Joshua Katz

I think RONR does prohibit dueling during meetings as a decorum issue.

So they are elected to these positions, but they don't correspond to ranks they held during their service? Is it possible to change the names of the positions, if they are causing misunderstanding, or are they dictated by a parent organization? I realize, of course, it might not be worth trying if it will be opposed.

Also an issue in many volunteer FDs, which often are governed by meetings and are sometimes nicknamed "Roberts Rules departments." One issue is that they often make the chief the presiding officer, then have difficulty conceptualizing that the chief is in command on the fireground, but isn't a dictator in meetings. The solution in that case is often to create an office of President (or even a board) that does not correspond to the command structure. Maybe vet organizations can do something similar and decouple presiding from rank? Ideally, the most skilled presider presides, not the person with the highest rank in a very different sort of work.

Well, those minutes certainly are not in accordance with RONR. But the real issue here isn't the degree of detail, it's what belongs in the minutes at all. So I don't think I agree with the members calling for minimal detail, unless minimal means 0.

I agree with my colleagues above, but want to ask: is there some reason in this organization that it matters? I understand why we care about the adopted date of legislation, and in many cases about motions in corporate boards, but why would we care in an ordinary organization?

Assuming the chair said that the motion can be divided on the demand of a single member, it is a point of order. If the chair said "if there is no objection, the motion is divided" or something to that effect, it's an objection to unanimous consent.

That makes sense, I just wanted to point out that, for instance, unpaid dues do not mean the person can't attend and vote, unless (as you note) your bylaws create such a disqualification.

Except that good standing may not be required.

One thing I ask my chairs to agree to before serving as parliamentarian is that I have a little stop sign card, and when I pass it to them, they have the assembly stand at ease so I can say what the problem is quietly. Of course, I don't use it for every little thing, and I make that clear up front too. There was one time when a member tried to make a secondary amendment, the chair asked me if secondary amendments are allowed, and I told him yes. Later, a member tried to make a clearly out of order secondary amendment, and a point of order was raised, but the chair figured he already had his answer and immediately said "the parliamentarian has already informed me that amendments like this are allowed." Sigh.

So is the resolution in question a bylaw amendment? If so, I think the most immediate answer is the specific/general rule I gave earlier, although a full answer would require familiarity with your full bylaws and governing structures.

In order to have expert guidance on interpreting your bylaws, your best bet is to hire a parliamentarian. Referrals are available from the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians. There are some things I don't know from what you've presented, such as whether Council in Article X refers to the Southern Regional Council in Article XII, or some other Council (perhaps a board of some sort?) I also don't quite know what your question is - we're told that a bylaw article is being cited, but not why. That said, in interpreting bylaws, the more specific provision governs over the more general - here, the provisions for amending the bylaws are more specific than the provisions for taking any action otherwise taken at a called meeting. So they need to be amended at the specific meetings specified in your bylaws, not whenever anyone feels like doing so. Your bylaws are somewhat confusing on these actions by mail, which are said to have the same effect as motions adopted at called meetings, but are also said to require ratification, which is the term for approving actions which were improperly adopted in the first place. That said, this much should be obvious - such actions cannot be "ratified" (whatever is meant by that) at a meeting which would not have had the power to take them in the first place.

This is a matter of interpreting your bylaws, so we can only be of limited help. However, p. 662 provides "A resolution preferring charges may (although it need not) be accompanied by one suspending all or some specified portion of the accused's authority, rights, and duties as an officer or rights as a member (except those rights that relate to the trial) pending disposition of the case, effective from the time official notification of the resolution is delivered to the accused's address." This statement arises when discussing step 3 - formal notification of the accused, which is after confidential investigation by a committee, report of the committee, and preferral of charges if warranted. It seems to me, then, that this member should not have any rights suspended until the board decides charges should be preferred - hence, that they would have the right to vote on such a question. Stay tuned for other answers, though.

If your rules are not about resolutions other than public policy resolutions, then a non-public policy resolution is just a main motion with fancier wording and can be moved as such.

Agreeing with my colleagues as to the parliamentary question, since this is a public body there may be lurking legal issues, depending on who did the asking and how you came to represent those you represent. Those questions should be directed to an attorney, though.

It sounds as if the answer here will depend upon your rules.

This doesn't tell me how the board is composed. Is there a statement that says what the board consists of? I agree, I don't think we have enough information to answer this question at this point.

Unless this happens to be a committee.

Yes - and, as a consequence, binding the organization to action. Yes, at least so far as RONR is concerned. Discussing anything they like, at any time, is not taking action.

I likely agree, but I'd like to know more about just what happened. Was there a decision made at the meeting about this, or did they just get handed out and not collected? Is it a multi-meeting session?

The easy solution, when faced with that situation (and even though you have it, you're not going to read and memorize all of it, and even if you did people would still make false claims) is to say "oh, I didn't know that. Can you show me what page it is on?" I agree. Have you seen this particular misconception before? I come across "friendly amendments" all the time, of course (which do exist in some rule sets), but not this one.

It is not true.

Unless your rules say otherwise, sure.

What exactly do they say?

There is no statute of limitations on adopted motions. It seems this is probably not your organization's highest priority, though. You can always rescind or amend it.

What happens if, regardless, the notice does include an amount? Does scope of notice apply in that case?