Mike Phillips

My business partner sent me a link to a university course that provides the requisite training to become a registered parliamentarian. The course was around $350, as I recall. At this point, I can't find the link he sent. So let me ask: What course or courses are available that you would recommend?

EDIT: I just found the link. The price has gone up significantly. Any thoughts on this path to becoming an RP?
https://il.wisconsin.edu/course-catalog/introduction-to-parliamentary-procedure-dynamics-of-leadership/c216-m28-14o/

On 5/25/2022 at 8:09 AM, Josh Martin said:

The rule also simply says that the agenda "be submitted," so it is not clear who prepares the agenda, how items are added, etc. If the assembly wishes to adopt a rule of this nature, it would be desirable to clarify such details, either in the rule itself or in other rules.

If this problem surfaces again, these questions will be helpful to shoot down the proposal, which, in my opinion, is unnecessary. It this case, the controversial matter was circulated to the Executive Committee by First Class Mail. This person, of course, claimed he did not receive it. 

A very strange thing happened tonight. A member made a motion that the agenda for a meeting be submitted to the Executive Committee at least seven days prior to the meeting. That is, a matter not listed on the agenda could not be taken up at the meeting. The chair (still learning RONR) eventually said that the parliamentarian had left the meeting, and that he was unable to rule on the motion. 

My thought is that this body cannot bind a future body in this manner. The body needs to be free to transact whatever business is necessary for the operation of the organization. What's the answer, and where is the authority for the answer?

We had a lot of people interrupting the meeting with Points of Order and Points of Information. It was not a pretty sight. 

Excellent suggestions. Thanks for taking the time. 

On 4/10/2022 at 11:04 AM, Atul Kapur said:

Yes. However, depending on the relationship with the chair, it may be more effective to educate the chair outside of the meeting as to the proper procedure.

Yes, of course. However, the relationship with this chair is not good. She has a long history of being above the rules. 

The bylaws of the organization do not speak to these questions. A certain committee is created in the bylaws. The organization is governed by RONR absent rules to the contrary in the bylaws. Presumably the committee is likewise governed by RONR. The committee takes action by receiving motions and calling for votes. Otherwise, the actions of the committee, to date, are unacceptably informal.

When the chair of the committee calls for a vote, she always says, "All in favor, say 'aye'". She never calls for the opposing votes. Until the last meeting, no one has objected. None of the votes require greater than a majority. The committee is meeting weekly to handle some annual matters. Dissention is now rising in the committee because of some very childish actions and antics being taken. 

What is the effect of the chair not calling for opposing votes? My reading of RONR (below) is that the vote was improper and the motion was not properly passed. However, any objection to the failure to follow the rules must have been made before the meeting adjourned. Is my reading correct? Going forward, if the chair fails to call for the opposing vote or fails to adopt the motion by unanimous consent, a point of order will be raised. 

Quote

4:35   ...In putting the question by any of these methods, the chair calls first for the affirmative vote, and all who wish to vote in favor of the motion so indicate in the manner specified; then he calls for the negative vote. The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote. 

4:37        Form for taking a voice vote. A vote by voice is the regular method of voting on any motion that does not require more than a majority vote for its adoption (see 1:6; 44). In taking a voice vote, the chair puts the question by saying, “The question is on the adoption of the motion to [or “that”]… [repeating or clearly identifying the motion]. Those in favor of the motion, say aye. [Pausing for response.]… Those opposed, say no.” 

Is making a point of order the proper way for a member to cause the chair to follow RONR?

On 3/27/2022 at 9:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

I don't see anything suggesting yes.  But the answer is no, unless you have some custom rule.

Oh, and the reference I saw is in RONR In Brief. If I ever find it, I'll post it here. My book is at the office. 

On 3/27/2022 at 9:28 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

The thing is, since seconding does not require being recognized, in a large group it might be hard to establish who seconded a given motion.

That is exactly the problem. The Secretary holds up progress to get the name of the person making the second. She never knew better. She will soon. 

Thank you!

Assuming that the organization's by-laws do not require it, does the name of the person seconding a motion have to be recorded? I've seen indications in RONR 12th suggesting yes and no. I don't think it's required. The body is 30 plus people. 

Thanks, everyone. The meeting in question turned out to be quite interesting. The dictator started the meeting and went through informalities -- for over an hour -- until she drew the ire of the body. When the body became verbally hostile towards her, she had somewhat of a meltdown. After spending a few minutes trying to recover, she announced that she was taking herself out of the race for chair, she appointed a chairman for the event, who was somewhat well versed in parliamentary procedure, and the meeting continued without incident. No parliamentary maneuvers were necessary. Her challenger was elected by acclamation.

She has now humiliated herself such that she will not likely be an active member of the organization for a long time, if ever. The organization is better off without her. She violated almost every rule in the book, as the saying goes. 

I will review the materials above that I can find. This information is very helpful. 

Rather than start a new thread, does anyone know when RONR/12th will be available on CD? The website says "early 2021", but we're past that. 

You make some really good points and suggestions. A couple of our people are fairly good with RONR, but when things start moving quickly, it can be challenging. We have RONR 12 and RONR In Brief 3 as well as Dummies and several others following the 11th edition. I'm studying them almost every day because I want to become proficient with RONR. It's a tough road. I wish I had started 20 years ago!

As far as your comment that those who don't really understand it claim that it is weaponized, that's very true. I experienced it myself eight to ten years ago. However, I have since personally observed a chair moving so quickly that it was almost impossible to get the floor in time to raise an objection. I know there are procedures for dealing with a situation like this, but this guy is good. There were a couple of events where he (properly) called some members out of order and told them to suspend where the members' actions were a cause for concern (security was called), but nothing further happened.

It will be an interesting meeting. I'm going to try to find someone who is well versed on RONR that we might be able to hire to attend with us. I'm not sure how that would work if the chair moves quickly. 

While we're on the subject, let's say the chair refuses to recognize members who properly try to obtain the floor, what actions should the body take to get control over the chair? Is that where "vocal support" comes into play?

Is anyone aware of an article or guide that explains how RONR can be weaponized? Stick with me. A group of us will be attending a meeting at the end of this month that has to be run according to RONR. The chair running the meeting is well versed in RONR (although not a Registered Parliamentarian) and will likely try to use RONR to bludgeon people and control  the debate. The objective will be to remove the chair who will not provide a copy of the bylaws and who has already played tricks, like scheduling an in-person only meeting on a week night  at a location that is miles from the "epicenter" of the members of the group. Several people have already said they can't travel that far on a work night. The chair has a reputation for running out the clock so that his supporters, who are prepared to stay until the opposition leaves, to vote according to the wishes of the chair. 

All we want them to do is play by the rules. He doesn't have a reputation for doing so. It's time for a change. 

7 minutes ago, Richard Brown said:

I  would think the fact that he posts as "Guest Puzzling", without knowing anything else, would give you a good clue.

That was my thought, which is why I asked. I'm a king of dumb questions here! 😀

As an aside, I wish the Guest function could be disabled. It's hard to know who's who.

11 hours ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Can we pin this post?

Are you an admin?

13 hours ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

It seems highly improbable to me that this is what the provision was understood to mean when it was put into the bylaws, and I think it would be ruled out by RONR principle of interpretation #6 in 56:68.

Thanks so much for this cite! It provides help for an issue we have similar to the one in this thread. 

Over the last few days, I've been reading through the newest edition of RONR In Brief. Maybe it's me, but this text seems to be easier to understand than the prior version. Good job. What I then noticed is that the authors are the principles of this forum. No wonder the answers here are so well written and on point! 

Anyone who is trying to learn Robert's Rules should get the book immediately. 

That's an interesting thought, Richard. Thanks for remembering to post it here. In this case, unfortunately, the organization is an unincorporated association. 

It turns out that the problem was not as bad as it seemed at the time. The deadline to update the bylaws was missed, so votes on revising the bylaws were not on the agenda. A fight might have ensued over the revisions, so all's well that end's well. 

Thanks for the help. Sometimes a curse turns out to be a blessing. Not raising the subject probably prevented a lot of turmoil at the meeting. 

What is the procedure under RONR for making executive decisions in a non-profit organization when those situations are not anticipated under the bylaws? For example, what if it appears that the majority of the executive committee favors waiving required noticed, but the bylaws don't address waiver?

Thanks, Josh! The purpose of mentioning notice is to make it clear that the member had ample time to accomplish the objective. No one was trying to steamroll anything, although that's the insinuation being made.

Final question on this topic. The recalcitrant member has asked that the minutes be updated to reflect that the motion was improperly deemed out of order. The minutes have not yet been approved. Does the member make a motion to amend the minutes after which the body votes up or down? It's pretty hard to add to the minutes, "The chair/parliamentarian screwed up."

Based on the input here, it seems that the motion may have been improperly ruled out of order. If that's the case, what's the proper course of action for the chair? The motion was made by a recalcitrant member who wanted to interfere with the conducting of business, but procedure is procedure. The agenda was published with requisite notice before the meeting. The motion in the agenda passed unanimously. The matter at issue is election of an officer. The recalcitrant member wanted to table the election of the officer for a week to invite new candidates to apply. The member already had notice that the election would be held and had ample opportunity to participate and to nominate someone for the position. 

Thanks for the discussion. It's very helpful. 

16 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Amend Something Previously Adopted

So I'm confused. The Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted is §35. According to RONR In Brief, this motion is used in a meeting after the meeting being discussed in this example. Therefore, it seems that §37, the Motion to Reconsider, is the correct motion. It can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. This meeting was not a standing or special committee, so an absent person (in this example, a person who came into the meeting late) did not vote with the prevailing side and does not have a right to move to reconsider. The original motion to approve the agenda passed unanimously. Therefore, the motion (to Reconsider) was deemed out of order. What am I missing? Recall that after the agenda was passed, a member came in late and wanted to modify an agenda item. Since the member was not present for the vote, her motion (which should have been made as a Motion to Reconsider) was deemed out of order. The fact that the motion was not in proper form was not part of the basis for deeming the motion out of order.

A motion to accept the proposed agenda was passed at the beginning of a meeting. A person joined the electronic meeting late and wanted to modify the agenda. The chair ruled the motion out of order. Does a motion ruled out of order by the chair have to be recorded in the minutes?

Is it necessary to record the name of the person seconding a motion?