ParliamentaryBuff

20 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

As to question 2, I'm not sure what you are getting at...

I meant if the chair improperly ruled an amendment out of order on this basis, what would be the recourse, but it seems you answered that any member could then appeal the ruling

I've found it a common practice, specifically at conventions, to rule out of order amendments which "alter the motion so much that it is in effect no longer the same motion". Sometimes this could be just a few words.

1) I haven't found any basis for this in RONR; does it contain any such prohibition?

2) If not, what's the procedure to address this since the point of order has already been ruled on? Can a member other than the one who raised the point make the appeal?

Thank you all. UPDATE: the Rules Committee amended the rule to reference RONR latest edition.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

I suppose one could try to argue that the rule in question means that the rules in RONR may be superseded only by provisions in the bylaws, and that the intent of the rule is to prevent the adoption of special rules of order or convention standing rules which conflict with RONR, but I do not personally find this argument to be terribly persuasive.

I guess that's what I was thinking, but I'm not trying to "throw something against the wall" if it doesn't really work, just to make sure we are interpreting appropriately so every member has their voice heard!

Thanks again for all the effort. I think I'm clear now.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

since the bylaws specify Roberts rules of order as the parliamentary authority, there is actually no reason for the convention rules of order to name a parliamentary authority as the convention is probably bound by the authority which is cited in the bylaws. Having the convention rules  cite a completely different authority is very problematic.

Am I correct that you agree that the authority cited by the bylaws and convention rules are conflicting? I wasn't sure whether "Robert's Rules" could be interpreted as some generic catchall term (like we use Xerox to mean any kind of photocopy), or whether it clearly meant the "official" lineage culminating in RONR 12th ed.

44 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

I agree that this rule does appear to authorize the committee more authority in regards to making amendments.

Hmm... that's what I was afraid of given that I think it will be hard to amend (I picture a sea of sleeping delegates as we delve into parliamentary nuance), although I now wonder if it's even in order to deviate from Robert's Rules given the bylaw provision:

Question 1

If bylaws cite "Robert's Rules of Order" as the parliamentary authority without specifying publisher, version, etc., is a certain version implied or is there latitude in interpretation? Could it mean "any version from any source"?!

Our bylaws state:

5 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

This rule does not appear to grant the committees in question the authority to incorporate their own amendments into the resolutions submitted to them.

Thanks again for walking through this with me. I accidentally submitted the form before my post was complete. There was also this:

Rule No. 2: The manner of reporting by Committees shall be as follows:

15 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

I concur with Mr. Elsman, however, that the convention standing rules may well have more to say regarding the powers of this committee.

I checked the rules from the previous convention, as I assume that template will be proposed for this convention, with minor modifications (e.g. update the dates and times).

14 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

I think you would have to examine the standing rules of the convention to know what this committee can and cannot do.

How much authority does a Convention committee, created by the President [1] to receive resolutions at convention, other than the Resolutions Committee, have in disposing of those resolutions where they are not explicitly given any particular powers? Specifically, can they (extensively) revise a resolution, and submit the revised resolution to the body as their own? My (possibly naive) interpretation is that their report would have to start with the original resolution and explicitly list each recommended amendment, not simply substitute their resolution for the original and recommend adoption, with the original never reaching the assembly.

Example: I submit a resolution to enlarge our legal team e.g. "maintain a legal team of 3 lawyers by hiring one additional lawyer". The Policy Committee amends it to mean the reverse e.g. "maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one lawyer". The resolution that comes before the assembly is the committee's version to the body with the committee - not me - listed as the source, with the committee reporting "the committee recommends the resolution to maintain a legal team of 1 lawyer by firing one additional lawyer be adopted". I would think they would have to start with my resolution and report that "the committee recommends resolution [reference to mine as submitted] be... amended by [list each change]... and thus amended be adopted".

The basis for my view that they would have to do the latter is RONR 12th Ed. 59:81 - "When the committee recommends amendments to a resolution, in cases where it is not empowered to incorporate them itself, its chairman reports as follows: ...recommends that the resolution relating to... be amended by... and that, as thus amended, the resolution be adopted.." However, that is about the Resolutions Committee and here another committee is taking over part of the traditional work of that committee.

I also rely on the general committee rule: "Generally... has less authority to act independently for the society... than a board is usually understood to have. Thus, if the committee is to do more than report its findings or recommendations to the assembly, it may be empowered to act for the society only on specific instructions" 50:4, RONR 12th ed.

Here's some background info...

1. Bylaws: "The President may appoint such other convention committees for the convention as may be necessary or desirable for the efficient and expeditious conduct of its business. Each such committee shall make a report of its deliberations and recommendations to the convention delegates for such consideration and approval as may be required."

2. Some of the committees thus created (i.e. not explicitly named in the bylaws) are the Policy Committee & Legislative Committee.

Thanks!

Our bylaws state that for votes where the cost is in excess of a certain amount, there must be a second opportunity to vote for members who were working during the meeting (we do shift work so there will always be members working). Such a vote is coming up and I have not found anything in RONR helpful in determining how to actually do this and it hasn’t happened in recent memory. My major concern is that members could attend both meetings and have their vote counted twice. I was thinking a roll call or ballot vote would prevent that but wanted some input before we move ahead. Thanks

2 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

…why are you concerned only about the current president's resignation triggering this clause, but not the fact that the president-elect is abandoning his current office, which would mean he is ineligible to serve as president?

We are equally concerned with both, but since it seemed like the answer would be the same, I tried to simplify the question.

Thanks for the quick reply. Yes, their terms are staggered.

Regarding the procedure for filling vacancies, the bylaws state:

Quote

In the event that an Executive Board officer or the Welfare Fund Chairman vacates their office elected position becomes vacant for any reason, the Executive Board shall temporarily elect a replacement by majority vote within 30 days. An election to fill the position for the remainder of the term will then be held as soon as practicable…

There is also:

Quote

No member shall… hold more than one (1) office in this association at the same time

Our union officer election results are being counted and the result should be announced this afternoon. Both candidates for President currently hold another office, so we expect the original position of whoever wins to be replaced by special election. Our overall goal is to have this special election process go as smoothly and quickly as possible. The speed is especially important because one outgoing officer (a different position on the same special election ballot) is retiring and we want as much overlap with his successor as possible so he can teach them.

Section 12. The officers elected shall be installed as soon as practicable, after the votes are tabulated and the final election results detennined. They shall not assume the duties and responsibilities of office until the first of the month following election. After being duly elected to office in this Association, such elected officer will swear the following oaths, such oath to be administered by the Association President or the highest ranking officer present at the meeting when such electees are to be inducted into office… The acceptance of the inductee as an officer of this Association will be contingent upon his or their swearing or affinning this oath.

Section 13. Any member refusing to serve after being elected to an office shall not be eligible to hold office in this Association for a period of three (3) years.

If they resign to “do the right thing”, are they “refusing to serve”? We obviously don't want them to be penalized in any way, especially being barred from holding another office going forward.