Josh Martin

RONR’s definition of previous notice is that notice be provided orally at the previous meeting or included in the call of the meeting. Since this is a public body, you may well have your own rules for notice. Since this is a public body governed by California’s version of an “open meeting law,” I would not be surprised if notice is required for pretty much everything anyway.

No. Yes, if previous notice was given, then only a majority vote was required. So maybe it doesn’t change much after all.

Actually, this term is likely to be used more often in connection with a board (and even more often in connection with the general membership of a society). In any event, as I said earlier, I don’t think what type of body you are will change the answer to your question, so don’t worry about it.

If nothing else, this would serve the purpose of establishing a precedent for what to do if this happens again. Certainly, however, if the assembly prefers to let sleeping dogs lie in this matter and simply make the motion anew, I see no harm in that. This is exactly what would have occurred if the assembly had correctly identified, at the time of the vote, that the members in question were not eligible to vote at the time. Perhaps this is what the drafters of the law in question intended. It certainly does add more “teeth” to the requirement. Yes, and it is all well and good to advise the OP to consult with a lawyer to confirm that their interpretation of applicable law is in fact correct, but when the OP has stated repeatedly that (so far as they understand it) applicable law provides that members who are delinquent in their ethics courses are not eligible to vote, isn’t it a bit misleading to suggest to the OP that “A member is someone with the right to vote. If these votes were cast by members, then they were valid votes.”? While we can’t interpret applicable law here, when an OP provides their own statement regarding their understanding of applicable law, I don’t think it is helpful to respond with a post that simply ignores what the OP has said on the subject.

Thank you. RONR only addresses this situation in the context of a ballot vote (presumably because this situation is most likely to arise in that context). In that context, the text states that “If one or more ballots are identifiable as cast by persons not entitled to vote, these ballots are excluded in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 417) If this principle is equally applicable here, then that would suggest that the votes cast by the three persons who were not eligible to vote would be discarded, and the motion would therefore be adopted. Accomplishing this would require a Point of Order, upon which the chair would rule, and which would be subject to appeal. Ultimately, the assembly itself would decide the matter. It seems at least hinted, however, that the rules in question on this subject are the result of provisions in applicable law, and any questions related to the proper interpretation of applicable law are beyond the scope of RONR and this forum. But why can the council not determine that the votes were cast by persons not eligible to vote and, as a consequence, the motion is already adopted? It seems, however, that the rules of RONR may not apply in this instance. We have been told that rules imposed by an external authority (applicable law?), which are binding upon the organization, provide that the members in question were not eligible to vote at the time the vote was taken. I am not certain that this has anything to do with your original question, but nonetheless... A board may be a standalone entity or it may be subordinate to some other body, such as the general membership of a society. A committee is always subordinate to another body (which may or may not be a board). Even if it is subordinate, a board has more authority to act indepently than a committee does. I am not certain whether these “neighborhood councils” are committees or boards (or neither). Nonetheless, rules for eligibility, good standing, and other such topics could be imposed by the appropriate level of rules in any case. Elections are not “certified” under the rules of RONR, but this may be required by your rules or applicable law. ”Good standing” and “eligibility” are not quite the same thing. Suppose that a society’s bylaws provide that a member must have served on the board for at least four years in order to be President. It is discovered that the person who was elected as President actually only served on the board for three years. As a result, he is not eligible - that is, he must lose his office as President. A member who is not in “good standing” is one whose rights are under disciplinary suspension. So far as RONR is concerned, members’ rights are only suspended if the member is disciplined through formal disciplinary procedures. At a certain point, the members’ rights may be suspended, at the society’s discretion. Some societies may provide that a member’s rights are automatically suspended if they are delinquent in their dues for a certain period of time, and they regain their rights when their dues are paid. Such a member is still eligible for membership, but he is not currently in “good standing” because his rights are under suspension. The requirement you refer to is more analogous to this than to eligibility requirements.

I am still confused about these “eligibility” rules. In the ordinary case, if a member of an elected body becomes ineligible to serve, they are no longer a member of that body. This seems somewhat different. Very few details have been provided, but I have gathered that: Rules (possibly found in applicable law?) imposed by an external authority, which are binding upon the assembly, provide that members must periodically renew an “online ethics course.” These rules further provide that members who have not renewed this course by a certain date remain members of the body, but their right to vote (and possibly other rights) are suspended. Upon completion of the ethics course, the suspension is lifted, and members regain their right to vote (and possibly other rights). At a meeting, a motion was defeated, with four members voting in the affirmative, six voting in the negative, and two abstaining. After the meeting, it was discovered that three of the members who were voting in the negative were, in fact, delinquent in their ethics courses at the time the vote was taken, and pursuant to the rules discussed above, were not eligible to vote at that time. They will, however, regain their right to vote if and when they complete their ethics courses, and one of the three members has already done so (but the other two have not). Is this an accurate and complete summary of the relevant facts and rules?

Well yes, but if the indecorous member is the President herself, it seems prudent to remove the President from the chair, as the President will be unlikely to rule herself out of order. Since the OP (as the First Vice President) will then be in the chair, she may herself call the President to order, without waiting for another member to raise the issue.

Thank you. Based on these additional facts, I would also note the following rules: ”A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656) ”For the protection of parties who may be innocent, the first resolution should avoid details as much as possible. An individual member may not prefer charges, even if that member has proof of an officer's or member's wrongdoing. If a member introduces a resolution preferring charges unsupported by an investigating committee's recommendation, the chair must rule the resolution out of order, informing the member that it would instead be in order to move the appointment of such a committee (by a resolution, as in the example above). A resolution is improper if it implies the truth of specific rumors or contains insinuations unfavorable to an officer or member, even one who is to be accused. It is out of order, for example, for a resolution to begin, "Whereas, It seems probable that the treasurer has engaged in graft, . . ." At the first mention of the word "graft" in such a case, the chair must instantly call to order the member attempting to move the resolution.” (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658) While the President apparently has the authority to remove the Treasurer under your rules, in my opinion, the protections against making allegations against the Treasurer still apply. So the President should be very careful in making a statement regarding why the Treasurer was removed.

I concur with the above and would note that a review of the rules of decorum and their proper enforcement may also be necessary, if the President is in fact removed from the chair and those duties then fall to you. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 391-394, 645-649.

Could you provide some additional details regarding the alleged eligibility issues? It is not clear to me why it is believed that three of the votes were cast by ineligible voters.

Questions regarding the interpretation of applicable law are beyond the scope of this forum.

As noted previously, a motion to amend the bylaws is a special form of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, which is itself an incidental main motion, so it’s an incidental main motion regardless. Why do you ask?

I concur, however, with such a small board, such evidence may not be difficult to obtain. If all five members were present (and none abstained), for instance, there would be no difference between a majority vote and a vote of the entire membership, and it already appears to be an accepted fact that the motion was adopted by majority vote.

As has been previously stated, the board is free to amend the motion to change where the money will go.

Yes, an organization is free to place a rule of this nature in its bylaws.

It is generally not in order to have discussion without a motion pending. If the assembly has nonetheless decided to do so, then yes, the discussion could be postponed (not tabled) to the end of the meeting. Committees appointed by the membership would generally report to the membership, but the membership may instruct the committee to report to the Executive Committee if it wishes. The Executive Committee may not itself approve the amendments to the bylaws unless the bylaws grant it such power, but it could in turn recommend the amendments to the Board of Directors (if there is one), and then the membership, refer the amendments back to the bylaws committee, or amend the amendments as it saw fit.

No, of course not (unless, of course, the motion is out of order for some reason, in which case the chair should rule it out of order and provide his reasoning). See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 449-450, item 4. As noted above, the chair does not have the right to deny motions, except to rule them out of order when that is in fact the case. When you say that the chair has “refused to bring motions before the assembly,” please clarify exactly what the chair does in these cases. If the chair rules the motion out of order, then it is proper to raise an appeal. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 255-260. If the chair does something else, see the pages Mr. Geiger has cited.

I am not convinced by this idea that absentees (even unusually confident ones) have any rights at all with respect to the process by which the motion is considered, even though this could affect the outcome in limited circumstances. It seems to me that whether the motion is made as $40 and then amended or made as $50 and then amended makes no difference at all with respect to the rights of absentees, so long as $40 and $50 are within the scope of notice.

There is no problem between the analogy between withdrawal and modification of a motion by the mover (and no, there is not a case where one is permitted and the other is not). The problem is in the analogy between withdrawing (or modifying) a motion and between withdrawing (or modifying) a notice, or alternately (as the original question asked) making a motion which differs in some respect from what is included in the notice. At this time, no motion has as of yet been made, so there is not yet a motion for anyone to own. A notice may not be withdrawn if it is too late for another member to give notice. By the same token, one assumes that a notice may not be modified if it is too late for another member to give notice. The reason for this is that doing so limits other members’ rights to make the motion or to make amendments to it. If someone was able to withdraw a notice after it was too late for notice to be given, no member could then make the motion in question (or perhaps the voting threshold would be raised, depending on the specifics). Similarly, if a member gives notice that he intends to make a motion to raise dues to $50, but then modifies the notice to raise dues only to $40, no member could amend the motion, when it is made, to strike $40 and insert $50. (Conversely, increasing the amount of dues would also be problematic, as this would allow members to suggest a modest change and then “sneak in” a larger change with less than the required amount of notice, and this seems to be improper for the same reason that such an amendment would be improper at the meeting itself.) As a result, these practices are prohibited. The question that was asked, however, did not ask whether a member could change the notice, but instead asked whether a member could make a motion which differed from the notice. If a member gives notice that he will move to raise dues to $50, but then decides to move to raise dues only to $40, this does not affect other members’ rights in any way. The proposed motion is itself within the scope of the notice given, and members are also free to themselves propose to amend the motion to strike $40 and insert $50, since this amendment is still within the scope of notice. Additionally, so far as I am aware, there is no rule which requires that a motion be made exactly as stated in the notice. Based on all this, I am inclined to agree with Mr. Honemann that a member may make a motion which differs from the notice given, so long as the motion is within the scope of notice.

How do other units of your party handle such matters? I rather doubt that this problem is unique to this county. Personally, I think voting cards is the best option (since it seems that separate seating, which in my experience is the usual solution, is not desired). Given the size of the assembly, it may be best to adopt some of the tactics normally used with conventions. A "credentials committee" of sorts could be responsible for printing, distributing, and collecting the voting cards. The table for the committee should be placed at the entrance to the meeting hall.

No.

Please quote exactly what your bylaws say on this subject.

If this is in fact the extent of the allegations against the member, then I believe the board could proceed to censure the board member without formal disciplinary procedures if it wished to do so. As noted, the board could instead choose to censure the COO. No doubt, but it appears that the COO also alleged that the board member was disrespectful to the staff member. I do not think it is preposterous to suggest that this could be a valid basis for discipline, if this claim is correct. It will ultimately be up to the board to decide.

To censure is merely to express the board’s disapproval. I see no reason why the board would not have the authority to adopt such a motion. Yes, but members have a right to not have charges brought against them except with good cause, and the formal disciplinary procedures exist for this reason as well. It is of course possible to censure a member without formal disciplinary procedures, but depending on what is contained in this 15 page document, those allegations may not have been proper. It would not be proper, for instance, to censure a member for graft without formal disciplinary procedures. (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 657-658) No, this would be a terrible idea, since this leaves it up to someone’s judgment (the chair?) to determine whether something is a “routine matter” or a “true emergency.” If the assembly disapproves of such “gotcha” tactics, the assembly is free to postpone any motions arising from it, or simply to vote it down. Depending on what exactly was contained in this document, the COO himself could perhaps be subject to discipline. It should also be noted that while previous notice is not required for disciplinary procedures, there are multiple steps in this process, the first of which is to appoint an investigative committee, and the resolution to form such a committee must avoid specific allegations as much as possible. Indeed, the requirements for formal disciplinary procedures are much more onerous than previous notice requirements. I would read Section 63 of RONR for more details. If censure is all that is desired, however, it may be possible to avoid formal disciplinary procedures, depending on the nature of the allegations against the member.

Neither has become a rule. Customs do not become a rule merely because of the passage of time. A custom nonetheless should be followed if it does not conflict with a written rule, unless the assembly chooses to do otherwise in a particular case. With that said, you should formally adopt RONR as soon as possible. If you also wish to continue the custom of prohibiting self-nominations, you will need to formally adopt that as well, since this custom conflicts with RONR. I think this would require a rule at least on the level of a special rule of order, and possibly even a a rule on the bylaws.