Josh Martin

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.

It seems to me that a Request for Information could be used to ask a question of a nonmember, however, if a member of the assembly objected, a vote would need to be taken. Since a response to a a Request for Information is not debate, however, I think a majority vote would be sufficient.

I concur with Mr. Katz that no rule in RONR prevents the President from attempting to influence members outside of a meeting. When the meeting itself arrives and the issue is debated further and voted on, the President should maintain the appearance of impartiality while presiding, unless it will be a meeting of a committee or small board (not more than about a dozen members present), in which event the chairman is free to speak in debate. If the assembly feels that the President’s campaigning on this matter has critically undermined his appearance of impartiality, the rules may be suspended by a 2/3 vote to remove him from the chair. Has a decision been made yet? I was under the impression that no vote has yet been taken.

The assembly may adopt standing rules on this matter if it wishes. It would violate no parliamentary rule to do so.

No, these facts, in and of themselves, do not suggest that the motions in question are dilatory. In regard to motions adopted at previous meetings, motions to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted are in order, although there are special rules for adopting such motions. It is not possible for a motion to be on the agenda for a future meeting, since the agenda is set at the meeting itself. The mere fact that it is intended or desirable to consider a motion at a later meeting does not prevent a motion from being made. A motion could be ruled out of order if the assembly had already postponed the motion (or a very similar motion) to the next meeting or if the bylaws specified that the matter be considered at a particular meeting. It is not clear which of these scenarios the phrase “calendar sensitive” is referring to. I also would note that (except in a committee or small board), debate without a motion pending is not in order, so that may cut down on some “soapboxing” and “grandstanding.” If the assembly finds that it needs to further control such matters, it may adopt appropriate special rules of order. As I have previously noted, the membership itself has the power to adopt a rule of this nature by a 2/3 vote with previous notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. The board, however, may not impose such rules on the membership.

It seems to me, however, that the sentence “The measure, not the member, is the subject of debate.” is crucial in interpreting the meaning of the rule and, therefore, the rule may not be fully applicable if a member is the subject of debate. If a motion is made to censure a board member or to remove him from office for some action he has taken, it seems to me that why the member took that action is absolutely germane to the question.

I concur with Mr. Wynn that the election may be continued at the next meeting, however, I would note that the practice of asking the secretary to cast the assembly’s vote when a candidate is elected by acclamation is, at best, antiquated and unnecessary (and at worst, is a horrendous violation of members’ rights). If the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or require a ballot vote but provide an exception when an election is uncontested, the President simply declares the candidate elected. There is no need for the Secretary to write the name on a piece of paper. On the other hand, if the bylaws require a ballot vote and do not provide any exceptions, than a ballot vote must be taken. Having the Secretary alone cast a ballot does not satisfy this requirement.

I concur with my colleagues and would add that there appears to be confusion regarding the proper use of the motion to Lay on the Table. See FAQ #12. The bylaws committee, of course, has no authority to postpone or table the motion. The assembly itself could have decided to postpone the motion due to the absence of the bylaws committee chairman, but was under no obligation to do so. Additionally, it is not required, strictly speaking, to provide copies of the proposed bylaw amendments, but this is generally desirable because if such copies are not provided, the amendments must be read in their entirety. (They still must be read in their entirety if a member demands it, even if copies are provided, but members may be willing to forego the reading if they have copies.) Providing copies only upon request, in my view, is not sufficient - in such a case, the amendments still must be read.

So far as RONR is concerned, to adopt a report (and “approve” is a synonym of adopt) means to endorse every word of the report as the assembly’s own statement, such as when the report is to be published in the assembly’s name. When this is done (which is rare), it is ordinarily done in regard to a report for information only. When a report contains recommendations, generally one or more motions are made to adopt those recommendations. I would assume that if a report which also contains recommendations was adopted in full, this would have the effect of endorsing every word of the report as the society’s own statement and adopting all recommendations contained within the report, although the text is not entirely clear on this point. As others have indicated, however, many assemblies have an unfortunate custom of regularly “approving” reports for no apparent reason. If such a custom exists for this assembly, there may be some doubt as to the effect of this motion. I advise reading RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 506-508 for more information on this subject.

I am not certain of this sweeping admonition against addressing the board members’ motives. It is of course correct that if the decision before the assembly is whether to rescind the action, or whether to ratify the action, or whether the board has the authority to take the action in question, then it is of course inappropriate to question the motives of the board members. The motion (or the rules), not the board members, is the subject of debate. If a motion is made to censure the board members or remove them from office, however, then I think their motives may well be germane to those questions. Since in this instance the board members themselves are the subject of the motion, the rule against questioning the motives of a motion maker does not apply. Caution must still be applied, however, as the rules of decorum are still in force.

Is there anything at all in your bylaws regarding the authority of the board? Assuming it is in fact correct that the board exceded its authority, one or more of the following actions is generally taken in such a case: The society could ratify the board’s action. The society could declare the board’s action null and void. The society could censure some or all of the board members responsible. The society could remove some or all of the board members responsible from office. (see FAQ #20). If the board acted within its authority, but the society disagrees with the action, the society could rescind the motion adopted by the board (unless your rules grant the board exclusive authority in this area).

I am sure that J.J. did not mean to suggest that a member in arrears of his dues cannot be removed at all. Unless the organization’s rules provide otherwise, however, doing so will require following the procedures in Ch. XX. Many organizations assume that a member who is in arrears may automatically be dropped, but this is not correct unless the bylaws so provide.

What is the member threatening to sue the board for? I feel like we are missing something. Did the board take some action in regard to this member? It is not clear whether a rule regarding a member who is in arrears in his dues would be of assistance, since it appears that the member may no longer be in arrears.

No, I do not think the ballots are “tainted” as a result of this inclusion and I certainly do not think it is proper to discard the absentee votes on this basis.

Yes, I think all of this is correct.

In this event, the board lacks the authority to discipline members of the society. That power rests with the general membership. Disciplinary procedures are discussed in Ch. XX of RONR, 11th ed. Since the conduct at issue occurred outside of a meeting, you should refer in particular to pgs. 649-650, 656-669.

I think that the chair may certainly use his own judgment and knowledge in this matter when determining how to rule. It would seem to be prudent to instruct the Secretary to refer to the minutes of the meeting in question.

Ah. Based on this additional information, I agree that the amendment, the chair’s ruling and his reasoning, and the appeal must be included in the minutes. If by rule or custom the minutes are made available to persons other than the members of the assembly, then there would be value in keeping the minutes of the executive session separately. I think it is appropriate to keep the amendment solely in the minutes of the executive session. The only reason the amendment needs to be included is because the ruling and appeal need to be included, and presumably the wording of the amendment will be required for the ruling to make sense. The main motion, however, should be included in those minutes, and it seems to me that the motion to postpone should be included there as well, or else it will be very confusing. I will note that nothing in RONR directly addresses this issue, so this is mainly speculation on my part. I would additionally note that, even if it is not included in the minutes of the open portion of the meeting, the amendment was made outside of executive session, and as a result, members are free to mention the wording of the amendment and the fact that it was made. So it may be prudent for the assembly to decide on some statement regarding what happened to it.

Based upon the facts provided, I see no reason to keep separate minutes. I would simply note that “Mr. X moved that [Motion A]. The motion was postponed to the next regular meeting.” A defeated amendment is not recorded in the minutes, and since the main motion was made outside of executive session, there seems to be no benefit in keeping separate minutes - indeed, it would seem to simply make things more confusing.

Yes, and this no doubt is why Mr. Honemann prefaced his statement by saying “Assuming that there is a legitimate question as to whether or not this motion was adopted by at least a two-thirds vote“. Conversely, if we assume that Dick F’s statement on this matter is correct and undisputed, then certainly a Point of Order alleging that the motion is null and void should be ruled not well taken.