Joshua Katz

Agreeing with HHH, it just sounds like the chair said to stop, not named the offender. Also, even if the procedure for naming the offender were used, it would go in the minutes where it belongs, not in a footnote.

As I understand it, the current quorum is 12. There are 21 board members, so a majority would be 11. 2/3, meanwhile, is 14 - the current proposal would increase the quorum, while amending it as desired would reduce the quorum. Therefore, the amendment would not be in the scope of notice.

This is a question about the delegation of decision-making to the ED (event director), which in turn depends on the motion to establish the position, the motion to hold the event, the hierarchy of staff and volunteers, and any relevant organization rules. I don't think it's one we can give a general answer to on this forum, except to say that, if the rules in RONR apply, and if the board has the authority to manage the affairs of the organization (either from the bylaws or from an incorporation statute), then the board can amend its past motions and/or adopt new ones to have its wishes carried out. Whether it wants to or not is a political question.

Well, I certainly agree with the first sentence. The last sentence, though, seems to illustrate my point - some word, somewhere, has to not mean what it should mean, for this whole thing to work. Either action means recommendation, or ratification means non-disapproval (or something like that). It's my impression that people are more likely to misuse ratification than action, although I'll grant many people don't really seem to understand what RONR means by action, either, based on, say, many minutes. In the end, though, what you or I think it means is, as you point out, irrelevant. The point is that the OP will not find language in RONR to say "do it this way," and that the organization will need to interpret its own bylaws. On that we agree.

Agreed, but is it unreasonable to think that this bylaw is misusing the word? It says that "[a]mendments ... shall be by action of the Executive Committee." What can that mean if the changes are invalid until the next annual meeting?

It confuses me too. Unfortunately, the task here is understanding your bylaws, not RONR, which is a task only you can do. (We might suggest amending the bylaws, except...) My personal opinion is that, apparently, the EC can amend the bylaws, with the change taking effect immediately, but that this act must be affirmatively ratified at the next annual membership meeting, otherwise the bylaws change back. The ratification (I'm on more solid ground here) would be a motion, and thus must be made by someone and so on.

I think I'd word this differently. The chair is obligated to properly handle the motion (which has the required notice) should it be made by someone else. To the OP: the closest you can get, I think, to what you want is to move to amend the agenda while it is pending by striking the item. If the body agrees to strike the agenda item, it will not come up (unless other parliamentary steps are taken). The body, though, is free to refuse to amend the agenda in that manner. There should be no talk of "tabling" in this connection. Should the body wish to take up the amendment (and someone moves it when the agenda item comes up), which has been noticed and is its right, you should speak against its adoption and vote no. You could also move to postpone indefinitely or use other parliamentary manuevers to defeat it, but lay on the table is not one of them.

These are legal questions which should be addressed to an attorney. They are not parliamentary questions, and therefore are beyond the scope of this forum.

It's not a parliamentary matter, but if I were given a criminal trespass notice by a political party, especially if I were politically involved (running for board or for office, for instance) I would contact an attorney.

Board members are necessarily officers for RONR purposes, though.

Well, of course, you can vote no on that motion. If the question is whether you can move to reverse the decision immediately after it has been made, I guess I'm curious why you think that would be successful.

Agreeing with Mr. Brown, land use boards (if this is one) often (at least in my experience in two states) have rules or statutes requiring that the board either approve or affirmatively deny a permit (what if there are as many votes to approve as to deny? Who knows?), and restrictions on bringing back an application for reconsideration before a fixed amount of time has passed or conditions have changed. As to how those rules intersect (i.e. what if you didn't follow the first at your last meeting), it will depend on the specifics of the rules and laws involved, and is probably a question for an attorney, not a parliamentarian.

Assuming the parent organization is simply making recommendations (and doesn't, for instance, have provisions in its bylaws allowing it to modify the bylaws of constituent groups), the constituent group should consider the recommendations using whatever its normal procedure for amendment is. If there is no procedure in its bylaws, and RONR is the parliamentary authority, then the default is to require notice and a 2/3 vote, or a majority of the entire membership voting in the affirmative.

While only your organization can interpret your bylaws, I would personally interpret that as a 3/4 vote of those present and voting - i.e. "3/4 vote" tells us the threshold, and "of the church members" tells us who may vote. But I recognize the ambiguity.

A 3/4 vote of what?

Masters in math with research in foundations and computability

Assuming the Secretary is a member of the assembly, he may freely make and second motions. However, no motion is required to approve the minutes. They should be read, and once all corrections have been dealt with, either by unanimous consent or majority vote, the chair should declare them approved.

A non-member may not raise a point of order (or any motion). If a member wishes to make a point of order, they may, regardless of whether or not a non-member somehow signaled them to do so. The chair may consult with anyone they wish, member or not, when deciding a parliamentary matter, but no one may provide advice to the chair absent the chair's request.

I don't see why any of this matters to resolve your issue. Nothing could be more explicit than that a person must attend 2 member meetings prior to becoming a member, and this person has not done so. As to the rest, I don't think your custom argument works standing alone, because custom falls to the ground in the face of a point of order. It is claimed that your custom violates your rules, so just saying it is a custom is not sufficient. As to the 6 month rule being an 'interpretation' of your bylaws, only your organization can interpret your bylaws, but interpretation only enters into it when the bylaws are ambiguous. While the rule in your bylaws is vague (and should be amended), I don't think there's any reasonable interpretation of "shown an active interest" that means "6 month wait." It is not ambiguous in that regard, and an interpretation of it as meaning 6 months is not within the realm of the possible, in my view. What it says on your website and application form is immaterial, since qualifications for membership must appear in the bylaws, and, as some have argued, a listing of qualifications excludes the imposition of further qualifications. The reason this appears on your website and application form, and has been followed until now, is apparently that no one has pointed out that it flies in the face of your bylaws. If your organization wants people to wait 6 months to join, it should amend the bylaws. As to your specific arguments: #4: I say your board is wrong, and you cannot interpret the bylaw language as meaning "6 months," hence the board has purported to create a new qualification, which is not permitted. #1: Irrelevant. Furthermore, your organization is the ultimate authority on interpreting your bylaws, not your board, and the proper body to resolve the issue is the membership at a meeting. Your final argument: You have adopted a custom in contradiction to your own rules. The passage you cites specifies that customs contradicting your rules fall in the face of an objection. Based on this argument, though, we can conclude that your board never (presumably) formally adopted any policies on the matter. However, there is one additional issue. Such questions are not free-floating inquiries, they need to be raised as points of order at a meeting. This person, whatever your bylaws say, has been (perhaps unjustly) denied membership, and, as a non-member, cannot raise a point of order at a membership meeting - particularly since, as noted, he hasn't attended any. He'll need to get a member to raise a point of order.

I don't know that I've ever seen an organization with this custom, at least consistently.

No, my argument is that, in the official interpretation, the reason a point of order is not timely is because the only improper action (amending the rule by a majority vote) has been completed. If there had been no motion to amend the rule, and instead motions to suspend the rules and donate $800 (improper because it's an action outside the meeting context) were adopted, by any threshold, a point of order would be proper until the money is actually donated and the action is completed. The only remedy is to change it back, which can be done by a proper motion to amend. In the case of an election, though, the action is not complete until the end of the term, and no interim action is available as a general rule.

I guess I can see that, but it also looks a bit like a qualification for office - i.e. to be qualified, you must win, with a majority vote. I think I tend to see the question of timeliness of a point of order a bit differently - I think a point of order always must be timely, regardless of the situation, even for a bylaw violation. What varies is when it fails to be timely.

Well, the House uses a majority vote, but its effect is not to immediately close debate. Rather, it sets a time limit and requires the time be split between those in favor and opposed. In the Senate, at that time, filibustering required an actual filibuster. It had no cloture rule until 1917, at which time it adopted a rule requiring a 2/3 vote, after which each member could still speak for an hour - 100 hours of debate being quite far from what we think of when we vote to end debate. It's not entirely clear to me that 2/3 to immediately end debate is a mean between no mechanism to end debate, and a rule in which a majority can let a strict time limit on debate, but it's not entirely clear to me that it isn't, either. I've always been a little puzzled by the reliance on 2/3, which seems to amount to: we must protect the right of the majority to act, but only after hearing from the minority (makes sense), unless 2/3 decides it's heard enough from the minority (arbitrary). I always sort of gloss over that when teaching, and I assume that the reason I don't know a deeper meaning is that I haven't yet read Parliamentary Law.

Well, I'm going to disagree with everyone a little bit. I agree that a recount is not the solution here. I do not think that pointing out that a candidate failed to attain a majority is tantamount to revealing your vote - even if we think in practice that people lack integrity enough to say that their favored candidate wasn't actually elected, I don't think we should presume it as a matter of standards. However, I don't see why, assuming the count of the ballots is recorded in the minutes, it would not be well-taken to raise a point of order that, assuming the minutes are correct, no candidate received a majority, the election was incomplete, and the meeting adjourned without completing it, thus, it remains to be completed. It remains the case that no candidate received a majority, it would violate the bylaws to elect a candidate with less than a majority, and the breach continues so long as the person remains in office.

This forum only handles parliamentary matters, not legal matters. If there are relevant procedural statutes (or regulations with the force of law, I suppose) they will take precedence, but I doubt there are any statutes requiring the throwing of RONR out the window. As a parliamentary matter - the power to appoint committees means just that, not the power to choose 10 people and ask someone else to somehow choose 3 of them, or whatever. If the board has the power to delegate, it may be able to achieve something along these lines. There is no rule in RONR requiring that committee members be members of the board or assembly, although, unless your rules say otherwise, the appointment of non-members to a committee requires a vote of the assembly. I'm not sure what liason board members would mean in this context, but if the board wants to decide "Jim will talk to the chair of that committee," it can assign that task to Jim (presumably by forming a one-person "liason to the committee" committee).