Tomm

What I'm really seeking is an explanation that will trigger my thought process into understanding exactly what's considered a Standing Rule. RONR states that Standing Rules are ones "which are related to the details of the administration of a society rather than to parliamentary procedure..." , but if the Rule is stated in the Bylaws it can't be suspended. I'm confused because I'm under the impression (probably wrongly) that the "time" of the meeting stated in a Bylaw can be suspended but the "date" cannot!?!? Had the above Bylaw said, “Annual meetings shall begin in February and held on the 4th Wednesday of every other month beginning at 7 PM.” I'm thinking suspension is allowed to change 7 PM to 6:30 PM but it's not allowed to change Wednesday to Tuesday? Am I way off base in my thinking? Am I confusing where the Rules are being stated (i.e. Bylaws vs Standing Rules)?

Suppose the Bylaws state, “Annual meetings shall begin in February and held on the 4th Wednesday of every other month.” Some time after the October meeting someone finally realizes that the 4th Wednesday in December is Christmas Day, and obviously nobody would be attending and a quorum would be out of reach. Assuming there isn’t enough time for previous notice or a call for a special meeting to amend the Bylaws, what happens? Wouldn’t missing or not holding the meeting on the “specific date” in December be a violation of the Bylaws even IF a meeting was held in December on a different day? Just wonder’n!

Okay, "assuming" that it is in fact a right given to all the member's as stated in the Bylaws and it is allowable to comment; if the Board chair states that no comments will be allowed from the non-board members who are in attendance at the Board meeting, can the non-member call a "point of order" or "parliamentary inquiry" and be recognized? Or because the non-member is not actually part of the Board meeting the chair can simply ignore a call for "point of order" or Parliamentary Inquiry"?

Exactly! It's my understanding that if a member is given a right in the Bylaws, it cannot be taken away without changing the Bylaws. All we want is to make sure that the right to comment cannot be taken away.

We're not concerned about the right to speak in debate per se, we are, however, concerned about being allowed to speak at all by stating our "comments", which the Bylaws expressly allow.

I would then, respectfully, argue that it's not really a rule of conduct but it's an actually a Bylaw? Would I be correct in assuming that the general consensus is the Member's (non-board member) right to speak/comment at the Board meetings cannot be taken away but can only be limited to a reasonable amount of time?

Seems to me that the "right to speak/comment" is not a "rule of order"? The "rule of order" would be the limits to speak once for 3 minutes. The "right" is the ability to speak?

Interesting!! The Bylaws also state: "Members in good standing shall be considered as the Membership of the Corporation" right before it states "Members in good standing may vote, serve on the Board or Committees, speak at Membership and Board meetings..." as stated above. So...even though the Members in attendance at the Board meeting aren't themselves members of the Board, they are considered a Member of the same Corporation as the Board members, so why can their rights be taken away by a Board's unanimous consent and who's members belong to the same Corporation? Is this where we get into "additional classes of membership"?

Members can attend open Board of Director Meetings but of course have no vote, but they do have the opportunity to comment. Bylaws state: "Robert's Rules of Order shall govern procedure at all meetings of the Corporation..." Bylaws state: "Members in good standing may vote, serve on the Board or Committees, speak at Membership and Board meetings..." Bylaws state "Meetings of the Board: All meetings of the Board, excluding Executive Session, shall be open and video recorded with time allotted for Members to make comments" Question: If for some reason the Board didn't want to hear comments, but couldn't suspend the rule because it's in the Bylaws, could they limit the time of the comments, for example to 15 seconds or would those limits default back to RONR allowing 2 times, 10 minutes each? Typically, during the Boards debate process, and before they vote, Member comments are allowed and limited to one time for 3 minutes.

Fair enough (pg 592). Thanks! At least now I have a fair chance of presenting my argument and preventing random changes to the Bylaws.

I find it very interesting that even misspelled words in the Bylaws need to go thru the amendment process. Can you please direct me to where it states that in RONR. This is a point I have argued in the past and would like to have where it is characterized by RONR as back-up.

Do the new rules that apply to small boards (i.e. no second, number of times to speak in debate) have to be specifically spelled out and allowed in the bylaws or standing rules to be used or are they just a given as part of the parliamentary authority?

It's a REAL GOOD start! Thanks

I would like to recommend making the allowance of e-meetings put into our corporate Bylaws, and it does appear that they are allowed for non-profits in our state, Arizona. I see that RONR recommends considering and addressing a few of the issues, (and I can see where several more are required) but all the example Bylaws I've researched only address a short paragraph that allows e-meetings in a very general manner with no real extended list of "must's" or "shall's" or details. I'm wondering if the Bylaws should only make the allowance for e-meetings and all the details of the "must's" or "shall's" should be placed in a set of Standing Rules? Is that how it's normally done?

The conditions were; that while the motion was being "postponed to a certain time", alternative places to store certain pieces of equipment would try to be found. The Main motion was causing a certain storage location to be given to another group to turn into office space. Hence, the motion to postpone was made.

So then, if "postpone to a certain time" was a motion, then am I correct that the chair should have allowed it to be amended by adding conditions to the "postponement"?

If the main motion has been stated, then a motion to "postpone to a certain time" is stated, is that motion to "postpone to a certain time" considered a "primary amendment" and a "secondary amendment" can then also be offered? We had a situation where a member wanted to make a motion to add certain conditions to the "postpone" motion, which I would have considered to be the "secondary amendment" but the chair said it was out of order! Am I correct that the chair got it wrong?

Well....I'm old and I'm cheap. LOL!, And if a new edition is coming out soon I can just wait! After all, it seems once the new edition comes out they're good for a 10 year stretches!?!? Besides, I've got you guys who can provide much more succinct responses, and I want to thank you ALL for this great resource.

I've got a worn out copy of the 8th Edition (1980's) and it's time to replace it!?!?!

I'm in desperate need for a more recent edition. Just wondering if anybody knows when the 12th Edition is scheduled for release? I see the National Association of Parliamentarians is requesting suggestions and questions. Thanks

I have a question regarding an issue that will come up Thursday at the Board meeting. Our Long Range Planning Committee has yet another “recommendation” to give to the Board. This one is rather lengthy, and while I’m not going to read all 9 pages of it, I have already emailed it to the members of the Board, it’s appeared online in the minutes of the LRPC’s last meeting, and it’s attached to the agenda, so anyone that either looks at the agenda online or shows up at the meeting will get it in its’ entirety. My question is this: If I present this to the Board without reading the document in it’s entirety, does there have to be a motion to accept the report, or can it just be accepted, the committee thanked, and we move on? Anyway, I have amendments to each of the 16 objectives that they’ve written in case someone on the Board does make a motion and it’s seconded…and I have a couple others that would soften the tone considerably. And, of course, I’m going to make the statement that we need to take the 2-3 hours it will take to discuss each of the objectives in their fullness . Anyway, do we HAVE to have a motion to accept this?

Thanks. I can see where Standing Rules can significantly shorten a set of Bylaws....especially ours!

How do you go about adding a list of Standing Rules (with things like time and place of meetings, or length and time of speakers, etc.) into the Bylaws? Do you make a Bylaw that states "The following are Standing Rules that can be amended or suspended with a majority vote" Then state the list of rules? Is there a specific way of doing it so that they're not confused with a Bylaw?

It really was necessary to provide a full explanation. Would it be appropriate to have simply made a motion to accept the committee report but not vote on it until the next meeting? In the mean time provide access (handouts?) with all the incidental details explained? Or should the report and details be provided prior to the meeting when the motion will be made?

If the duties of an officer, is considered a "special rule of order" because it specifically specifies their duties other than those that would have been specified in RONR, am I correct that it cannot be suspended because its contained within and as part of the Bylaws?