Joshua Katz

My recommendation would be that, on this question, which has more of a legal than parliamentary flavor, it is better to ask a lawyer than any website.

In light of these quotes, I agree. Sorry, I'm squeezing in answers while files are loading.

Is there some rule against serving twice consecutively? If not, it sounds like someone is confusing a two year term with a two year term limit.

I don't know what "against the club" means. Do you have a process (in your real bylaws, not the ones you never adopted) for calling special meetings, and does it involve a petition? In any case, the petition here doesn't strike me as against the club, but as asking the club to do something. If you do not have any provisions for special meetings, then special meetings are not permitted. Ordinarily, the nominating committee does not nominate a "slate." Rather, it reports out all nominees, and the floor is then open for further nominations. Do your bylaws (again, the ones actually in effect, not the ones you never voted on) have "slate" provisions, or limit nominations in some way? In any case, whoever made a nomination can seek permission to withdraw it (I think, see if others chime in on that) just as he can seek permission to withdraw a motion, but cannot do so unilaterally. Of course, it sounds here like the people seeking permission to withdraw are not those who made the nomination, in which case they can't do much of anything except, as you say, vote against the person. Even if the nomination is withdrawn, unless your rules say otherwise, people can still vote for that person via write-in. What do your current rules say about amending your Constitution and bylaws? Follow whatever procedure is in there for amendments. I have to admit, I have no idea what the fact that you've been following something that is not your bylaws has to do with the nomination, but perhaps I'm missing something. If the term is 2 years, it's 2 years - that doesn't make nominations somehow improper, and I'm also not clear how, if it did, doing it again would change anything. Again, perhaps I'm missing something.

People should have the options to hold office provided in your bylaws. If your bylaws do not contain the "live nearby" qualification for office, then it does not exist, since any qualifications for office must be in the bylaws. What do your bylaws say on the matter?

Well, if it's a contentious topic, it's not clear to me why you want to allow open discussion. But since you want to, let's start with the size of the group. Is it operating under small board rules?

Oh, I don't doubt that. I'm just responding to your apparent implication that only someone who disliked the outcome would object.

Possession is 9/10 of the law, but not of knowledge or of practice. Oftentimes, organizations have parliamentarians who are elected, or who are members, and whose knowledge varies. But, more importantly, a parliamentarian can't really fix anything unless the chair plays along. If the chair is sure and simply goes on and does something, the parliamentarian can do little (except slide over a little stop-sign card and hope the chair pays attention). If asked, the parliamentarian advises the chair. But meetings move quickly. It's very much a side point, but I'd like to add an editorial remark here. You are right that it is too late to raise a point of order, as others have noted. But during the meeting, when this happened, when it was not too late to raise a point of order - there is no reason to suppose it should be raised, or can only be raised, by someone who is unhappy with the vote. Even someone who likes the outcome should object if the rules are not being followed, and if the manner in which they are not being followed matters to someone's rights. I have several times, perhaps often, voted against my interests on an appeal, and even once or twice raised points of order which went against my immediate interests. I would hope anyone who knows a rule is being broken would do likewise.

I think it's pretty clear how the organization handled the motion to reconsider - they treated it as meaning the amendment was gone and they were back to the main motion, rather than as bringing the amendment again before the assembly. My issue is with: Was there a vote on the motion for the previous question? It is not correct to say (in effect) "oh, someone shouted 'question,' we have to vote now." Rather, you move to a vote on the previous question, which requires a 2/3 vote. If adopted, you move to a vote on the main motion. Well, there are two ways to see this. One is there was an erroneous announcement made as to where the organization stood, but no objection was made, and debate resumed, so the question was then on the main motion (as unamended). In that case, previous question was fully in order. I think that is also the correct way to see it. The second is that the amendment was pending, notwithstanding the incorrect announcement. I think this is incorrect, but if you follow that logic, the previous question was still in order, and the chair should have clarified if the pq was moved on the immediate pending question or all pending questions, then moved to a vote (if pq was adopted) accordingly. Finally, to get at what I think is bothering you - the pq may only be moved on the immediately pending motion, or any sequence of pending questions beginning with the immediately pending question and moving backwards. So, if, for instance, a main motion and an amendment were pending, the previous question would be out of order on the main motion only, but would be in order on the amendment only, or on both, in which case the assembly votes on the amendment and then the main motion. It cannot be used to make amendments go away.

When it conflicts with an applicable procedural law, the organization's constitution, or the bylaws. If your organization were to introduce conflicting provisions into its bylaws, the most specific rule applicable to any given situation would prevail. However, if it is a change, there is no conflict. In other words, if someone wants to propose an amendment that modifies voting rights, he should do so in such a manner that it also eliminates any conflicting provisions. If that is not done, you apply the rules of interpretation. (But, keep in mind, you say here "as I see it." That is important, because it could be that the organization's majority sees it differently and doesn't see a conflict at all. This is either a mistake by the drafter, or an expression of the belief that they do not conflict. In either case, your remedy is to argue in debate against passage, rather than any point of order. You should argue against it in debate. Lawyers are not generally known for being good at parliamentary procedure, to be honest. As you cited earlier in this post, there is a hierarchy of rules. Your bylaws supersede anything in RONR. Your bylaws can restrict the right to vote. Your bylaws can give some people two votes (many organizations give out multiple votes, such as stock corporations). If the change is accepted, it is what your bylaws say. You could always move to amend the bylaws back. There is no international body of bylaws which must approve your bylaws, and there is no higher authority absent a conflict with law. Even if a rule were violated, which none are here, parliamentary procedure ultimately rests, in general, on the willingness of organizations to follow it.

Good point.

Has the resignation been accepted? In any event, unless your rules say so, there is no obligation to provide draft minutes (i.e. the secretary's notes) to anyone prior to the next meeting, at which the minutes are accepted. Once they are accepted, there is still no obligation to distribute them, but they must be made available to all members. If the resignations have been accepted, then these people are not members, and so the minutes need not be made available to them even after acceptance.

These two statements seem contrary to each other. If the main motion was to change 50 to 30, the only number that could be changed by an amendment is 30, not 50.

That's because I didn't type what I meant, sorry. I meant to say tie vote, not negative vote. Yes, because human beings made the choice to do it that way, and to keep it that way. So far as keeping it that way, some of them are on this very message board. Simply describing the way it works doesn't answer my question as to why the book says what it says. Well, they came from the same source, but the Newly Revised book is not written by the General. The 11th could have, or the 12th could, change it. But one reason not to change it might be precisely so that it remains consistent with PL.

I certainly see why "sustain the ruling of the chair" is better than "sustain the chair" and why the latter is not a good idea. My question is why it isn't "shall the ruling of the chair be overruled?" In addition to Mr. Brown's points about the effects of votes, this would be a motion to do something, rather than to not do something. Well, I obviously agree that, given the way it works, the chair should be careful in putting the question to phrase it in a way that makes clear what a positive or negative vote accomplishes. Of course, the way they actually work is confusing. In no other case, for instance, is the question put by the chair (in this case, to sustain the ruling) answered in the affirmative (that is, the ruling is sustained) by a negative vote. But reading between the lines, I think you might be suggesting an answer I could agree with. That answer boils down to "it's tradition" but with a twist: it is tradition, but we don't deviate from it because we don't want RONR to say the opposite of PL.

This is an interesting idea. However, I note that sustaining the ruling of the chair seems, at least to me, dangerously close to a motion which, if adopted, will do nothing (but, unlike the more common case, will do something if not adopted!). Decorum and avoiding insult seems like a viable reason. But will the chair be insulted? Will the chair be more insulted by being overruled than by not being sustained? RONR tells us that appealing is no different than disagreeing in debate. I'll think on it.  Parliamentary Law, page 152. Yes, but why?

For what purpose is the question on appeal stated as sustaining, rather than overruling, the ruling of the chair? It produces a fun NAP question (what is the only motion which carries on a tied vote?) but to what end is the rule written this way?

Let me start by saying how I understand the question, followed by my answer. It seems to me you have a "board within a board," which RONR calls an executive committee, and you call an executive board. In general, the executive committee can act between meetings of the board, but it seems that, for at least some purposes, your executive board needs to make a recommendation to the full board. I then understand the question to be whether making that recommendation requires a motion, and whether that motion requires a second. The answer to the first is yes, although it's not a big deal. During it's report, the reporting member will simply say "I move on behalf of the executive board that..." That is, the motion is the very form the recommendation takes, they aren't two separate things. The answer to the second is no, motions made by direction of committee, or of sub-boards, do not require seconds, since more than one person already is known to want to discuss it.

I think there's much here we do not yet understand. This is a good point as well, although I imagine it was something like "look into the topic."

This would appear to be a question about your bylaws. Certainly nothing in RONR allows a Parliamentarian to "act[] as a convener and name[] a [committee] Chair," or engage in any substantive business at all. That's aside from the question of whether the President's "request" had any meaning, i.e. whether the President may form committees on his say-so. As a general matter, a Parliamentarian should be doing no such thing, even if the committee is validly formed. If the Parliamentarian names the chair of a committee, can there possibly be an appearance of impartiality when the committee reports? If your rules call for such a thing, well, fine, but I don't think it's a very good idea.

While I agree with Mr. Kapur that bylaws are superior to other policies (except statutes and the organizational constitution, if any), I don't see a conflict here, I see a meaningless appointment of the PE as liason to a non-existent committee. In my opinion, the policy doesn't obligate anything, but if the organization wants the PE to be the liason to the Sustainer Committee, it should amend the policy to that effect.

Well, was the committee empowered to actually spend this money, or is it just a line item in a budget? If the committee was empowered, then presumably it's up to the committee whether it wants to continue to deal with the vendor after a low-ball estimate. (If the committee signed a contract agreeing to pay whatever it cost, with an estimate of 300, and then got billed 825, you have a legal question, not a parliamentary question, about the obligation to pay.) The board could amend its past action to take it out of the committee's hands if it no longer trusts the committee. On the other hand, if the committee has not been empowered, then no one should be spending any money without specific authorization.

I don't have a specific textual reference either, but it seems to me that any member can move to amend, which necessarily includes the maker. The maker loses rights only when specified, i.e. the right to speak against. However, the maker will need to be careful if he chooses to speak in debate in favor of the amendment, since he can't speak against the original motion.

Perhaps that is because, as a member, he has the full right to "discuss and vote on anything that is motioned for consideration." Yes. No, he can wait for the minutes to learn about actions taken. As for discussion, well, he can ask someone after the meeting.

I also have trouble fathoming why the logic wouldn't extend. On the wisdom of the rule, well, I tend to agree, but it makes no less sense than the Secretary of Agriculture being higher in line to the Presidency than the Secretary of Homeland Security.