Joshua Katz

If it's a bylaw compliance issue, a point of order is timely so long as the breach remains. To me, that seems to mean so long as the member remains expelled, so I believe a point of order can be raised. But my betters may disagree, stay tuned.

Well, let's split this up. First a general rule: if you were electing your own officers, you would not need a motion to seat them, because not having officers required by your bylaws is not an option. So, the first question is: is it an option to make these appointments, or not? When it comes to the outside representatives, you say you are asked. Are you obligated to? If not, you have two questions to answer - should we send someone, and whom should we send? In that case, it's likely you'll need to make two decisions, although I'm not convinced the manner you describe is the best manner. When it comes to committees, there are standing and special committees. On the standing committees, not filling them is not an option, so you only have one question - who gets the position? On special committees, yes, you need a motion to create the committee, although the motion might incorporate the people to be appointed, or it might call for an election.

I must have misunderstood. I thought he was de facto parliamentarian now, and would be appointed parliamentarian later. Fair point. Yes, my question is whether there are limits on what the assembly may order with respect to the contents of the minutes.

Which, to my mind, brings up a more general question. Are there any limits on what the assembly may order, i.e. things that bring a point of order rather than just a no vote?

I conclude that your answer, and JJ's answer, do not necessarily come out the same.

So what happens if someone becomes secretary and, knowing the rules, writes the minutes without seconds? Is the assembly supposed to follow its custom?

Got it. I'm just pointing out that, if you were to serve as parliamentarian, you would not, unless you have special rules, be able to raise points of order, or make any motions.

By the way, bringing things up has nothing to do with being parliamentarian. If you are a member, in fact, it is, by and large, easier for you to raise parliamentary objections without being parliamentarian. Simply rise to a point of order. I think friendly amendments are worth correcting. It's not a huge thing, but they do impact the rights of the assembly, more than including seconds in the minutes, for example. Although if that's your biggest problem, you're doing pretty well. I took my NAP membership exam at a convention. Prior to the convention, I attended a board meeting (I was elected to the board at that convention, but was not on it prior). During that meeting, they spent 20 minutes fighting over whether or not certain amendments were friendly amendments. I turned to my friend, who was going to administer the test to me, and joked "I don't think I'm ready to take the test; I don't even know what a friendly amendment is!" Anyway, the easiest way to correct things, in my opinion, is to speak up about them precisely when they are causing a problem. You need an answer to "who cares" other than "Henry Robert!" The answer should be that it's trampling someone's rights. Failing that, offer to hold a workshop, and explain why the rules you choose to teach are the way they are. People are much more open to learning things, even if they go against "the way we've always done it" if you give them a reason and avoid pointless technicalities or formalities.

Well, first, I'm aggravated by the number of people I've seen eating salad with their dessert silverware lately. More importantly, though, I'm endorsing "pick your battles." If people are doing everything wrong, start with the things that impact the rights of the members, not with recording seconds. I used to coach weightlifting. There's only one way to do a clean correctly, but thousands of ways to do it wrong. If I told a student "...and your elbows need to go directly under, and the bar should never move downwards, and you need to jump at the top of your first pull, and..." they'd never learn anything. But if you start with "fully extend your hips on the first pull, regardless of where the bar goes," they can master that. Then you can work on squatting at the top, then jumping when unloaded, etc.

This needs some context. Normally, voting happens at a meeting, so what is being proposed is unclear.

When people are eating with their hands, don't admonish them that the silverware above their plate is for dessert.

So who takes cases to court? (Other than practically no one anymore.)

I believe they now have the option of directly hiring a barrister, as well.

Or lug a printer to the meeting.

I do not know your organization, but many great presidents have had lackluster first months. Just a thought.

And often with non-public bodies. Then maybe I'm misremembering. I was asked to join a group once (ended up not joining) that was using Rosenberg's, and I looked them over for the purpose of making comments on the proposed bylaws. In any case, I'm not sure what you'd gain by working such provisions into a parliamentary manual, given that, in general, sunshine laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and will govern in such cases.

If the desire is for the body to act, it needs to be stated as a motion. If there is no desire for the body to act, then either it's a brief oral report (as officer or committee) or it shouldn't be said during a meeting. For the most part - if it's a meeting, it needs to be a motion.

In any case, my previous tirade has nothing to do with the question. As to that question, the choice of parliamentary guide, between RONR and Rosenberg's, doesn't make a difference, except that, if it's up to the assembly (that is, not in the bylaws) the way the assembly will decide may differ.

Virtually every sentence of this, in my opinion, is wrong. The biggest issue I take with such efforts is: if a rule is not needed, it's because it won't come up. So who cares? Even 5 people, though, can run into a situation where a close, 2-1 vote, would come out differently if all 5 were present, and where the 1 might want some options if the proposed action (such as spending thousands of dollars on gerbil balls) will take place before the next meeting. It's true it won't need rules for that instance 99% of the time - so what? This organization, though, has a further level of confusion - it adopts one of these micro-sized parliamentary guides, and then says it will supplement with RONR as needed. Who decides when it's needed? The gerbil-ball loving temporary majority, I assure you, will not think the supplementation needed. In general, the more complex rules of RONR will be unpopular at precisely the points they are needed. In any case, there's only so much you can do, conceptually. You can assign different trade-off values for stability vs. the freedom to act, the power of the body vs. the power of the chair, the rights of the majority vs. the rights of the minority, etc. That's about it, really. But these simplified guides like to pretend they aren't doing these things, just "simplifying." They aren't, what they are doing is modifying, and by so doing, changing who holds power, in the name of simplicity. And that's fine, but they should say that's what they're doing, not pretend they're getting the same outcomes (or, as they usually claim, the same outcome as RONR, except for RONR's supposed favoritism towards people who have a clue).

If a position is an elected position, the only time it would be proper to appoint someone would be if 1) the office was vacant and 2) the President has the power of appointment; OR if 3) the bylaws give the power to remove and appoint to the President. We know 1 is not true. We don't know about 2 (which doesn't really matter, anyway), but your statement that the bylaws are silent suggests 2 is not true, either. That silence also suggests 3 is not true. Of course, I haven't checked your bylaws for all possible rules (and we don't interpret bylaws here, so I'm also not going to), but if they truly are silent (see below), that's where you are. Therefore, not only is this improper, but it wasn't done. People can drone on about things, but if they lack the power to do them, their words have no effect. The elected people are in office, the appointed people aren't. Well, they can. If they've died, the office is vacant, and you should do whatever your bylaws say (if anything) about vacancies. If they are silent, then whatever body elected them can elect someone to fill the vacancy. If they aren't dead, and choose not to resign, I don't know if they should or not. I guess it's up to them. If they choose not to, and your organization wishes to place someone else in that position, it can remove them via a disciplinary process (see chapter XX), and may have other options depending upon what the bylaws say about term of office. Well, no. If they do not resign, then they hold the position, and no one else does. If you've elected someone to office, you can't then appoint someone to "acting" that same office. Of course, it may be possible, if they aren't doing the job and you don't remove them, for someone else to pick up the slack (or it may not be, it will depend on your bylaws), but that person won't be "acting treasurer," just someone helping keep the books while the treasurer is off golfing or whatever. RONR has no prohibitions on holding more than one position at once (although you do not gain an additional vote that way). Your rules might. Are you sure? Much depends on what they say, if anything, about filling vacancies, term of office, discipline, and the responsibilities of officers.

I've seen that rule set before; it's a couple pages long. I don't recall anything in it about public comment, though.

This can certainly be accomplished as a series of amendments, and they would in many cases be conforming amendments which can be introduced together and cannot be divided (so you don't wind up with two Article II's or the like). You'll need to pay attention to which amendments conform and the sequence in which they are offered, but it can be done. Doing it as a revision, of course, could be easier, but opens the full document to amendment without scope of notice requirements.

GWCTD has a good point. The description here can range from a board not wishing to hear uncomfortable truths, to a member who is simply out of order, to anywhere in between or outside these extremes.

Raise a point of order to disruptions when you have the floor.

In case you don't look in the book, note also that the entire revision stands open to amendment, and there is no scope of notice limitation, unless your rules provide otherwise.