Joshua Katz

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).

I don't doubt that. Certain bylaw provisions of the parent organization can also be binding on the child organization, and it is a matter of bylaw interpretation which they are. My only point is, they might have a reason for saying this that we are unaware of, being outside your organization. It sounds to me like they are misinterpreting the provisions on discipline, which do say discipline is conducted in executive session - but talking about issues with the President is not discipline, although, depending on what is said, it may be a decorum violation. Regardless, it is not the case that any instance of not following parliamentary procedure voids the entire meeting and all that occurs. Certain actions can be objected to, even later, as points of order, and others cannot. Here, the action in question is a resignation which has been accepted, and hence, all else aside, cannot be a continuing breach. But I will join with my colleagues in saying - they are making the claim, let them prove it. "If a rule was violated, please point to the rule, in whatever document it appears, and to a rule establishing that the remedy is as you claim" seems an eminently fair question, whenever a claim is made that some action violates the rules.

Seems to me we're being awfully quick to say the national organization is wrong, without knowing the rules of this organization. Maybe the parent assembly has a bylaw that affiliate officers can only resign in executive session. Maybe someone is misinterpreting the rule that disciplinary procedures take place in executive session. Maybe there's more to the story.

I've always assumed the same answer as given, although it never made sense to me why a) that should be the rule, or b ) given how unintuitive it is, it isn't spelled out more clearly. Mr. Lages's point makes sense, though - although, lacking a bylaw provision, I think the bottom line is that, whatever the reason, the rule applies only to the President unless the bylaws say otherwise.

I'm not about to lecture them on grammar. shrug I am confident that no one in the organization somehow thinks the responses quoted are anything other than concurring responses. As I said, demanding that each person type out the date and time is formalism for formalism's sake.

It's not used in the opinions; it's used in the memos they send to each other to join opinions, after the drafts have been circulated.

What we have not dealt with, I think, is: who is stating this, and why? Perhaps we've ignored that because of the passive voice. Do we know anything about what they, whoever they are, hope to gain from removing this phrase? There's some clue in the fact that they once thought it was necessary, but no longer, but I'm not sure where that clue takes us.

True enough. I once arrived on a scene (as a paramedic, in a city with a career department) where a battalion chief was yelling about taking a door off. I asked if anyone had tried the other door, was ignored, and walked over and opened it. He just continued yelling. Of course, if you lack candidates who meet your criteria, the solution is to raise the salary, but that may not be feasible. I have noticed the opposite about decorum, to some degree. At least where I've been, there's the "old-timers" who have their ways of doing things, which mostly involve telling the young people they don't know what they're talking about. I've seen young people turn to parliamentary procedure to shut up the old-timers and actually get ideas considered.

I can't imagine a reasonable person reading that language and saying "each needs to send a separate email." I know that's not what I thought when we wrote it, and it isn't how any other meeting has been called. It sounds like formality for formality's sake to claim it requires each person to send a separate email. I think one of our members has pointed out a few times that the rules are to facilitate business, not hinder it. An interpretation that disallows members from joining a request would look to me like the rules hindering the conduct of business.

Given that the phrase I used, "please join me to this request" is the phrase used by Supreme Court Justices to join an opinion, I say if it's good enough for that, it's good enough to request an online meeting.

Oh, and if you want to demonstrate how stupid their claims are, just get 5 friends together and vote not to show the Superbowl, then send them an email saying it's truly unfortunate if that upsets them. Or, you know, get 5 friends together and vote to sell all the organization's property and split the money amongst the 5 of you, then ask why that is improper.

The supposed action they took is utter nonsense. A meeting does not consist of hand-selecting a number of people equal to a quorum and deciding whatever you want. That is the opposite of the deliberative process. Your organization made a decision - not to show any games - and that others are unhappy about it is, indeed, unfortunate, but their nonsensical behavior changes nothing.

You cannot, on your own, make changes to adopted minutes. The assembly can amend the minutes by a 2/3 vote, or a vote of the majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with notice. She should move to amend the adopted minutes, after giving notice, and let the assembly decide.

Well, I think that makes perfect sense when your actions are in violation of the rules, but not when they appear compelled by the rules. Like I said, i don't have much of an argument for that point, it just seems obvious to me, so I conclude we're at an impasse.

Let's back up. You asked about a situation where there's a stop sign, and, for 20 years, you have not stopped at it. I think it's fair to say that your customary practice is failing to stop at that stop sign. (That is, "to not stop.") If the stop sign is removed, I don't think your customary practice goes away - if, the next day, you don't stop, I think you have continued your practice. But, suppose that, for 20 years, you did stop. I do not think you have established a customary practice of stopping there. If the sign is removed, and the next day you do not stop, I don't think you've violated your custom. If, the next day, you continue to stop, and you keep doing that, day after day, then I think you will then be establishing a custom. No. I would say your are following the law, and less than voluntary actions do not form a custom. As I said, I think you can, once the sign is removed, begin to establish such a custom. However, to deal with your hypothetical, if the answer above were yes, then it would follow that continuing to stop after the sign comes down is continuing a custom, yes.

Your customary practice is obviously not to stop at the stop sign. It doesn't follow that, if you did stop, then stopping is your customary practice. If your practice was not to stop, and the sign is taken down, your practice is still not to stop.

Well, I disagree, but don't have much of an argument other than thinking my answer is obvious. If your custom has been not to stop, and the stop sign is removed, then you should get a ticket if you stop, under either theory, unless you formally announce a policy of stopping. The only reason I can think of to adopt such a policy would be that you enjoy stopping there, but enjoy breaking laws even more.

It doesn't say either, in so many words, as far as I know. However, it's rather clear that being silent when voting is taking place is not voting, and abstaining simply means not voting. I have no idea what your online research has uncovered, but it could be about unanimous consent - when unanimous consent is sought, failing to object (by being silent) is, in some sense, consent. Or it could be about some unrelated legal concepts. But that has nothing to do with what it seems your question is. In fact, neither does the effect of remaining silent when a vote is called for, since, absent a counted vote or roll call vote, the minutes should not record the number voting on each side, just whether or not the motion is adopted. If a counted vote is ordered, and a person does not vote, then their non-vote is not counted.

If this municipality has a code authorizing tickets for failing to follow your established practice, unless you have formally renounced that practice, should I get a ticket the day the sign comes down if I don't stop?

It is a sentence, and "you" is the subject. This is a problem facing many volunteer fire departments where officers are elected or chosen by the membership in some way. I tend to think, after 10 years in emergency services, that volunteer services need to fade away, with regionalization of resources where needed. However, even lacking that, I think municipalities should give serious consideration, at the least, to a professional chief - or even a chief chosen by the government, not the membership, preferably from the outside.

Again, see page 598. If you strike a section, every section after that will go down by one - this is an indisputably necessary change, and is proper even if not mentioned in the motion at all. There's no reason to uglify your bylaws with a placeholder.