JustinPappano

On 5/19/2023 at 7:50 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

what reason should we suppose they might have?

Perhaps they are misguided? Or are they seeking out chaos?

Whatever the reason is, I wonder what other options they have; could they consider half of the bylaws seriatim and then move to suspend the rules to consider the rest in gross? 

Suppose a society is revising its Bylaws per 57:5-6 of RONR, and the assembly does not wish to consider the amendments seriatim; instead, the society would like to consider the revision by other means. What other means, if any, would you suggest are in order?

This society requires a 2/3s vote with notice to amend their bylaws, and their parliamentary authority is RONR. 

On 11/29/2022 at 12:17 AM, Atul Kapur said:

and (5)

Dr. Kapur, I agree with you regarding the above. That section, when read in this context, sheds lights on the purposeful distinction.  

Hi all: 

I know and acknowledge that in the committee of the whole, the regular presiding officer leaves the chair. 

The rationale provided in RONR, however, perplexes me. "Also, a chairman of the committee of the whole is appointed and the regular presiding officer leaves the chair, so that, by being disengaged from any difficulties that may arise in the committee, he may be in a better position to preside effectively during the final consideration by the assembly." (RONR (12th ed.) 52:2(a)).  

May some of my friends humour me and provide some context to this rationale, i.e. what is meant by "any difficulties that may arise in the committee." Perhaps I need to be quicker this evening, but I cannot think of a scenario as RONR describes.

A discussion on the appropriateness of when an assembly may elect to use either the committee of the whole or the quasi committee of the whole may be fruitful. RONR provides that the former is better suited for large assemblies, and the latter is ideal for meetings of medium size; perhaps that is relevant?

Thank you! 

On 7/11/2022 at 10:56 AM, Gary Novosielski said:

And irrespective of yours, while it is correct to say that if a voting threshold is expressed as a fraction of those present abstentions have the effect of a No vote, they never count as a No vote.  This may seem like splitting hairs, but the distinction becomes relevant in the case of a motion to Reconsider, which (except in committee) can be moved only by a member who voted with the prevailing side on the original motion.  A member who abstained on a motion that was ultimately lost cannot be said to have voted on the prevailing side. [37:10(a)]

I agree with you completely! Splitting hairs, as it may be, it is a distinction that we all acknowledge, an abstention is not a vote in the negative; although, I did not think going into those weeds would be productive to try and illustrate the point to our guest. 

On 7/11/2022 at 8:28 AM, Richard Brown said:

Which Edition of Robert’s Rules of Order are you referring to?

Mr. Brown, I believe our guest is referring to FAQ #6 on the RONR website.  

On 7/11/2022 at 4:01 AM, Guest Christopher Baran said:

In the case of a 2/3 majority vote needing for a motion to pass.  It does not matter what other votes or non-votes are out there.  To be clear...  Rule 44 subsection 9 should be re-written to state unequivocally:

I think you misunderstand the fundamental concept that RONR is conveying in 44:9. 

Irrespective of your view, when the vote threshold states "majority of those present" or "two-thirds votes of those present" or "63.5% of those present" an abstention does count as a negative vote: 

Picture this: There are ten (10) members present. The bylaws (or some other rule) (unwisely) state that the pending question requires a majority of those present to carry. The vote is taken, four (4) in favour, two  (2) opposed, four (4) abstentions. A majority of those present = six (6) – as only four (4) votes were in favour, the vote fails. 

This is the fundamental mathematics that RONR is referring to in 44:9. 

On 7/11/2022 at 4:01 AM, Guest Christopher Baran said:

I would also state that in the case of the bylaw of an organization stating the 2/3 members present ( voters in good standing with the organization ) or 2/3 of the entire membership that an abstention essentially does count as a vote at that point.  To analyze the then vote to such a degree that it has the affect of a no-vote is incorrect, because no votes are not counted either when a 2/3's majority is needed.  It is even clearer to just state that any votes other than yes votes are not necessary to be counted because the only concern is meeting the 2/3's threshold for yes votes.

I think you align with RONR in many respects, as seen in the text quoted above. However, you have misinterpreted the text of RONR when referring to calling the negative vote as intrinsically irrelevant (44:9); the votes other than yes are relevant as they indicate, in the case of a vote requiring a threshold of those present if the threshold has been met. 

I believe that what we all may agree with is that it is often wiser to state "a majority of those present and voting" rather than "a majority of those present"

I am glad there is a resolution. 

On 4/20/2022 at 12:25 PM, Guest Alice said:

(And it seems like the names of individuals who simply expressed opinions should NOT be included)

As many have said on this forum before, the minutes are a record of what decisions were made, not what was said. 

On 4/20/2022 at 10:14 AM, Guest Alice said:

but the current voting body has no way to know if the draft minutes are accurate.

Does the body have any doubts regarding the accuracy of the newly discovered draft? If there is a reason then some additional considerations have to be taken into account. 

Although, a body not knowing if it is accurate raises the issue that the current composition does not know if the minutes of a decade ago are accurate either. 

I do agree with Mr. Martin that reaching out to a person who would know may be advisable, especially if this is the only set of minutes that are for some unknown reason unapproved. 

On 4/4/2022 at 5:42 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

And it's worth mentioning that a rule permitting straw polls would not make them any less dilatory.

I do agree with Mr. Novosielski, I would not recommend straw polls.  

On 4/4/2022 at 11:42 AM, Alexander George said:

And once the rules are changed to allow for straw polls, what is the nature of the motion requesting such a poll and how does it fit into the order of priority of other motions?

As for the rest of your inquiry, Mr. George, I believe your group in their rules would have to determine that. 

As you know, RONR does not have rules on the matter - you would be creating a custom rule that hopefully would make clear how the rule would work.  

On 4/4/2022 at 11:42 AM, Alexander George said:

How might such a motion to change the rules be formulated (and would that require a 2/3 majority)?

I would suggest what you are looking for are either 1. A special rule of order on the matter or 2. a Bylaw amendment on the matter (the former being preferred in my opinion). 

To adopt special rules of order requires (a.) previous notice and a 2/3s vote or (b.) a vote of a majority of the entire membership. (RONR 2:22). 

On 3/31/2022 at 7:34 PM, Josh Martin said:

So which one is RONR referring to in this case?

I am up in the air on this one myself, Mr. Martin. Although, my gut tells me that in this case, it refers to the office which is tasked with keeping the records, i.e. the officer secretary. 

I have been a part of many groups where the secretary (or treasurer) does not actually do the recording of the minutes (or financials), but instead, a staff member does that work; it would, in my opinion, be odd to have a non-elected and non-appointed non-member of a body sign for them on their minutes (or financial documents). 

The minutes, as we know, are the official record of the proceedings of an assembly, and they are usually documents of a legal nature for incorporated groups. This fact leads me to believe that RONR is referring to the secretary (officer), not the person acting as recording officer. I will call to our attention the fact that in 48:7, RONR refers to the president signing the minutes (if the assembly wishes). If the authorship team wanted to convey the presiding officer, why not say chairman? I think they mean the officers in both cases. 

Although, whenever there is ambiguity, if who signs the minutes matters to your organization, I'd recommend adopting a clear-cut rule on the topic! 

On 3/31/2022 at 12:56 PM, Wild Dunes said:

I have read conflicting information on these boards. Part of the conflict could come simply from the response being applied to 'secretary' assuming the secretary is taking the minutes. I can't quote the posts here, but there are varied replies, some saying that whomever takes the minutes, signs the minutes, and others that point to the secretary. 

If you want a definitive answer, I suggest your group makes a rule regarding who signs the minutes - I have seen both practices you have described. 

I do not think you will find a satisfactory answer in RONR regarding your specific situation. RONR states that the Secretary should sign the minutes (48:7). I think some of my friends may disagree with me, but I would read that to mean the Officer, not the specific person writing the minutes; although, it is up to each group to interpret their own rules - in this case, make a rule if you want to remove any potential doubt. 

What are the duties of your Secretary? What is the scope of the recording secretary's duties?

On 2/18/2022 at 10:49 AM, Peter said:

When there are many millions of citizen voters voting for those seeking public office, this seems correct and fair. But elected officials voting to further elect themselves to higher office/more authority seems very unfair and unethical.

Irrespective of what the others have correctly said about RONR, if this quote was accurate, how would a municipality organize itself? Where I am from, Municipalities immediately after election vote for which of their own shall constitute committees of the council and other boards in the municipality - they all get paid for this. If you could not vote to fill a vacancy in these roles, why can you vote to fill them in the first place? Also, if you do not think it is right in the first place, how do you wish for governmental bodies to staff their committees and boards by lot?

Note: I am not a lawyer, let alone one in NJ, this not legal advice. 

Hi all

Suppose that a group adopts a motion stating that ABC committee is delegated a task to review applicants for an honour with a framework of how to do so in the motion.

If the ABC committee then recommends John Smith for the award, and the group adopts that recommendation, if later it is found out that the ABC committee did not review the applicants using the framework set out is the original motion to is rewarding John Smith a continuing breach as a motion is in affect that prescribes the method of reviewing candidates? Or is it not a continuing breach as the motion adopted does not conflict with the already adopted motion but rather the procedure was not followed? 

For unbecoming conduct outside of a meeting, I would suggest you review your rules to see if you even adhere to RONR; and if you do, read Chapter XX, which outlines disciplinary procedures. Of course, you may have your own specific rules regarding discipline. 

On 1/22/2022 at 5:00 PM, Tomm said:

Google "Parliamentary Procedure Books A Bibliography Second Edition 2010 Stran L. Trout" 

A paperback photographic reproduction is available for $10 w $3.00 S&H

Thank you but I have already followed up on that and have not heard back re: international shipping. 

Hi all, 

Does anyone know where I can find a copy of the above by Stran L. Trout? 

I have reached out to his email and have not heard back nor can I find it on NAP's site. 

Thank you in advance! 

On 1/21/2022 at 3:17 PM, Tomm said:

For your reading pleasure!!!!!!!

Respectfully, rules can always be changed. 

On 1/21/2022 at 12:53 PM, Tomm said:

We are already limited to 3 minutes. It's just that things are that bad that many complaints are necessary.

Perhaps I am the outlier here, but a board meeting is a place to conduct business not to hear countless complaints. 

If the organization wishes to hear the complaints perhaps they should organize a time where officers can hear members out, not in the context of a business meeting. 

And if things are that bad, why does the membership not proceed with removal and/or discipline? If there are countless members who will show up to meetings to lodge complaints for hours, it is clear they want change. 

On 1/21/2022 at 10:12 AM, Tomm said:

Although there probably isn't anything in RONR that prevents a Bylaw such as this, do you have any suggestions as to how to counter this amendment? It's basically just another tool of the board to shut the Membership down!

The proposed amendment is ill advised in the bylaws and my simple advice to counter the amendment is to: vote against it. 

Usually I would have to ask to see the bylaw provisions in question, but finding them was surprisingly easy. 

The clause in UAW Constitution follows:

I would be interested to know what the bylaw situation is specifically about. 

As we know, when a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal is dilatory.

I am not saying this is the case, but I remain interested in why this President is so adamant about their position. 

On 1/7/2022 at 12:04 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

if the rules in RONR apply. 

Agreed completely. Only said usually if the OP had rules specifically about special meetings contrary to RONR. 

On 1/5/2022 at 12:28 PM, Guest Helen said:

This is a special meeting as it is not identified in the Bylaws. We have been given about 2 1/2 weeks notice.

 

Usually, special meetings must identify what matter they are addressing in the call to the meeting and shall not address any other matter at that meeting (9:13 and 9:15). So if the idea here is to spring a surprise topic to the Board, that is most likely not permitted.