Joshua Katz

No, I don't see a parliamentary error (which is my dispute with Rev Ed, supra). I was only disagreeing, in part, with your last sentence.

Yes, of course. Why be simple when difficult will do? Yes, I'm asking exactly that - and whether it is appropriate to raise points of order while violating the very rule about which one is complaining. Agreed. Now what does rule 2 refer to?

I am basing my comment on the remark in the book (which I don't have in front of me) about the roles of officers. It remarks that a purely deliberative assembly would have no need for officer reports, since it would do nothing outside of its meetings. It makes sense to me that the procedure for going from decision to action would be so different from place to place as to not be amenable to coverage in RONR.

Well I don't think I can agree with this. Would the same apply if you know I'm in the bathroom? What Rev Ed and I are getting at, though, is that this strikes us as different from going to the bathroom for two reasons: first, because they were obligated to do the work of the organization, and second, because that work had to be done immediately. In my opinion, there's no rule accommodating for that difference between this organization and most organizations - I might have reasons to be absent from the bowling club meeting, but it's unlikely that it's because I had to perform emergency services for the club - and even if it is, the fact remains that I would not be breaking a law or risking a lawsuit if I abandoned that bowling club work (probably) but would in this instance. Therefore, I think the organization would be well-advised to create such a rule, although the one proposed has some logistical problems.

What they said in debate might have swayed others, though. It's far more worthwhile, often, for a person seeking to avoid controversy to keep out those who would speak in opposition than to keep out those who might simply vote in opposition.

Here is exactly what it says: 2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator. Now, suppose the rule contained additional language, such as: 1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate. If the first means exactly what it says, does the second? Meaning, if the nominee is asked questions, one after the other, should the nominee have to, between questions, rise and seek recognition before answering? Also, must the body approve before the nominee may answer any questions beyond the second question?

Suppose an organization, in its bylaws, prohibit any negative comments about members from being made at meetings. This organization, as one of its tasks, considers individuals for positions with another organization - in particular, those individuals are nominated, then considered by the organization for final approval. By happenstance, one of the people the organization is asked to approve or disapprove happens to be an organization member. While considering the topic of this person's nomination, a point of order is raised that any negative statements, made while considering their appointment, would violate the bylaws. If this is followed, though, members of the organization will receive much easier confirmation hearings than others. Would you read the rule as intended to apply to members when before the body for other purposes, or only in their capacity as members and in debate?

It seems to me that it is properly neglected. RONR is intended to be the rules for a deliberative body, not an executory body.

It is troubling, though, that members can be excluded from a meeting because they are doing the work of the organization. Imagine this: on the scene, an officer who strongly supports a motion that will arise later is called upon to decide who, among those eligible, should go with the ambulance crew, and purposefully selects a person known to oppose the motion. I agree that the motion as proposed is not well written, but it seems appropriate to me to not allow the meeting to return to order until the response is completed.

I suspect that our guest is looking to some rule, either in his own rules or in RONR, that refers to "votes cast" and attempting to apply it to a particular situation, perhaps one where (just guessing) a mixture of voting methods was used to resolve some problem - as in, where some members mail in a ballot and then a voice vote is conducted at the meeting (a bad idea and not allowed in RONR unless your rules allow for it, by the way). It might help if you tell us the scenario so that we can figure out what this question is asking.

Setting aside the 'new' treasurer, I think things are simple in regards to the old treasurer. It could have easily been done by submitting a resignation, which was in effect accepted without objection when he was placed in a mutually exclusive position. No rights were violated, and hence I see no reason to make a fuss in this instance. Now, if the treasurer wants to also act as treasurer and insists "I never resigned," then it's worth making a fuss. As General Robert said, a meeting is for deciding things, not for lessons in parliamentary procedure.

Neither should be adopted as read, unless you're referring to the minutes. As to the minutes, the procedure is for the chair to ask for corrections, and, if none, to declare the minutes adopted.

These rules allow for proxy voting. Presumably, the person holding the proxy casts their vote and the proxy vote.

At least 3 of us have (or are).

Mr. Brian made a motion which, after debate and amendment, read "To allocate $1,000 to buy two sets of tools." Yes, the second vote is necessary. Just because the assembly would rather consider $1,000 than $500 doesn't mean the assembly has decided to spend anything at all.

Hold on just a second. Does your board have the power to amend the bylaws? Because it sounds like you just said your board intends to vote on whether or not to give itself power that currently belongs to the membership. Also, as Mr. Novosielski mentioned supra, resignations need to be accepted by the membership. As a procedural note, also keep in mind that filling vacancies is different from filling positions that are not filled by general elections. The latter sounds like an incomplete election, whereas the former arises after the positions have been filled. But the board cannot grant itself the power to do either.

Yes, unless it happens to violate other rules of your organization (such as notice requirements).

That's why he's practicing.

It sounds like someone is practicing to be chair.

I agree it's a rule of order, but I'm worried (partly because I've given possibly contradictory advice on related matters) that it may be a rule that protects absentees. It may even protect a minority less than 1/3 (say, if there's a single candidate and less than 1/3 actually like them).

What does it mean to 'set'? Judges give pardons? Right. But Congress can repeal laws. Why not, just as you want to let boards lower dues to 0 for one member only, let the Congress repeal a law for one person only? So, on election night, seeing that the state will go to Trump, the Democratic state legislature can quickly meet and pass a bill allowing the Democratic Governor to appoint the electors?

So your view is that exempting a member (say, board members and their friends) from paying dues is implied by the power to lower dues across the board? Does Congress' power to repeal laws allow it to give pardons? Since the states can select the electors in any manner their legislatures choose, can the state legislature overturn the result of the vote, if they chose to select them by a vote of the people?

It's really a bylaws interpretation question, but in my opinion, no.

Oh no, getting a lawyer involved tends to make bylaws worse...

Again, to resign from an officer position (and board member is considered an officer) requires permission of the appropriate body, particularly if one wishes to remain a member of the organization. While the organization cannot make someone serve (unlike a legislative body in certain circumstances), it can certainly refuse to grant permission not to serve, and hence not allow the person to remain a member if they refuse to do so. An acknowledgement would be a motion to accept the resignation.