Alex Meed

If I recall correctly, committee instructions are binding, but it didn't immediately jump out at me how those instructions are enforced.

If a committee violates its instructions, are its actions invalid? In other words, could someone raise a point of order that the content of a committee's report does not conform with its instructions? Or that the report is invalid because the committee did something earlier in its existence that its instructions forbade? Or that a committee has not reported by the time at which it was instructed to report? What would happen if the point of order were sustained?

If the answer to the first question is yes, I presume the committee's improvident actions could be ratified. Otherwise, is there a way for the assembly to signal its disapproval of the acts of the committee, other than by voting down its report or discharging it?

That makes perfect sense, thank you all.

So it sounds like whether a member may follow a question with a speech depends on how the member addressed the chair. If the member simply seeks the floor—"Mr. Chairman. (The gentleman is recognized.) Mr. Chairman, I wish to begin with a question to Ms. X."—then he retains the floor after Ms. X answers the question, and may use the floor for any legitimate purpose. His question and Ms. X's answer counts against his time. This is only in order when debate is otherwise in order.

On the other hand, if the member seeks limited recognition—"Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question of Ms. X."—then his recognition is only valid for the request for information, and after receiving the answer (and engaging in the permitted ensuing colloquy) he loses the floor. However, this may be done when debate is not in order, such as when an undebatable question is pending or the previous question has been ordered.

Am I missing anything?

11 hours ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Well, it didn't used to be in there, but so many people went half-mad searching for it that the authors took pity and included a mention of it, if only to point out that it is not a Thing.

So, while RONR mentions the concept of friendly amendments, it is certainly not... friendly to the idea.

11 minutes ago, Guest marcy said:

Can a Chairman create an ad hoc committee with no consensus, vote, etc?

Not unless authorized by the bylaws of your organization. Otherwise a committee must be created by the bylaws or by motion of the assembly of the society. A provision in the bylaws that "the president appoints all committees" empowers the president to appoint the members of all properly established committees, but not to create a committee on the president's own initiative.

I have several questions about requests for information, all of which apply to the case when the person to whom the question is posed is not in the middle of a speech:

Can a member pose a question to a colleague and then, when the question has been answered, continue with a speech? Or does a member lose the floor after posing a question?

Similarly, can a member follow a question with another question? If the member loses the floor upon posing the first question, may he claim preference in recognition to pose the second?

Can a member give a speech and then conclude by asking a question?

Finally, is there any limit on the length or content of a question, and does a question (or an answer to a question) count as one of the two permissible speeches per day on the pending motion?

8 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

Why does the organization have meetings if it is so uncommon to conduct business that it throws the presiding officer for a loop?

I can't speak for Mr. McMillan, but in both deliberative societies I've been active in recently, most decisions are made by the board. Business at general meetings is mostly confined to elections and bylaws amendments, but the main purpose of the general meetings is networking and educational programming. For someone to make an original main motion at one of these meetings is a rare and surprising event. As a result, the societies' presidents are elected for their leadership abilities, not for their skill in presiding, and usually relinquish the chair to one of the few members learned in parliamentary law (sometimes even following the rules in RONR for ceding the chair!) when complicated business comes up.

1 minute ago, Josh Martin said:

Yes.

"If a member is uncertain of the effect of an action proposed for unanimous consent, he can call out, "I reserve the right to object," or, "Reserving the right to object, ..." After brief consultation he can then object or withdraw his reservation." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 55)

Ah, I missed that when I read the book last summer. Thanks.

In the U.S. Senate, a senator may seek the floor when a unanimous consent request is put to the body, begin "Mr. (Madam) President, reserving the right to object," and then wax poetic about the unanimous consent request, possibly choosing to object at the end.

RONR allows a member to reserve a point of order against a motion, but can a member reserve an objection? Or is there any device by which a member may give a speech, or engage in a short colloquy with the requestor of a unanimous consent request, before deciding whether to object?

The section on committees outlines five methods by which committees may be selected, RONR (11th ed.), pp. 493–96. These methods either allow the assembly itself or the presiding officer to appoint committees.

Absent specific authorization in the bylaws, may the assembly delegate the power to appoint a committee to an individual other than the presiding officer? For instance, may the assembly authorize the president to appoint a committee, even if the president is not in the chair or is not at the meeting? May the assembly likewise authorize another officer, such as the vice president or the secretary?

And if such methods are allowed, where do they rank in the list on p. 174, ll. 15–18, that designates the order in which methods of appointment are voted on if more than one is proposed to complete an incomplete motion to commit?

9 hours ago, Bruce Lages said:

Alternatively, be aware that there is really no downside to eliminating this person as a board member. If you wish to use your immediate past president's experience as a board resource - or in fact, any past president's experience - the board is free to invite him (or them) to attend board meetings at any time - even by invitation to executive sessions if deemed necessary - to provide whatever help they can.

This is the argument I have used, along with my experiences with IPP troubles, to mount an unyielding crusade for the abolition of the post of IPP in every bylaws revision I've participated in. So far I'm two for two.

Texas has open carry as well as of just a few years ago, but you still need a gun license. You can take guns into the Capitol if you have a license, though.

On 6/2/2020 at 2:00 AM, Nathan Zook said:

We've used Zoom for our caucuses.  It broke down pretty badly with about forty members, and we did nothing but elections.  The biggest problem was getting all of the members actually in the meeting.  Problems with installing software (despite prior assurances it was working).  Problems getting the link to the meeting.  Problems identifying members to the meeting.  Problems with dropped connections.  Problems with forty people trying to speak at once.  Problems with background noise.  That was after a series of training and testing sessions, one of which had >70% of the members in it.

And oh, yeah.  You have to trust that the Zoom polling function has not been compromised, that your computer has not been compromised, and that the two-person connections were being faithfully reported.  I had to actually raise a point of order against my own election because the chair misinterpreted the effects of the reported two-person connections.

I shudder to think about how our state convention is going to go.

 

My political party's virtual state convention, which is nearing its conclusion, adopted emergency rules that allowed balloting to be done through Google Forms over several days on matters that, at an in-person convention, would be subject to floor votes. Committees met via Zoom; I don't know how they voted, as I wasn't on any committees and didn't attend any committee meetings. But our party has a rule that secret ballots are prohibited, so I imagine they didn't use the Zoom polling function (which is anonymous) and might have used the yes/no buttons or a simple roll call. Caucuses that I've attended haven't taken any binding votes.

Godspeed for your state convention. I can't imagine having that many people voting via Zoom.

The sample bylaws in the 11th edition establish an executive board with "general supervision" over the affairs of the society. The accompanying text suggests that, as an alternative, a board could be established with "full power and authority" over the affairs of the society.

Both of these phrases seem to me like magic words—in other words, specific phrases with carefully defined meanings under Robert's Rules. The problem is that I am not entirely sure what those meanings are. Assuming that no other provision of the bylaws reserves particular powers either to the board or the full society, what powers does a board with "full power and authority" have that a board with "general supervision" does not?

At a meeting, at the appropriate time in the order of business, the chair calls for the report of the Select Committee on Widgets. The committee's chairman, however, is caught by surprise, and while the committee has adopted a report, the chairman will not be prepared to deliver it until later in the meeting. (Or, as an alternative situation, the committee will meet later during the assembly's meeting or during a recess, or perhaps is already meeting, and the chairman will only be able to deliver its report at that time.)

1. How should the chairman inform the meeting of this?
2. What action should the assembly take—e.g., laying the report on the table, or should it simply proceed as if the report was never called for? Or would a member be able to immediately move to discharge the committee or instruct it to report?
3. When the chairman is prepared to deliver the report, how should the chairman notify the assembly—perhaps through a motion to take the report from the table, or seeking recognition (and claiming preference in recognition?), or simply by passing a note to the secretary so that the presiding officer may call for the report?

I often am in assemblies unaccustomed to parliamentary procedure. Their members often seem allergic to making motions. In the small boards where I usually work, I often have to ask people to turn their proposals into motions.

It's even worse when a motion is pending. Then, people begin debating the finer points of the motion, and even articulate specific proposals for its modification, but are loath to offer a motion embodying their ideas. The result is that the discussion goes down a rabbit hole instead of focusing on the general wisdom of the motion, and when the secondary motion is belatedly made the discussion awkwardly lumbers on for much longer than it has to. In one situation, a member was about to make a motion to amend, and then another member, without obtaining the floor, insisted that we "finish" discussing the pending question before considering amendments (a procedure that I believe originated from an assembly we'd been in where the presiding officer falsely held that to be a rule of order, and one that I felt powerless to correct as I was not in the chair). I also don't think the members recognize the two-speech-per-question-per-day limit and why it makes it advantageous to reserve discussions of minutiae for secondary motions.

How do I, either as chairman or as a fellow member, encourage members to make motions embodying their proposals instead of taking the discussion on the original question down strange rabbit holes?

1 minute ago, PSteinbroner said:

Can you provide the specific citation in Roberts Rules prohibiting proxy voting --- the bylaws do not address this issue so the Board has taken the position---it is okay and they don't have to hold a electronic meeting--- thank you--- Alex

"A proxy is a power of attorney given by one person to another to vote in his stead; the term also designates the person who holds the power of attorney. Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless the laws of the state in which the society is incorporated require it, or the charter or bylaws of the organization provide for it." RONR (11th ed.), p. 428, ll. 28–34. But note that if California law or your bylaws or charter expressly allow proxy voting, it is allowed.

The ultimate correct answer might depend on what California law says, and will certainly depend on what your bylaws have to say about proxy meetings and electronic meetings.

We don't interpret the law on this forum, so we can't advise you on that. From the perspective of Robert's Rules only, RONR expressly prohibits both proxy voting and electronic meetings unless authorized by the bylaws.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Alex, for information on learning parliamentary procedure and joining a state association or local unit, I suggest you start by contacting the two national parliamentary organizations.  Those are the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP)  and the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP).   The NAP website is www.parliamentarians.org.  The AIP website is www.aipparl.org.

The NAP is the larger of the two, with state associations and local units, but both are excellent organizations with a lot to offer.  To find out about your NAP state association and whether there are any local units in your area, go to their website, click on the "about" tab at the top of the page, then scroll down and click on "NAP in your area".    Both organizations have "bookstores" and you can also call both organizations for more information.  They will be very helpful.  Keep in mind that during the COVID-19 pandemic, many personnel and officers are working from home and you may have to leave a message and ask for a callback.

I'd been planning on joining my local NAP unit for a while, but its meetings were on the same day as the meetings of the society of which I'm finishing my term as president. And then the pandemic happened. It's definitely on my list for when life starts back up, though.

4 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

Well, one good way is to read the questions and responses on this forum. Over time, you will encounter all kinds of unfortunate situations that could have been avoided had the presiding officer been more skilled in the parliamentary procedure found in RONR.

Think of this forum as an emergency room, and you are the newbie intern doing his residency. Are you prepared to meet the challenges?

Well, given that I'm often the one hauling the screaming patients into the lobby, I'd say the answer is a big fat "no." 😂

I am unsure if a thread of this nature exists and was unable to locate one through about fifteen seconds of using the search bar, so please point me to such a thread if it exists.

I have read the hints to inexperienced presiding officers in RONR (11th ed.), pp. 454–56. I'm curious as to what further insights you may have, however, into what makes a skilled presiding officer. Most of my involvement in deliberative assemblies is in amateur assemblies with only occasional business, minimal grounding in parliamentary law, and bylaws that may be charitably described as eccentric, so I'm particularly interested in suggestions to keep such a meeting running smoothly and by the book. That being said, I do anticipate being involved in assemblies with fewer of those characteristics, though most likely not as chairman or parliamentarian for quite a while.

I've heard that the 12th edition is being planned to be made available electronically. As I am a child of the Information Age, the prospect of carrying around RONR on my laptop or phone, and quoting chapter and verse to those who dare flagrantly misconstrue its provisions in my presence, excites me beyond comprehension.

Is it possible to preorder the electronic version? Will it be made available through Kindle, EPUB, or a similar format; will it be accessible on a password-protected website; both; or some other option? Or have these decisions not yet been made (or been made but not publicized)?

Is the "required annual membership meeting" required solely by your bylaws, or does state or federal law require it?

If it's a legal requirement, or if you're not sure, this is not just a parliamentary question but a legal one as well, and you should consult with an attorney.

We've had issues with dereliction of duty by officers before. It is generally difficult to solicit their resignations, since they go incommunicado, and the board has little appetite for initiating our removal process.

I've been thinking a solution might be to establish some rule that an officer who misses, say, three consecutive weekly board meetings, without providing an excuse to the president, automatically resigns. (The requirement would be for any excuse, not a "satisfactory" excuse, so as to avoid having to vest someone with the discretion to decide what is "satisfactory".) Can this be done by the board, or by the general membership, by any means apart from amending the bylaws?

This is a distillation of what happened in an amateur assembly today in which I took part:

At a convention, a resolution is pending. Delegate A moves the previous question. While the motion for the previous question is pending, Delegate B moves that the resolution be voted on by unit, with each unit in attendance casting the same number of votes instead of each delegate casting one. (This is the voting method prescribed by the bylaws for elections, but not for resolutions.) The chair rules Delegate B's motion out of order, puts the question on Delegate A's motion (which passes), and puts the question on the resolution.

Questions:

• While a motion for the previous question is pending, is it possible for another member to make another motion? Should the chair have recognized Delegate B for that purpose? (In reality, neither Delegate A nor Delegate B sought the floor to make their respective motions, but nobody else did seek the floor.)
• Was it in order for Delegate B to make an incidental motion that adhered to a pending question, but not the immediately pending question? If the latter, would Delegate B's motion have been undebatable since Delegate A's undebatable motion was also pending?
• Is it in order to move that voting on a resolution be by unit if that procedure is prescribed by the bylaws for elections, but not for resolutions? (My opinion: no, since it violates the fundamental principle of one person, one vote, and the provision in the bylaws only applies to elections, meaning for resolutions the fundamental principle applies and cannot be suspended.)

I unfortunately don't have immediate access to the text of the society's bylaws. I would work on locating them, but I'm about to graduate and cease to be a member, and I'm sure the other Robert's Rules nerds in my unit will happily take up the charge.

Everything's bigger in the Texas Legislature. Especially the points of order. (I believe the specific issue was that when the Calendars Committee met to set the calendar for that day, the meeting notice didn't indicate the location of the meeting, as House rules expressly require.)