Drake Savory

On 4/6/2024 at 11:59 AM, Rob Elsman said:

All this goes back to my earlier request for the exact text of the relevant part of the main motion that went unfulfilled.

"I move to adopt the proposed calendar."

The original motion was to adopt the calendar of meetings for 2024-2025.  Note that the list of meeting did not indicate in-person or virtual but the presumption is that all meetings are in person unless specified.

The primary amendment was to eliminate one of the meetings on the calendar. by amending the calendar.  "I move to eliminate the June 1st meeting."  The secondary amendment intended to reinstate the meeting (which has not been eliminated yet) by striking the entire primary amendment and substituting to make June 1st a virtual meeting.

On 4/5/2024 at 7:30 PM, Joshua Katz said:

What is the "it" here? RONR does not prohibit germane primary amendments that happen to defeat the point of the main motion

But it does not allow an amendment that if passed would reject the main motion.  Example given in 12:22(2)

On 4/4/2024 at 7:05 PM, Weldon Merritt said:

I don't see any way you could include the IPP position on the board without risking the negative consequences that most of us here routinely warn against.

I can state without doubt that had we had an IPP position on our Board, one election would have cause 6 years of turmoil.  I cannot think of any positives had we had that position.  One thing that did help what to have our 2 state delegates on the Board but that is a whole other thing.

On 4/3/2024 at 8:35 PM, Atul Kapur said:

So, as was said by others, this is a question of interpreting your bylaws.

Isn't there a general rule that bylaws must be interpreted in a way that separate sections do not conflict if possible?  If so, given the nebulous definition of "critical" and the specificity of the amendment clause, is there anyway to NOT interpret it as a 2/3 in-person vote?

Primary amendment was "cancel the meeting on June 1st".  Secondary amendment was to basically strike out the entire amendment and change it to "make the June 1st meeting a virtual meeting."  I thought that this was out of order because passing the secondary amendment in effect defeats the primary amendment but looking it up, it bans that at the amendment/main motion level - not secondary/primary.  It didn't change the form of the amendment so that's OK, and I know an amendment can make a motion into it's opposite but I can't shake the feeling that because the secondary amendment completely eliminates all trace of the primary amendment that it was out of order.

Was it and why?

On 4/2/2024 at 10:37 PM, Guest Doc T said:

The committee sunsets every two years. A new leadership committee is then elected at a mass meeting.

Again, how?  Is it discharged or is it just that the terms of the previous members expire?

On 4/2/2024 at 11:22 AM, Rob Elsman said:

14:1 specifically refers to a postponement "...after a certain event." 

This is about adopting an agenda at the beginning of the meeting.

Further question: could a special order be "timed" as coming up upon the call of the Chair?

Reading the rules on special orders, I always interpreted "time" as clock-based.  So now I sit in meeting where agendas are adopted "with flexibility" to allow guest speakers to present whenever they show up.  Then it struck me, could a special order time be an event like "Presentation from the Hansen's Disease Prevention Academy when they arrive."?

If not, is there any reason a body couldn't adopt a special rule of order allowing that?

On the question do we have a quorum, two-thirds answering in the affirmative we have quorum.

No but the other organization, the one members think we inherit our rules from, does prohibit business during executive session.  I have to check the rules for them because there is a chance that organization is making up that rule too and it really is "we've always done it that way."

On 4/1/2024 at 11:19 AM, Princess_Mayhem said:

Terms of office for said officers and board positions shall be from January 1 to December 31, and /or until their successors are elected or qualified.

Is that an exact quote or your paraphrase because "and" and "or" mean two completely different things when removing an officer.

On 4/1/2024 at 1:31 PM, Guest Doc T said:

Every two years the leadership committee is dissolved

How?  By appointing new members or through a formal motion to discharge the committee?

On 4/1/2024 at 3:21 PM, Josh Martin said:

I might ask these members "If no minutes are taken of executive session, and there are no written records whatsoever of the decisions we make during the executive session, doesn't that pose some problems for the organization? What happens if it is later disputed what the assembly agreed to in executive session, and there is no written record to point to?"

I did.  See above.

On 4/1/2024 at 12:31 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I'm sure you've already shown them, at RONR (12th ed.) 9:27;

I did, but you know how some people are. 

"It doesn't say you are supposed to take minutes." 

"It doesn't say not to and why would this rule exist if there weren't minutes taken during executive session?"

"Well I tell you what.  I was in a meeting ... musta been ought-six ... and they didn't take minutes when we went into executive session." 

Fighting ignorance of others' question.

I am Secretary for an organization and recently we had a section of the meeting under executive session.  At the end of the meeting I explained the procedure I would go through if minutes were requested in order to not break confidentiality and some members objected because "as we all know" 🙄 you don't take minutes during executive session because, you know, confidentiality.  I quoted the rules in RONR that imply minutes are still taken during executive session and how confidentiality remains intact (like minutes read and approved in executive session) but I don't think I convinced all of them because the idea of taking minutes in executive session runs counter to how they have seen it done incorrectly.  There is also at play that another organization we are a member of that has special rules about executive session so of course those are our rules right?  🤔 Of note that other organization gets a lot of rules wrong also.  The reason I bring all of this up and hope you are not too bored is life would be simpler for me if there were something explicit that the Secretary continues to take minutes in executive session in addition to all of the rules that imply this.  Is there such a rule in RONR that I'm missing or am I stuck hoping a couple of vocal members can take 1+1 and get 2?  Of note: asking them to find the rule that prohibits taking minutes during executive session will not work to convince them.  

The Chair agrees with me so the situation will take care of itself according to the rules thankfully.  My question is about education of the members to overcome wrong-think. 

Eye wood two

On 3/28/2024 at 5:05 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution  defines the quorum in each house to do business as a majority of the members. This requirement does not change and cannot be suspended.

The point is that before Speaker Reed, if you were in the chamber yet refused to vote or answer the quorum call, you were considered not present for the purpose of the quorum.  Reed changed the rule so if you were physically there then you were counted towards the quorum whether you answered or not.

On 3/28/2024 at 3:27 PM, Richard Brown said:

So, help us out here: what was the voting “present” rule in Congress before February 9, 1890 and what is it now?  What effect did it have on calculating the presence of a quorum then and what effect does it have on that now?

Before then, someone refusing to vote was considered not present for the purpose of a quorum.  Although then it was simply not saying anything.  So what would happen is, and I am simplifying the numbers, 48 vote yea, 1 votes nay, 51 abstain or are not present.  Doesn't pass because only 49 of the 100 are "present".  Then someone makes a quorum call and 51 don't answer or try to leave the hall thus no quorum.

On January 29, 1890 after such a disappearing quorum vote, Speaker Reed locked the doors and ordered to clerk to record everyone in the room as present, which resulted in Representatives complaining that they weren't really there.  However, the motion in question ultimately passed 162-3-163 with 179 needed for quorum.  The rule abolishing the disappearing quorum became a House Rule on February 6, 1890.

That was the rule in the House of Representative until February 9, 1890 when Speaker Reed took action to change the rules to prevent the "disappearing quorum".  After that, voting "present" did not change the quorum numbers.

Also, are your sure the quorum is 50%+1 and not just a majority?  I hear people equate these two measures all the time but they are not.  They differ by one (unless you count half-a-member) for an odd number of members.

Quorum depends on the number of people physically there.  It has absolutely nothing to do with the number voting.

If the bullying applies to meeting conduct would the President be open to discipline?  Things like "Vote for the motion on feeding the feral cats or I will make your life miserable." or "If you debate for appointing Tom Landers chair of the Painting Committee you WILL regret it."

Is it part of a larger Church organization like the United Methodist Church or The Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod?  They may have overarching bylaws that apply to all churches.

What do your bylaws/standing rules about the location of the meetings?  If it is "the council meeting room in the town hall of Hincky" that would be different than just "the town hall of Hincky".  If he were still in the lobby one could argue that he was still in the location of the meeting therefore quorum was not lost.

There might be a possibility that the OP didn't mention.  Perhaps upon recusal the member (for whatever reason) left the meeting temporarily.  Then it would indeed affect quorum. 

Quorum is based on members physically present at the meeting; it has nothing to do with how many people vote.  If you have a quorum then people recusing themselves, voting "present", abstaining, etc. does not affect the quorum.   Therefore it was a proper vote and the result stands.