Joshua Katz

Where do the words in parenthesis come from? If there's something in your rules that makes those 3 year terms, that might change my opinion. From what you've presented so far, though, my opinion would be that they were not elected to three year terms in those positions, but rather one year terms.

Is the committee empowered to make this decision, or isn't it? Your latest post makes it sound a lot more like the committee makes recommendations rather than having power. If it has power, how did it get it? If from the board, does your board have the authority to delegate its powers?

So it seems your board, which has staggered terms, elects the officers. It is up to your organization to interpret its bylaws, but it seems to me that an annual meeting is held each year, and that at the annual meeting officers are elected. Is there a separate provision for term of office for officers? If not, it would seem to me that, if they are elected each year, that is how often they are vacated. I don't think it sounds strange or disruptive. After all, why shouldn't the new directors be able to both seek office and have input on the officers, all else being equal? It would strike me as odd if a person's term of office as, say, secretary, could be 1, 2, or 3 years, depending solely on at what point in their term as a director they were elected to the position - which, in turn, would depend on when it became vacant.

True, but the question asked for my thoughts (in my capacity as a person, anyway).

That can't be right. Your bylaws say nothing about your officers, how they're elected, and their term of office? For instance, what is the election process for your officers? Who are they elected by? What is the term of office of these people?

1. I think term limits should come from voters, not rules. (Personal opinion.) 2. "succeed themselves more than two consecutive full terms in the same office" is unclear. 3. Unless the nominating committee can find no suitable...what? 4. How do you enforce this new rule? Presumably, you'd have to check that the nominating committee could find no suitable (replacement), as opposed to simply not wanting to. How do you figure that out? 5. What do you mean to say by "approval of the congregation?" Majority vote? Majority of entire congregation? Something else?

This will depend on the way terms and positions are defined in your bylaws.

The parliamentarian cannot make motions or participate in debate, nor vote (unless a member and the vote is by ballot). Your organization could adopt a special rule of order to allow a member-parliamentarian to exercise such rights. I have no idea what the second question means, but my guess is that the answer is no.

Nominees are not write-ins. Make the ballots after you know who the nominees are, or else just use slips of paper and have people write their choices. Don't treat some nominees differently from others, though.

So is "verb."

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.