Benjamin Geiger

But if the group hasn't adopted RONR, that isn't binding either. It's a bit chicken-and-egg.

Fair point, well made. I worded it too informally and didn't communicate what I intended to. There's no formal requirement to have a parliamentary authority, but an organization with no parliamentary authority will face issues as soon as any situation arises where there is significant disagreement about the rules of order. The group will have to either hash out their own rules of order (which may involve a lot of yelling) or look to an established parliamentary authority (which, if the authority is not already specified, may also involve a lot of yelling).

You need to have some parliamentary authority, unless your bylaws are so comprehensive that they effectively become a parliamentary authority. That said, there are alternatives to Robert's Rules, most notably the Standard Code. I'm not endorsing these alternatives, only pointing out that they exist, and that they will suffice if the group has some sort of anti-Robert's-Rules animus.

Assuming your bylaws don't specify otherwise: You can move to amend the agenda before it's adopted, removing the agenda item you're concerned about. Alternately, you can move to object to the consideration of the question or to postpone until the next meeting.

Because it sounds like the facilitator is trying to steamroll the group and force a 2/3 vote, which wouldn't even matter because 3/5 is less than 2/3.

If I were a snarky SOB, I would move at the next meeting for the group to purchase an elementary-school arithmetic textbook for the facilitator. But I would never do such a thing, never in a million years. (RONR is quite clear that the 2/3 requirement actually means 2/3 or more. Even though 2/3 of 100 is 66.67, a 2/3 vote of a group of 100 members would require a minimum of 67 votes to pass, because 66 is less than 2/3. 3 votes out of 5 is definitely less than 2/3.)

I'm probably misunderstanding something, because 3/5 is less than 2/3. Are different groups voting somehow?

Perhaps by "vote of acclamation" they actually mean something like unanimous consent?

As I understand it, the chair makes the call, but a member (but not the guest) can appeal that decision, taking it to the assembly for a vote. In the absence of existing rules or customs, I guess the reaction to the guest's presence would establish a new custom? Right: I parsed it as "In some assemblies, non members are permitted to attend..." Apparently the beer I was drinking last night was so strong I was able to read books that may not have been written yet.

RONR 12 (11th ed.) p. 644 ll. 22-23 says: "A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings...". That said, it doesn't explicitly specify whether nonmembers are permitted to attend by default, but the rest of the relevant text seems to be written under the assumption that nonmembers are allowed to attend unless their presence is objected to. Allowing a nonmember to speak outside of debate requires a majority vote*. Allowing a nonmember to speak in debate requires a motion to Suspend the Rules, requiring a 2/3 vote (p. 263n). Nonmembers cannot be permitted to vote even with a motion to Suspend the Rules(p. 263 ll. 18-24). (* I don't have a source for this from RONR, but there is a discussion on the subject in this thread from a couple of years ago.) If the presence of nonmembers is a problem, the assembly can go into an executive session (in which case nonmembers are required to leave unless an exception is made for them).

A fair point well made. I was probably including the implied "if the members permit it" that I didn't make explicit.

I don't believe there's anything that would prohibit nonmembers from attending meetings. Having them participate, however, might require adoption of special rules of order (2/3 vote of members) or bylaws provisions, etc. RONR p. 96f addresses it more thoroughly, with additional sections under "nonmembers" in the index.

That was the original plan. I think I'll ask the president to hold off on making the switch until we have a chance to update our bylaws. Our parent organization is updating theirs, so we'll have to update ours, and I think I'm going to suggest a full revision instead of patchwork amendments. Some of the existing bylaws are confusingly written. If we so chose, how would we basically nullify the language on p. 467 (edit: ll. 8-19)? Should we do so? Something like "The Parliamentarian retains all rights of membership of [the organization] and is permitted to participate in debate and cast votes"?

... ugh. I did not realize that. This throws a wrench in the gears.

Right. I didn't mean to imply that I had to be a parliamentarian (or Parliamentarian) to rise to a point of order, only that by doing so, I've been identified as someone who is familiar with at least the basics of Robert's Rules, and therefore the go-to person for any parliamentary inquiries.

That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. Overall, they're keeping to the spirit (if not the exact letter) of Robert, so there are few things that are particularly urgent. "Friendly amendments" are the biggest problem, with "Question!" cropping up from time to time; I do speak up about the latter. In fact, I think that's part of why the president has asked me to serve as de facto parliamentarian. And yes, I'm in the process of joining the NAP.

I don't follow. What do you mean by this? Actually ran into that in a committee meeting yesterday. I let it slide since it happened before the chair stated the motion. (I'm not part of the committee but was asked to attend as "parliamentarian pro tem", so to speak.)

An organization I'm in records the names of those who second motions in the minutes. RONR says: (RONR 11 p. 470 ll. 26-28, emphasis mine) Does custom qualify as being "ordered by the assembly"? Should I bring this up to the secretary (who, as I understand it, has been secretary for quite some time, where I'm not even officially parliamentarian (yet))? Or should I chalk this up to "pick your battles" and go back to reminding people that "friendly amendments" aren't a thing?

At least most of the third-party knockoffs have the advantage of being based on the first edition of Robert's Rules, instead of being pulled entirely from one person's hind orifice.

Because obviously nothing has changed since 1876, and absolutely nothing has been modified since Gen. Robert wrote the first edition. Obviously.

I think you put your question in the tags:

Having read Rosenberg's Rules several times, I still don't see the point, especially now that RONRIB is a thing. I'm pretty sure RONRIB could be condensed further into something of comparable size, and would still be a better-thought-out system.

The rules can be found here. EDIT: I just want to be clear that I don't agree with the quoted statement. I included it to illustrate the attitude that seems to inspire the rule set. I should've been clearer about that.

Yep, like those. (I wasn't the one who found either of those, though.)

Wow. Part of me is sorry I brought it up. I don't think it's a legitimate issue right now, since I'm pretty sure everyone involved accepts that the bylaws effectively refer to RONR. (I was hesitant to specify which organization, but since they make their bylaws public, I figure it's not too big a deal to point out that I'm referring to the Florida Democratic Party's bylaws; since it's a state chapter of a national political party, amending the bylaws is a massive undertaking.) That said, I'm a programmer by trade, so I have a habit of looking at things like rules and bylaws and finding edge cases that may be exploited.