Joshua Katz

Maybe I'm going to be odd man out here, but if the governing documents say August 25, it seems to me that incorrect statements in lower-ranking documents do not change anything. I don't like that result, but why should this organization count ballots, according to the principles of parliamentary law, that come in later? The hierarchy of rules seems to counsel it should not.

I hesitate to ask, but was there some assembly which passed a motion forming the committee? If so, you look to the language of the motion to form it to see how it gets filled(regardless of what you might have done in the past). If it came from some sort of staff instead, then I'm not even sure (without looking at your rules carefully) that you have a committee at all. You might have a group of people doing certain tasks. But there's a further complication here. Apparently this "committee" has bylaws. Committees do not have bylaws; they are not assemblies, nor are they organizations. Certain things called committees do, such as some political organizations. I'm not sure you have a volunteer committee, as opposed to a full-blown organization. I think this is something where I'm unlikely to get clarity by continuing to ask questions here, though.

Close - Distinguished ToastMaster.

I agree.

Agreeing with the two other responses, I also don't see how emailing someone, aside from a case where there's a restraining order, or repeated requests not to do so, can be an invasion of privacy.

The name is one thing. But if they have no record of their adoption by the threshold needed to adopt bylaws (and no record at all of the motion, which very well might have been "to adopt these as advisory" for all we know), and they've had a practice of following them being helpful but not mandatory, and then you add in that they are guidelines... I can't think of a reasonable explanation for why alternates are singled out as having a term, other than the other positions not having the same term. And sure, a reasonable interpretation is that people must (should?) serve for at least two years, i.e. be committed for that time.

I've seen this at Toastmaster clubs. It's not consistent with RONR, but RONR is about running a good meeting (which, as General Robert points out, is not a lesson in parliamentary procedure, or anything else), while Toastmasters is about learning. I think the practice exists because of the need to rotate officers in order for members to follow the leadership path to DTM.

Somehow, in this instance, I think the fault lies not within ourselves, but in the guidelines, dear Brutus. As I suspected. Those are fine-sounding terms, but often in terms of bylaws they mean confusing. Okay, here's what confuses me: So does "larger" here just mean larger than the board, i.e. the local group? Were they adopted as bylaws? (A great illustration of the value of proper minutes) - how do the minutes phrase the motion to adopt them? Usually organizations use that term to indicate something less than full adoption as governing documents. Yours may not, but often it's the case, and it almost always leads to confusing and fighting later. Well, nothing wrong with friendly language per say, but often when people try to write "friendly" bylaws, they end up not saying what needs to be said. Where is that written? The snippet you provided certainly suggests it ("two-year commitment") but doesn't say explicitly that they are out after 2 years, the way it does for alternates. Does it say it somewhere else?

Well, it says two-year term... An object lesson, perhaps, in why "oh, we're all friends here, we can write simple rules that we all understand" doesn't work a few years or decades later. In any event, I largely agree with the previous responses, but I'm not confident about the way the organization is governed. I'm not confident, in particular, that the "guidelines" are functionally bylaws. Were they adopted as such? The word "guideline" does not suggest mandatory. Regardless, you don't need a rule in the bylaws to say that officers may not simply refuse to conduct elections when regularly scheduled (or, if not, when specially scheduled) because they've unilaterally decided to stay in office. That's how third-world countries are run. What you do need, and may or may not have, is a membership willing to stand up to the offending officer and say "nope, we're voting now, please have a seat." Of course, if you don't have that, there's not much point in an election anyway, other than the precedent. Why do your guidelines refer to your parent organization electing your officers? I think I'm missing something in how your elections work. Anyway, one thing that troubles me is that alternates are specifically given term limits, but officers are not. The "guidelines" are a mess. If this group is responsible for significant assets, you should hire a professional parliamentarian, as the problems here seem beyond what this forum can assist with.

I think there are two issues here, unless I misread the original post. The second - standing rules cannot create officers - has been addressed. It is also the case that the President cannot (unless the rules say otherwise) create standing rules.

Things can be null and void for a variety of reasons. If you found it null and void because you never had the power to adopt it, that's one thing. If because there was no quorum, that's another matter. Okay, fair enough.

So what? We don't ratify things that are already valid. And it would require the same vote threshold as ratify. What difference does it make whether they add the word "ratify" at the beginning of the sentence? Again, the only difference is some sort of formality for its own sake.

Well, I struggle to see any problem at all. It is null and void because it was adopted without a quorum, but otherwise was within the power of the assembly. Ratification is used when an action is within the power of an assembly but is taken outside of a quorate meeting. It seems to me that your explanation leaves out time's arrow and acts as if the assembly is saying "it's in effect and it isn't." The assembly is deciding, first, that it is not in effect, and, second, that it wishes it to be. In any event, if you prefer to simply make the same motion rather than move to ratify, the vote threshold certainly won't be increased, or, to put it more relevantly, ratification does not require a lower threshold than just making the motion. So who cares which word is used? Formality for its own sake.

Huh? Why? Isn't that precisely the position where ratification makes sense?

I am agreeing with J.J. and, I think, Mr. Brown, that the chair's putting the question on ratification is a ruling on quorum, and if that ruling is not objected to, it should stand.

This is true. It just seems helpful to clarify the terminology and to provide what might be helpful tips if it turns out to be, e.g., an executive session.

Then why doesn't the lack of a point of order also settle the matter?

Depends what you mean by volunteer Committee. I can think of at least 3 things it could mean. Can you please clarify what it means in this context, and why it might be important?

First, by "executive board minutes" do you mean the minutes of the executive board, or the board meeting in executive session? Second, is the member a board member? Assuming the minutes are not of executive session, and the member is not a board member, the member has no right to board minutes unless you have a rule on the matter. The member does have a right to inspect the minutes of a membership meeting. Finally, the membership may, by a 2/3 vote, require the board to produce its minutes.

Well, you obviously didn't check Josh's Rules of Order.

All true. Yet, if you encountered a question on an NAP exam asking for a synonym for accept, I don't think you'd have any problem answering "adopt."

Well there goes Mr. Brown's analogy.

Yes.

Well, they are accepted, like any report. Then they are approved (or adopted). It is true that you do not adopt the contents of your package. So why do we adopt main motions, amendments, and orders for the previous question, among other things? Why do we amend things previously adopted, or rescind them? One begins to suspect the word can mean things other than "to take on as a child or pet."

Does this phrase appear in RONR?