Josh Martin

I see no reason why not.

But we don’t know if that is what the bylaws say.

In this event... The motion to adopt multiple resolutions was in order. The motion to postpone the main motion was in order. A member could not have moved to divide the question at the time, because Postpone to a Certain Time takes precedence. When the motion becomes pending at the next meeting, a member may move to divide the question. If the resolutions contained in the motion relate to independent subjects, the motion must be divided on the demand of a single member. Otherwise, a majority vote is required for division.

Well, I don’t know. Under normal circumstances, sure, but it appears that in this situation, the chair had already interrupted voting and had delayed for ten minutes, with no apparent end to the delay in sight. At some point, the assembly needs to be able to regain control of the meeting. I don’t think the chair can use the “no interruptions during voting” excuse to just do whatever he wants without challenge, especially when the chair has already extensively interrupted the vote himself.

Do you actually have a rule which provides for these things? Also, what is meant by a “fundamental function?” What was this motion about, for instance?

No. Yes. Yes. No.

But this isn’t what the language actually says. I agree that I have seen cases where the bylaws say something like “2/3 vote of the board” or “2/3 vote of the membership.” In many cases, the intent of this language is simply to clarify which assembly is voting. This rule, however, says “2/3 vote of the eligible confessing members.” I think it is entirely reasonable to interpret this language as referring to a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership, although that is certainly not the only reasonable interpretation. I also concur with Mr. Brown that since this is a recent change, the change was presumably made for a reason.

I see no reason why not.

Just to be sure my bases are covered, I said there may be legal recourse. While we’re at it, the fact that the improper voting threshold was used is not a continuing breach (although the lack of notice is).

(1) No, only one motion may be pending at a time, and only one motion may be postponed at a time. (2) Yes. As I understand the facts, there were multiple motions. It was not desired to combine them into one motion, merely to postpone them all with a single vote. This certainly requires a motion to Suspend the Rules. As I understand the facts, the desire was not to combine the motions, merely to postpone all of them. Such a motion cannot be divided. If you did indeed make a motion to approve all of the appointments en bloc, that motion certainly could be divided (and still can be divided at the next meeting). If the appointments are considered “independent subjects,” then it must be divided on the demand of a single member. Otherwise, dividing the question requires a majority vote.

The society is free to adopt special rules of order and such rules are not part of the bylaws. Generally, it means you can adopt rules which modify the rules in the parliamentary authority in whatever manner you see fit, even if this completely changes the original rule. It should be noted, however, that there are some cases in which the rules in RONR are considered to be so fundamental that they may only be superseded by a rule in the bylaws. In my opinion, a rule which forces members to abstain in certain cases must be in the bylaws, but this has nothing to do with the fact that it “significantly changes the intent of the rule.” It is because the right to vote is so fundamental that members may only be deprived of it by formal disciplinary procedures or a rule in the bylaws.

I understand your concerns, but the other concern is that “A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656) Therefore, the appropriate way to handle charges of a serious nature is to follow the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63 of RONR, not by bringing up accusations in the middle of debate on an election. The following rules are particular applications of the above principle, and seem relevant to the current situation: “If a member disagrees with a statement by another in regard to an event that both witnessed, he cannot state in debate that the other's statement "is false." But he might say, "I believe there is strong evidence that the member is mistaken." The moment the chair hears such words as "fraud," "liar," or "lie" used about a member in debate, he must act immediately and decisively to correct the matter and prevent its repetition (see 61).” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 392) “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. 657-6578) It would be in violation of these rules to suggest that candidates intended to “rig” or “fix” the election, that candidates intend to make the society a “puppet government” of the state organization, or to accuse the candidates of dishonesty. I think you could maybe get away with suggesting that a candidate intends to resign in order to accept a position at the state level, for the purpose of the VP becoming President (I would suggest avoiding even this statement), but it would not be appropriate to pursue this further if the candidates refute this. It is not proper to accuse the candidates of lying, and I don’t think the “mistaken” tactic works in this instance, as it seems to me that suggesting that someone is mistaken about his own intentions is tantamount to accusing him of lying. I would further note that violations of the above rules are themselves very serious, and if you do not follow our advice on this matter, you could be subject to disciplinary action yourself. Since your conduct would be occurring during a meeting, with the assembly serving as witnesses, the disciplinary process is swifter. See Section 61 of RONR.

Correct, a motion for informal consideration makes no sense in an assembly using the small board rules. The effect of informal consideration is to remove the limitations on the number of times members may speak on the main motion and amendments to the main motion. In small board rules, there are already no such limitations. Informal consideration appears intended to be used in an assembly with less than about fifty members (the low end for quasi-committee of the whole) and more than about a dozen members (the high end for the small board rules). It is also conceivable, however, that an assembly with not more than about a dozen members may nonetheless decide not to use the small board rules, and those assemblies could also benefit from the motion. Yes, the use of Committee of the Whole is not precluded in smaller assemblies. Quasi-Committee of the Whole would also work, or simply a motion for an open discussion as I alluded to earlier (this may be more workable in a smaller assembly), or a motion to Recess.

Based on the additional facts which have been presented, I am questioning whether it was proper to delay the motion until the next meeting in the first place. It appears that there may not be any rule of the society which provides for this. The board members are present, but they are present as individual members of the board. They can only act as “the board” at meetings of the board. The only board members who have any role in conducting the membership meeting are the chair and the Secretary, and it is ultimately the membership which is in charge of its meetings.

It’s not really that odd at all. A small group of ten might simply adopt the small board rules, in which event the group can have discussion with no motion pending in any event (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 16). Additionally, it seems to me that the rules in RONR do not actually preclude the use of Committee of the Whole in smaller assemblies, it merely notes that its use is more common in larger assemblies. No, I think RONR does give preference toward Committee of the Whole. I would also note that Good of the Order is generally not limited to a single topic, so there’s that. My personal preference is that if an assembly of over 100 members regularly wants to have discussion with no motion pending, it adopt appropriate special rules of order for this purpose, but in the absence of such rules, Committee of the Whole seems like the best option.

Well, giving previous notice that a motion will be made at the next meeting does indeed suggest that the motion will be debated at that meeting. What I find more unusual is the fact that the motion was seconded. Previous notice does not require a second, but actually making the motion does. I wonder if it is in fact the rule or custom of the society that certain motions are actually made, seconded, and stated by the chair, and are then automatically and immediately postponed to the next regular meeting. If this is the case, the motion should have automatically become pending in General Orders, whether or not the motion maker was present. It would not be necessary to make the motion again.

I think this is exactly what J. J. is suggesting and I agree completely. I apologize if I suggested otherwise. “The "informal" aspect of the consideration applies only to the number of speeches allowed in debate on the main question and its amendments; all votes are formal, and any other motion that is made is under the regular rules of debate. In contrast to the case of a committee of the whole or quasi committee of the whole, the proceedings under informal consideration are recorded in the assembly's minutes, just as they would be if the consideration were formal. While considering a question informally the assembly can, by a two-thirds vote, limit the number or length of speeches, or in any other way limit or close debate. As soon as the main question is disposed of, temporarily or permanently, the informal consideration automatically ceases without any motion or vote.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 541) This description suggests to me that a motion for informal consideration is not in order while no motion is pending. I think it is still in order for the assembly to simply permit an open discussion on a topic, but this is not informal consideration in the sense that term is used in Section 52 of RONR.

I stand by my previous advice. If you absolutely insist on bringing this up (which I do not advise), I would state only the facts as you understand them - that you have reason to believe that the candidate for President intends to accept an office at the state level, for the purpose of the newly elected Vice President becoming President. I think think this is still very dicey territory (especially if the candidates deny it, since it is indecorous to accuse them of lying), but it is the most careful path possible while still providing the information. Under no circumstances should you use words like “rigged,” “fix the election,” “dishonesty,” or “puppet government.” These are highly indecorous terms and the chair should call you to order immediately if you use them. In addition to this, you should also nominate a different candidate for Vice President, since you have to elect someone. You could also nominate another candidate for President if you wish. After the elections are over, you could pursue disciplinary action if you feel that strongly about the members’ actions. See Secrion 63 of RONR for more information.

Nothing, from a parliamentary perspective. The assembly is the ultimate judge of its own rules. You can’t “make” the assembly do anything. If the assembly refuses to correct the issue, there is no parliamentary recourse. There may be legal recourse, but that is a question for a lawyer. Since the OP’s question suggests no such reluctance on the part of the assembly to correct this issue (if there is indeed a continuing breach), your question makes me wonder if you have your own situation on your hands. If so, I suggest you post all of the relevant facts in a new topic.

Only the board members would need to receive copies. The board may also distribute the draft minutes to residents that attend the meeting, if it wishes to do so.

In this event, Committee of the Whole probably is the best tool available in RONR, and if it does not quite fit the assembly’s needs, the assembly may need to adopt special rules of order to accommodate such desires. RONR does not really anticipate that an assembly of that size would want to regularly discuss a subject with no motion pending.

No.

I will leave it up to the board whether to adopt the rule. I would suggest, however, that if such a rule is adopted, the draft minutes should be clearly marked as a draft.

I’m not entirely clear on what part of this process you are concerned about, but none of what occurred appears to violate any rule in RONR. Since this is a public body, however, there are almost certainly applicable state and local laws pertaining to these matters, and those rules take precedence.

I am somewhat puzzled as to what exactly occurred. Was a revision of the bylaws proposed and (for some reason) considered as a whole? If so, how can it even be determined what individual amendments were proposed? A revision is a completely new set of bylaws, not a list of individual amendments. Was a series of individual amendments proposed and (for some reason) voted on in gross? If it was the former, I concur with Mr. Lages. Instead, a member could move to reconsider the vote on the revision, and then move to amend the parts of the revision that the assembly finds disagreeable. In the latter case, I believe it would be in order to vote on the amendments individually, however, in the future the chairman should ask if any member wishes for particular amendment(s) to be considered separately, in order to avoid this situation.