Drake Savory

But don't we see issues when members don't have all of the right of membership? We're discussing one now in the other forum where only 60 members out of 160 can vote so how can you get a majority of the membership. Again, why should the parliamentarian a member? What purpose does it solve that cannot be solved by simply giving them the right to attend all meetings?

Why was the Parliamentarian made a member to begin with considering they Were not elected Should not debate Should not vote ???

Did the Chair allow debate? If so, then it was a motion to Postpone Definitely despite what everyone called it. If not, then it was a motion to Lay on the Table, however it does not come up before the assembly automatically. It needs the motion to Take From the Table. Assuming your next meeting comes within a quarter interval, if it is not taken from the table by the end of the next meeting, the motion dies.

A couple of things here. I can kind of see where the Chair would want the debate to be germane to the actual motion to recommend to the membership - they are not voting to approve the amendment(s) themselves but if they should go to the membership. But the problem is: It is the Board Chair and not the Committee Chair that ensures the debate is germane to the motion. Can you really debate on whether or not to recommend the amendments without getting into the content of the amendments themselves? Who (or rather what) assigned the Board as the gatekeepers for bylaws amendments? If the motion to recommend fails, does that mean the membership does not get to vote on them? Or is it simple telling the membership when they vote on the amendments that the Board does not support them? "If you vote no, you must ask yourself why you didn't take part in the bylaws review." If the committee chair states this in a meeting, would the statement be out of order?

It sounds like they want 2/3 super-majority to be different than a regular 2/3 vote. While a 2/3 vote is 2/3 of those voting, they want a super-majority of 2/3 of the members there. So someone can pull out a calculator and count 35 members present and do 35 * 2 ÷ 3 =23.33333..... . Then round down to 23 and count to see if 23 or more voted yes. Probably a math major came up with that plan.

Given that the Chair is supposed to be unbiased, wouldn't a person with a conflict of interest be the last person you want as the Chair?

What if the attorney's opinion reflects his interpretation of the law? Then it would take precedence over the bylaws. But I would hope this letter would say, "The law says ..."

I was using the inclusive OR there

So it sounds like it could be done through an amendment adopted by majority vote or Suspend the Rules by 2/3 vote.

Any non-standard voting threshold should be in the bylaws or special rules of order (48:10). However this is not a requirement as it is not "must" be in the bylaws. 44:7 also talks about modifying the vote threshold through rule, but again does not require that rule in the bylaws or special rules of order. To throw a complication in there, it is basic parliamentary law to change an action requires a larger threshold than taking the action to begin with (xlix - l). Already there would be a problem if through special rule an action requires 80% of the vote yet could be rescinded by a 2/3 vote. So here is the question. As part of a main motion, is it in order for a member to move to Suspend the Rules and require a unanimous vote?

Can you elaborate on that?

A motion to approve the minutes is not out of order. Suppose there is a change that needs to be made yet the motion to approve the minutes is on the floor. It seems like you would have to Amend the motion to adopt to amend the minutes but for the life of me, I just can't think of what that amendment would look like. If the motion is "I move to approve the minutes" would the amendment be something like: I move to amend the motion to add at the end "with striking out Tom Landers and inserting Sonja Henie."

From personal experience, the first step is to get a sense of if the members want to play by the rules. You can do all of the education you want and have members make points of order all day long but if the Chair and the members as a whole don't care or worse, actively fight against the rules because "they get in the way" then anything you do is doomed to fail.

Is it possible under RONR that the Chair could explain his concern and ask if the assembly desires to move to Suspend the Rules to remove him from the Chair for the duration of the motion? In other words let the members decide if they trust his impartiality.

Takes over or becomes President? If the latter then they would be your new IPP when a new President takes office.

Unfortunately, you were relying on a Chair that did not know parliamentary rules nor how to control a meeting. You were fighting a losing battle from the beginning.

Yes. The space after the bulleting threw me. And considering how well many Chairs know their bylaws I think it is a good idea for the committee chair in question to check just in case.

That has nothing to do with different versions of RONR. It deals with if the vote threshold is a majority vote or a majority of the membership. And an abstention is never counted but the number of "aye" votes may change thus an abstention has the effect of a "no" vote. 100 members. 45 vote aye. 30 vote no. 25 abstain Majority: More ayes than nos. Motion passes. Majority of the membership: 51 ayes needed. Motion fails by 6 votes. I'm assuming one of our parliamentarian historians can tell us which edition was the first where a majority of the membership is a voting threshold because I'm pretty sure it was in my copy of the 11th edition. I just looked up the 4th edition and that threshold is not there. Re-reading this a few times the author is right but completely misunderstands what's going on and as such misleads the reader. As a further example of the author having no clue on RONR voting and where they get it wrong Nope. Abstaining has never counted as a no vote when 2/3 are needed. If twice as many vote aye than no and so the first example is correct in that it meets the 2/3 threshold. Analysis of the second vote is completely wrong unless the association has some special rule requiring that vote to have 2/3 of the membership voting in the affirmative but there is no motion in RONR requiring that. So here is the payoff question: what will your vote require? A two-thirds vote would NOT count abstentions at all. A two-thirds vote of the membership attending would have abstentions have the effect of a no vote. The way this is written, it is the first and not the latter. If out of 100 attending 50 vote for disaffiliation, 20 vote against affiliation and 30 abstain then the disaffiliation passes. However I suspect given the guidance of your link, the DS would say it failed.

Is this meeting being run under RONR? It sounds almost like for this ad-hoc meeting/vote that you are using the Church's rules. Is there any document saying you use RONR or is that an assumption you are making?

50:8 allows standing committees to be created by resolution, not just in the bylaws, IF the bylaws allow it.

Question: Suppose the call to the meeting says it starts at 8pm. At 8pm the DS stands and begins his speech without calling the meeting to order. Is there anyway the assembly can call the meeting to order themselves at the appointed time? I assume a Point of Order wouldn't work since the meeting hasn't started.

Is your Chair actually enforcing RONR or letting her speak whenever she wants (probably without a motion on the floor), letting her speak up and interrupt Board meetings, etc. If so, then the first step is to get the Chair to enforce the rules.

What exactly do the bylaws say about the committee? Are all of the members currently on the committee required to be on it under the bylaws? Are the duties of the committee in the bylaws? Something doesn't make sense to me - why can't the organization just make a new committee and move some members and duties over to that new committee?

Not if it is made to the main body (and wouldn't the main body have to accept the resignation and not the Board?), hence my question. Wouldn't the President have to relinquish the Chair in order to make their motion to be Relieved of Duty?

If the President moves to be Excused from Duty (aka resigns), would the Vice-President be the one in the chair until the motion is disposed of?