properly been recognized, a member should immediately raise the Point of Order regarding this fact. I understand why you feel these actions are highly problematic (especially to the extent that they involve willful attempts at violating the rules in the organization’s governing documents), but “dilatory” really is not the right word for this. ”A motion is dilatory if it seeks to obstruct or thwart the will of the assembly as clearly indicated by the existing parliamentary situation.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342) More specifically, a dilatory motion is a motion which is otherwise in order, but is used with the clear intent of delaying business. Such tactics are generally used by the minority. ”As further examples, it is dilatory to obstruct business by appealing from a ruling of the chair on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, by demanding a division (29) on a vote even when there has been a full vote and the result is clear, by moving to lay on the table the matter for which a special meeting has been called, by constantly raising points of order and appealing from the chair's decision on them, or by moving to adjourn again and again when nothing has happened to justify renewal of such a motion. By use of such tactics, a minority of two or three members could bring business to a standstill.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 342) There is no reason for the majority to use dilatory tactics, because the majority is in control of the assembly’s business, and therefore has no reason to unnecessarily delay its business with dilatory tactics. Additionally, when the majority does choose to delay business (such as by adopting a motion to postpone), it is expressed by a majority vote that it is the assembly’s will to delay the business in question, and therefore there is no obstruction of the assembly’s will. Motions or tactics used by the majority may well be out of order, improper, or merely undesirable for other reasons, but they can’t really be “dilatory.”

It seems to me that a recount of a rising vote may only be taken in the event that tally sheets are taken and kept, and it is the marks on the tally sheets which are recounted.