RSW

The reverse. Amend the motion first, then vote on the motion. "I move we have a Christmas party". (Seconded) (Debate, etc.) "I move we amend the motion to include the additional words 'with a live Santa Claus'" (Seconded) "The motion is to amend "we will have a Christmas party" by adding the words 'with a live Santa Claus'" (Debate on the amendment, etc.) (A vote is held, and it passes) "The motion is 'we will have a Christmas party with a live Santa Claus" Debate, further amendments, voting proceeds from there.

I'm wondering about this in the example given. And obviously this is all bylaws-dependent. If the person submitted their resignation to the *council*, but the responsibility to fill the vacancy was from the *separate team*, it would seem that the council could have responsibility for accepting, but not the power to fill the vacancy. And the separate team, while having the power to fill the vacancy, wouldn't have authority to accept a resignation that wasn't directed to them. Basically, it sounds like the person is a member of two groups. And one could conceivably resign from the council and *not* the separate team. This would be in much the same way that a person could resign their position as union steward for a company without quitting their job at the company. I would think that a resignation from the *separate team* would logically remove them from the council (since the appointed council member presumably must be a member of the separate team?), but that the reverse may not be true.

This is exactly what I was thinking, however if it keeps the peace in the assembly the chair could always decide to request unanimous consent to include in the minutes that Mr. X and Ms. Y believe they should pay for *their* own repairs, and/or to put that item on the agenda for the next meeting. As I'm looking at this, I see two things: A proposed motion to take a special assessment for some repairs What *appears* to be a blanket objection that this should *never be done* When the first item is taken up at the next meeting, the members in question should be allowed to speak as to why they feel the special assessment is a horrible idea. And *regardless of whether it passes or not*, the second item can be moved, seconded, and passed or failed in the way that it applies to all future motions of that nature. It would probably make the most sense for the second item to be in the form of something like an amendment to the bylaws if such a sweeping change is, in fact, the desired goal. And honestly, I could see somebody voting in the affirmative on both motions. "Given the current expressed rules of our HOA, the special assessment makes sense. But I think that setting the expectation of the HOA not doing this anymore is the best way forward." While being of the *procedural* opinion above, I also absolutely agree with this. It would be good to have a legal opinion on this situation before voting through a change that might potentially put the organization in opposition to the legal realities.

Just noting that I've been involved in exactly such a decision in a smaller organization. Person X was directed to purchase time-sensitive item Z before the next meeting, and was authorized to spend up to Y dollars to do so. It was generally thought that Y dollars would cover the cost, but it wasn't enough. Given that Z was necessary, Person X made a judgement call and individually contacted enough members (half a dozen or so) preemptively to gauge support for the extra expenditure, given the time-sensitive nature of the purchase. Upon confirming general support, X made the purchase. At the next meeting X's additional spending was ratified, and there was no problem. This of course is not a *parliamentary* opinion. It absolutely puts X in breach of the assembly's directive, and thus leaves X open to the risk of members changing their mind before the meeting, being convinced to change their mind during the meeting, etc. From the parliamentary side of things, one of the best lessons I learned from an experienced parliamentarian is that motions and ideas don't have to drop from the clear blue sky during a meeting. Many (possibly most?) main motions to be introduced at a meeting can be anticipated. The questions regarding them can be anticipated. And things like the price of an item that's available for purchase can usually be known before the motion is approved, allowing the authorized amount to reflect reality. If an item isn't available for the authorized amount, it should ideally be because the price was known and budgeted properly, and "the world changed" before the purchase could be made.

In this case though you'd be talking about seeking unanimous consent to *suspend the rule* in order to allow the different voting method....correct? Or are you saying you'd just allow the rule to effectively be ignored?

Although if they did it again at the next meeting, would *that* be a continuing breach, such that the Point of Order could legitimately be raised? Or would it be a second "one off" and the fact that it passed without comment at the previous meeting have begun to establish a precedent? And does the answer to the "precedent" question change if somebody who knows what's going on shows up 6 months later and raises the Point of Order?

Is that generally the principle? That unanimous consent can be used for pretty much any vote that doesn't specify a particular method (like balloting)? I.e. if there were a generally-agreed-upon amendment to the bylaws that had a specific requirement for passing like "4/5 of the membership", as long as the requirement were otherwise satisfied by the meeting (4/5 of the membership were present) you could put the question in the form of unanimous consent?

The following is from a "club constitution", which is effectively incorporated by reference in the Bylaws of the organization: It's believed by some members that the process of voting people in is undesirable, for reasons that don't matter for our purposes (i.e. not procedural). The bylaws require it, as noted above. In such a situation, the vote is almost always a formality. I don't know that I've *ever* seen anybody get rejected. Given that the bylaws provide no voting procedure for anything other than specific elected offices (i.e. "not applicants for membership"), could a member be put forth and approved by unanimous consent? I feel like the answer should be "yes", but I'm wondering if "present and voting" and/or "elected" throw in a monkey wrench that I'm not catching.

We're talking about a regular monthly meeting, approving the minutes of the previous regular monthly meeting. I don't see an explicit prohibition, but I think the prohibition is implied by virtue of the fact that its only mention is in a section of exceptions. In 48:12, we have: By my reading, it would appear that the *rule* is that minutes are approved by the assembly at the next regular meeting, and that there are limited exceptions given. in the exception given in 48:12, the criteria would have to be one of the three given cases (none of which apply here), and that the authority to approve minutes would have ideally been delegated by the assembly, but even if it *wasn't delegated* the need to do so arises of a practical necessity. Either way, the underlying idea is that the power to approve minutes stems from the assembly. Tracking back to section 41, it seems as if there would be no prohibition against the minutes being pre-circulated, corrections made, re-circulated, etc. And those corrections could effectively be done by whatever group wanted to do it, before the meeting. But that still contemplates an ultimate, corrected set of minutes that arrives to be voted on by the assembly. I don't see anything - even in the 48:12 exceptions - that would provide for the general practice of, for example, "the executive committee approves all meeting minutes, and the assembly isn't asked for corrections or approval". It *feels like* doing so on a one-time basis would require a vote at each meeting (to authorize the executive committee to approve that meeting's minutes. Doing so on an ongoing basis feels like it should require something more substantial - like a special rule of order - as there *actually is* both a standard order of business that brings up the minutes for approval, and a specific rule in RONR that provides for the assembly approving the minutes. Is my thinking way out in left field?

I wish I could remember the exact wording that was used, but it (a) flew by pretty fast, and (b) I'm not a member of the assembly in question, so I wasn't in a position to ask for clarification. In an organization having adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority, with (as far as I can tell - I'm a member of the broader organization, just not this chapter) no bylaws provisions to the contrary: It came time for the approval of the minutes at a regularly-called meeting Minutes had been previously circulated to members It was announced that minutes had been reviewed / prepared by a committee of some sort, so no approval was necessary I've scoured RONR 12th, and as far as I can tell there's *no situation* where the minutes don't have to be approved. And further, the approval process is so ridiculously easy that there's no reason that it should provide any hardship whatsoever to an assembly to do so. It almost feels like the explanation that it was unnecessary took as much time as a proper approval would have. Am I missing some critical provision regarding minutes?

This is really good advice all around, in my experience. If you introduce well-worded motions in the first place, and quickly move to incorporate useful points from discussion *into* the motion, then it's very, very clear what you're voting on. I've seen motions like: "I move we have a Christmas Party on December 20th, 2021, to be held at our regular meeting venue, organized by Sam Smith. Sam is allocated a budget of $1000 for this party, and shall be allowed to spend that amount at his discretion without requiring any additional approval from this body."

I certainly concur with that. And I also would say that, depending on the specific motion, it perhaps could be ruled out of order on other grounds. For example, a motion to turn in a false fire alarm to test the fire department's response time might be ruled out of order as frivolous or absurd. Depending on the flagrancy, even if it's not strictly "out of order" this feels like the sort of situation where an "objection to the consideration of the question" would potentially be a useful tool.

I know RONR 12th Edition is scheduled to release in late August. As somebody with vision that's getting sketchier as time goes on, I'd like to nab a CD-ROM or PDF or whatever "digital" version is going to be coming out, rather than the print version. Does anybody know about the status of digital editions with 12th Edition - either formats or release timeframe?

And an edit to add....elsewhere in the bylaws: "Nominations may also be made from the floor by any member of the district council." Members of the executive committee are a subset of the members of the council, so it would seem (to me at least) that the implied endorsement of a nomination would yield to the explicit permission to nominate. Obviously this is all subject to interpretation by the assembly, but am I on the right track with my reasoning?

Apologies - you are absolutely correct. I got those two out of order when I was turning the descriptive list in RONR into a short summary. Thanks for the correction!

The prohibition would seem to be (and has historically been construed as) individual. "District executive committee members shall not take any action to endorse or officially support any district officer candidate; however, district executive committee members who are running for district office may campaign on their own behalf." In this case, there were two declared candidates. One was put forth by the nominating committee, the other wasn't. So barring a nomination from the floor, there is a single candidate for the position. If somebody in the executive committee believes that both candidates were qualified, and that the choice between the two candidates should be made by the body, are they prohibited from making the nomination because the nomination constitutes "endorsement"?

Yes, but so what? Rules in the bylaws also prevail, too. RONR provides that the rules a given organization may adopt are: “Corporate Charter, Constitution and/or Bylaws, Rules of Order (which include a standard work on parliamentary law adopted as the society’s Parliamentary Authority, and any Special Rules of Order), and Standing Rules. Each of these types of rules is discussed below.” and that “The only limitations upon the rules that such a body can thus adopt might arise from the rules of a parent body (as those of a national society restricting its state or local branches), or from national, state, or local law affecting the particular type of organization.” So per rules of order, a bylaw yields to governmental law, making the chain: Law Charter Constitution/Bylaws Rules of Order Special Rules Standing Rules Custom Something provided for by statute (Law) pretty much trumps everything else, and violation of Law would constitute an ongoing breach.

Okay....this is a bit esoteric, but please bear with me. There's a nominating committee, charged with investigating the qualifications and fitness of all declared candidates for a position. In the nominating committee's report, they decline to nominate one of the candidates ("Candidate A") for an office. There is a bylaws provision that a given group ("Group B") "shall not take any action to endorse or officially support any candidate". If a member of Group B believes the nominating committee made a mistake by not putting forward Candidate A (i.e. Candidate A is qualified to run), and chooses to nominate Candidate A from the floor, does that "endorse or officially support", contrary to the bylaws?