Josh Martin

I find some basis for the argument that it is out of order for the chair, on his own initiative, to order the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly rather than following the appropriate procedure. I see no reason why it would be out of order for the assembly to adopt a motion ordering the Secretary to cast the vote of the assembly in an election (assuming a ballot vote is not required) or for any other motion.

Exactly. Therefore, I maintain that it is in order - but pointless.

While I agree that the rule is ill-advised, I don't agree with this overly dramatic interpretation. One possible interpretation is that the organization is governed by no parliamentary authority, but that it has formally recognized RONR as "persuasive" on matters of parliamentary law.

These fears are misguided. In the vast majority of cases, a violation of the rules must be challenged promptly for the Point of Order to be timely. Only the most egregious violations are subject to challenge at a later date. RONR's recommended wording does use the word "govern." If the society did not adopt a parliamentary authority, the society would still be bound by the common parliamentary law, but without any formal parliamentary authority on the subject, there would be a great deal of uncertainty for the members in what the rules are in a particular case. This is not recommended. I'm not sure what the ramifications (if any) would be of using the word "guide" instead of "govern" when adopting a parliamentary authority. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation.

If the bylaws do not require an election by ballot, having the Secretary cast the vote is not prohibited, but it is an archaic and pointless procedure. The proper procedure is to declare the person elected by acclamation.

I recommend looking at FAQ #16. It is possible to amend the minutes after they have been approved. Also, Appeal from the chair's decision the next time he rules a correction to the minutes out of order based on "timing not appropriate, waste of time, unecessary complaining, etc." Additionally, neither the motion to Lay on the Table or the motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (which is the motion you really want - see FAQ #12) may not be applied to a subsidiary motion (such as a correction) alone, although the approval of the minutes overall could be postponed. Both of these motions also require a majority vote - the chair can't declare a motion "tabled" or postponed on his own. I also concur with Mr. Mervosh that the most important thing is to stop putting too much information in the minutes. The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said. If your chair and secretary refuse to accept that, replace them. See FAQ #20. Legal advice tends to be expensive, so I'd make sure to try all parliamentary options first.

Ten minutes is the default. If the member was speaking for less than two minutes, it seems the chair was incorrect that the member was "taking too long." I'm curious about this "uncomfortable disclosure to the chair," though. True, but the relaxed rules simply lift the limit on the number of times a member may speak. Members are still limited to speaking ten minutes at a time (or whatever limit the assembly has adopted).

True, but it's not clear whether the member in question still had the right to the floor. The chairman said that the member was "taking too long." It's possible that the chairman was right. It's hard to say, since we don't yet know how long the member was speaking in debate.

A resignation must be accepted by the body that is empowered to fill the vacancy. So if your bylaws authorize the board to fill vacancies in board positions, then yes.

It is fully appropriate (and highly recommended) to hold any disciplinary procedures in executive session, which not only requires all non-members (unless the assembly specifically orders otherwise) to leave the room, but also means that members cannot discuss what happened with non-members. A member may simply move "that the assembly enter executive session." It is debatable and requires a majority vote for adoption.

I don't think it is. Based upon the facts provided and the information in FAQ #20, it looks to me like formal disciplinary procedures are required. Be sure to review the rules in Section 63 of RONR in their entirety before proceeding. A ballot vote is certainly an option. Under formal disciplinary proceedings, when you reach the end of the trial, a single member may demand that the vote on the question of guilt and on the penalty shall be taken by ballot. A trial won't necessarily be that messy. You might want to seek out a professional parliamentarian in your area for assistance due to its complexity, though. (Look up the National Association of Parliamentarians or American Institute of Parliamentarians for assistance.) Also, I don't think the member's experience in legal trial will necessarily mean she'll be an expert at facing a disciplinary trial under RONR. They're not quite the same, and I'd bet she's not familiar with the process either (since few people are). If anything, I'd say that the fact that the member is litigious is all the more reason to do this "by the book," in case she sues the society. I think that's also another reason to potentially seek professional assistance. Based on the facts presented, I think you'll need to hold a trial. As noted in FAQ #20, if the Bylaws simply provide for a fixed term of office, then formal disciplinary procedures by the general membership are required to remove an officer. See Section 63 of RONR for more information on the trial (and the steps leading up to a trial).

Based on the information provided, no. As noted in FAQ #20, if the Bylaws simply provide for a fixed term of office, then formal disciplinary procedures by the general membership are required to remove an officer. You can have the general membership follow the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63 of RONR. I suppose I cannot say for certain that the meeting itself is null and void, although it seems likely since even if the Bylaws authorize board members to call special meetings, it looks to me that the meeting may have been improperly called due to (for instance) failing to send notice to all members of the board. It seems clear, however, that the board's actions at the meeting are null and void since the original poster clearly states that the Bylaws are silent on the topic of discipline. Thus, regardless of how the term of office is defined, the board does not have the authority to remove anyone from office. Such authority rests with the general membership unless the Bylaws provide otherwise. Dissolution has the same requirements as amending the Bylaws, so that's a pretty high bar to cross, but that's an option you can look into if you wish. If the President is attempting to have non-members vote, you should be prepared to raise a Point of Order and an Appeal if necessary. Does the President have the support of the actual members of the organization? If so, you're fighting a losing battle. If not, then there may still be hope. If this is accurate, it would be highly advisable to consult a lawyer before proceeding. Based on the information provided, I still maintain that the general membership will need to follow formal disciplinary procedures to remove the President. I certainly see nothing that would suggest that the board has the authority to remove the President. The only other solution I could imagine would be to amend the Bylaws to change that.

On a non-parliamentary note, remember that paragraph breaks are your friends. The meeting and the decision to motion to remove the President are null and void. Special meetings of the board can only be called if provided for in the Bylaws, and if they are provided for in the Bylaws you must follow those provisions. Based on the facts you've presented, it looks like special meetings of the board are either not authorized or they may only be called by the President. Additionally, all members of the board (including the President) must be notified of the date, time, and place of the meeting and of the topics to be discussed at the meeting, and it's unclear whether that happened. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 91-93 for more information on special meetings. Furthermore, since your Bylaws are silent on the subject of discipline of officers, the board does not have the authority to remove the President. A formal trial may or may not be required depending on how your Bylaws are worded (see FAQ #20 for more information), but in any event, the authority to remove the President rests with the general membership. See FAQ #20.

Yes, my mistake... I meant to say "a minority of greater than one-third." Yes, this is part of the reason why I find it highly unlikely that a member would move the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time, let alone that this would be obvious. I don't quite agree. I think a member might conceivably speak in support of the main motion and speak in favor of Postpone Indefinitely. This might happen if, for instance, the member would prefer that the society go on record as supporting a motion but fears this to be unlikely... and thus, makes the motion to Postpone Indefinitely as an alternative to the society going on record as defeating the motion. In this case (or in any similar case), however, the member will not be making the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time (which is consistent with your original argument).

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is indeed "obvious" that the member is using the motion solely for this purpose (although I find such a situation unlikely). I'm not sure there's any real harm here. If it's only a handful of members, then the Previous Question will sort this mess right out. If a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third is involved, keep in mind that even without the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, each member can speak twice per motion per day for up to ten minutes each time. In an assembly of any appreciable size, a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third could keep the assembly busy for a very long time even without Postpone Indefinitely. If tactics like this are likely to be a problem, then the assembly is going to need special rules of order to set lower limits on debate. If tactics like this aren't likely to be a problem, then Postpone Indefinitely won't be an issue. The section on dilatory motions is clearly written with small groups of troublemakers in mind, since it focuses on two or three members bringing business to a standstill. It's not designed to address large-scale gridlock. Personally, I'm more fearful of the majority cutting off the motion to Postpone Indefinitely simply to save time than a member using it simply to gain more debate time. Sure, but if that's different from what is provided by RONR they should so so by adopting appropriate special rules of order. EDIT: Edited to correctly reflect the size of the minority required to block the Previous Question.

Fair enough, but can you illustrate a realistic situation involving the "dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely" - preferably a situation in which the motion is so obviously dilatory that the chair should rule it out of order? It may be true that any motion could theoretically be dilatory in the right set of circumstances, but for some motions those circumstances will rarely (if ever) arise.

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

Mr. Hunt, can you please explain a scenario where it would be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely was being moved solely to gain more speaking time? I'm having a difficult time imagining one.

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean, but I don't think Matt's question was about protocol at all. See his follow-up post on the subject (#13 in this thread).

Indeed. Thank you.

Based on the discussion, I'm getting the idea that the characteristics of deliberative assemblies are primarily a set of assumptions inherent in the rules of RONR. If a group does not meet all of the characteristics of a deliberative assembly, this serves as a warning that many of the rules in the book will not apply to such a group, and that if the group wishes to use RONR, it will also need to adopt customized rules to fit its own unique circumstances. Edit: Filled in a not hole.

Well, certainly voting would require a Bylaws change, and that is what I focused on. Other things would require an ordinary motion or a motion to Suspend the Rules. It's my understanding that the desire is to have a single person attend online and everyone else meet in-person.

No. If your Bylaws define a "Past President" or "Immediate Past President" position, then by the simple dictionary definition of the term, the President automatically takes over that position when he resigns as President. If your Bylaws do not define such a position, your board can't just create the position. No. Unless your Bylaws say otherwise, the Vice President automatically becomes President, and the board has no say in the matter. There is no such thing as an "interim President" unless your Bylaws define such a position. So far as RONR is concerned, someone is either President or not. There's no "interim" about it. As for the resulting vacancy in the Vice President position, check what your Bylaws have to say about filling vacancies. If they're silent, the position is filled by the same body which elected the position to begin with, and previous notice is required for the election. This is not permissible unless specifically authorized by your Bylaws.

From a parliamentary perspective, a custom of an assembly which does not conflict with the organization's rules should be followed unless and until a majority votes to do otherwise, however, it seems unlikely that this is a parliamentary situation.

It is up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws.