Josh Martin

What is the basis of this claim?

What is it that you think is “cloudy” in this regard? The general rule on this subject is that “Special rules of order supersede any rules in the parliamentary authority with which they may conflict... However, when the parliamentary authority is prescribed in the bylaws, and that authority states that a certain rule can be altered only by a provision in the bylaws, no special rule of order can supersede that rule.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16) I am not aware of any statements in RONR which suggest that the rule in question can only be altered by a provision in the bylaws.

I am in complete agreement. It appears that I included the words “with notice” in error. I agree that, in the circumstances where an officer may be removed without formal disciplinary procedures procedures, a vote of a majority of the entire membership without notice is sufficient.

As I think on it further, I think I am inclined to agree. I think my confusion arose from the fact that the original question stated that the member was confused as to the “actual wording” of the question, which would seem to suggest that the member knows generally what motion is pending, but he needs further clarification on the exact wording. I think this is certainly best addressed by a request that the motion be reread. The example provided, on the other hand, suggests that the confusion is greater than this, and the member does not know even the subject of the motion the assembly is discussing. In this event, a parliamentary inquiry regarding what motion is pending seems perfectly appropriate. In any event, I also still would suggest that the chair reread the motion regardless of what tool the member uses to make that request. It is the chairman’s responsibility to ensure that all members are clear on what is the pending question. If it becomes apparent that members are not clear on this, the chair should make every effort to clarify the issue.

The organization is certainly required to comply with the motion going forward. Whether and to what extent the organization is required to change its prior actions in order to comply with the motion depends on the facts of the particular case, such as what the motion is, what those actions are, and whether it is possible to change those actions.

Based on these facts, I think the appropriate motion is the second form of the motion to read papers. Specifically, the member should rise and state “I request that the pending motion be reread.” “The foregoing paragraph applies only to papers or documents that are not before the assembly for action. When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it. Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly. But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read—obviously for information and not for delay—and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read—even though absent on duty—he cannot insist on its being read again; in this case, the convenience of the assembly is more important than that of a single member.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 299) I agree with you that a parliamentary inquiry is not the proper motion in the situation described. That might be better in a situation (for instance) where a series of motions was pending, and not where a motion was immediately pending. I also do not think Question of Privilege is the appropriate tool in this instance. With that said, I do not think the chair should be a stickler about this, and would suggest that the chair reread the motion regardless of what tool the member uses to make that request. Yes, but Mr. Coronite’s question is specifically regarding a situation in which the member does not know what the pending question is. In such a case, it would be rather difficult for the member to determine whether debate was germane.

I think it could potentially be any of these. It also might be a Request for Any Other Privilege, or perhaps even a Point of Order. I would ask that you clarify the following: Why are you confused as to what the actual wording of the motion is? Is the nature of the confusion on the wording such that it makes the type of motion unclear, or in some other manner makes the parliamentary rules for the motion ambiguous? What action(s) do you wish to be taken to clear up this confusion? An example of exactly the sort of situation you have in mind would also be extremely helpful.

I’m not entirely clear on what your question is. I would suggest that you first review FAQ #11, and if you still have questions on this subject, please clarify what those questions are.

So far as RONR is concerned, only the society itself has the authority to file charges. There is no time limit in RONR for the society filing charges, nor is there any time limit in RONR for a member making a motion to form an investigative committee. See Section 63 of RONR for more information on the disciplinary process. If your society has its own rules for discipline, it will be up to your society to interpret those rules.

My interpretation would be that the rule in question eliminates the requirement for assembly approval, because the other interpretation renders the rule meaningless, and it is generally assumed that rules are placed in the bylaws for a reason. Yes. Maybe. I think it certainly could be the case that the rules for appointing committees also apply to subcommittees, and it could also be the case that they do not.

Sure, that works too. ”Likewise, since it is a fundamental principle that each member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one—and only one—vote on a question, the rules may not be suspended so as to authorize cumulative voting (pp. 443–44).” (RONR 11th ed., pg. 263) It’s also possible (depending on the rules the assembly uses) that the proxy could be given to a nonmember, which also violates an FPPL.

“Rules which embody fundamental principles of parliamentary law, such as the rule that allows only one question to be considered at a time (p. 59), cannot be suspended, even by a unanimous vote. Thus, since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that the right to vote is limited to the members of an organization who are actually present at the time the vote is taken in a regular or properly called meeting (p. 423), the rules cannot be suspended so as to give the right to vote to a nonmember,*(73) or to authorize absentee (pp. 423–24) voting.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 263) Proxy voting is a form of absentee voting. The only thing which could potentially be done would be to amend the bylaws. If that is not possible (because, for instance, the deadline for providing notice of amendments has passed), then nothing can be done.

Then this document serves as the equivalent of bylaws for your organization and must be amended to authorize electronic meetings if you wish to have them. Yes, but as previously noted, it is also necessary to adopt a rule in the bylaws (or in your case, the charter) authorizing such meetings. A special rule of order is not sufficient to authorize electronic meetings, but if such meetings are authorized, special rules of order can (and should) be adopted to facilitate such meetings. “Except as authorized in the bylaws, the business of an organization or board can be validly transacted only at a regular or properly called meeting—that is, as defined on pages 81–82, a single official gathering in one room or area—of the assembly of its members at which a quorum is present. ... If electronic meetings are to be authorized, it is advisable to adopt additional rules pertaining to their conduct (see Additional Rules for the Conduct of Electronic Meetings, below).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 97)

Do you have some document that is the equivalent of bylaws? A document that defines such details as, for instance, the members and officers of the society? Perhaps the charter you refer to serves this purpose. In that event, that document must be amended to specifically authorize electronic meetings. If there is no document of this nature at all, then you don’t actually have a society. You must first adopt a rule in your bylaws (or equivalent) authorizing such meetings. After that is done, it seems to me the rules above may be adopted by the same vote as to adopt special rules of order, since at least some of them are in the nature of rules of order. This requires a 2/3 vote with notice or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. I would specify the method(s) by which notice may be provided - mail, e-mail, etc. I would also certainly specify the amount of time required for notice. Is it intended that the roll call votes actually be recorded in the minutes as usual, or not? I would clarify this. Additionally, the phrase “non controversial matters” and it is also ambiguous to merely “recommend” a voting procedure. I recommend the following instead specifying that a roll call vote is required if requested by a certain number of proportion of members. In this manner, the members themselves will determine whether a motion is controversial enough for a roll call vote.

In my opinion, the chair may make the ruling that the actions are null and void himself, either on his own initiative or in response to a Point of Order. A member may appeal from the chair’s ruling which, if seconded, would place the question in the hands of the assembly. The question is stated as “Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?” A majority vote in the negative is required to overturn the chair’s ruling. Adopting a motion ordering the subcommittee not to take any further actions in excess of its authority is a decision for the assembly to make, and such a motion would require a majority vote for adoption.

Countermanding an action would apply if the subcommittee did have the authority (but not exclusive authority) to take the actions, but the parent committee or assembly simply disagrees with these particular actions. As I understand the facts, the subcommittee is taking actions it is not authorized to take. In that event, the proper course of action is to declare these actions null and void, to order the subcommittee not to take any further actions in excess of its authority, and (if desired) to take disciplinary action against the members of the subcommittee. I think the parent committee may take action as well, although the maximum penalty which the committee could impose for discipline would be to remove persons from the subcommittee. Yes, it is certainly correct that a committee cannot grant a subcommittee authority that the committee itself does not have. I think it is the responsibility of the parliamentarian to inform the chair of all errors in procedure that may affect members’ rights or may otherwise do harm, whether or not the error occurs during a meeting of the assembly.

What is the exact wording your bylaws use to define the term of office for board members?

I wonder if you are reading an outdated edition of that text. The current edition of Robert’s Rules for Dummies (the 3rd edition) is consistent with RONR on this subject.

I concur. If a subcommittee contains members who are not members of the parent committee, and the parent assembly has not authorized this, those appointments are null and void. When the committee reports to the parent assembly, however, the assembly is considering the report of the committee, not the report of the subcommittee. As a result, the composition of the subcommittee is no longer relevant to the validity of the recommendation. This does not change the fact that the appointments are invalid unless and until authorized by the assembly. The assembly may ratify the appointments, or order the committee to remove these persons from the subcommittee, or discipline the members of the committee and/or the subcommittee, or any combination of these actions. As I understand it, this rule is simply a recognition of the fact that as the committee is an instrumentality of the parent assembly, the committee has no authority to recruit persons outside of the committee to complete its work unless so authorized. These actions are null and void on the basis of the fact that the subcommittee is exceeding its authority, and they would be null and void regardless of the composition of the committee.

No rule in RONR requires notice for such a motion. If the question is whether it is in fact correct that applicable law prohibits the adoption of this motion, that is indeed a question for a lawyer. This is only correct if your rules so provide.

Well, that’s interesting, because that’s not actually what RONR says. What it actually says on the subject is “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) RONR uses the term “direct personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members,” not “conflict of interest.” It states that a member with such an interest should not vote, but notes that the member ultimately retains the right to vote. It doesn’t say anything about entering into the discussion. What is the exact title of the book you are reading? I suspect it is not The Right Book.

Is this subcommittee actually authorized to take actions? Generally, a subcommittee only has the power to make recommendations.

Motions amending the bylaws generally do require previous notice, and the specifics for what notice is required should be specified in the bylaws. I don’t think this answers my previous questions (if anything, it seems to raise new questions), but I will attempt to provide information covering all the bases. Motions do not require previous notice unless so required by RONR or the organization’s rules. Neither the board nor the President has the authority to decide that notice is required for a motion unless that authority is granted by the organization’s rules. The fact that the motion maker or the person providing notice is not present does not prevent the assembly from considering a motion. The board only has the authority granted by the organization’s rules or applicable law. The President only has the authority granted by the organization’s rules or applicable law. Neither the President, the board, nor the society itself has the authority to violate the bylaws. Main motions which conflict with the bylaws are null and void. Violating the society’s orders or rules is grounds for disciplinary action. In such a case, the society may benefit from consulting a professional parliamentarian in your area, who can review your governing documents in their entirety and assist in interpretation. Both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals. This seems like a very unusual structure, but if that is what the organization’s bylaws provide, you’re stuck with it. In any event, however, you yourself have suggested the obvious solution - elect new officers when the time comes. I imagine that it is difficult as a practical matter to remove the President of the international organization since, presumably, that authority resides with the international organization.

I do not think there is anything improper about having COTW as an order of the day for the report in question. Indeed, this would seem to be the preferred course of action, in the same way that a motion to implement a recommendation in the report would be made at that time. The fact that the society has not placed specific orders of the day on its agenda in the past is no reason it cannot so in the future (although it must be remembered that such an agenda must be approved by the assembly).

Based on these facts, the formal disciplinary procedure in Section 63 of RONR is the proper procedure.