JustinPappano

Hi all, 

I wanted to ask a hypothetical about the use of a credentials committee at an AGM. Is it proper to require prior registration to an AGM and then have a credentials committee of sorts as per 59:14?
 
 I recognize the difference between an AGM and a Convention from RONR's perspective; I wonder what the members here think about the use of registration as per 59:14 at a general meeting of an organized society? I think from an organizational perspective; it would be difficult (especially in a virtual world) to not ID the members to ensure they are entitled to be present and vote; although, at the same time, how can a group (other than the assembly themselves) impose such a rule, such as registering in advance. How would the assembly be able to make such a rule if it is not clear who is entitled to vote prior to the meeting's call to order? My hypothetical would be a society that is so large that it is not reasonable that the Chair or anyone for that matter would recognize every member (several thousand). Further, if an ID is required to enter the meeting, how is this rule applied to the membership but not made by the membership; to me, it seems incongruent with some of the principles I have seen discussed here, such as a rule of the society can only be interpreted by the society not the Board or any other body (56:68).  
 
 Anyways, I have been trying to wrap my brain around this one and have come here for guidance. Thank you all in advance

10 minutes ago, Guest Becky Martin said:

A committee Chair votes yes or no on one specific issue. A tie occurs, then the Chair votes a second time as a tie breaker.

No. A fundamental principle of parliamentary law is that one member gets one vote. "It is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member ... is entitled to one -- and only one -- vote on a question" (RONR 45:2). 

A committee chair usually votes with all of the other members, even if they didn't, which is the case with the presiding officer of a large deliberative assembly, it is clear that they cannot vote twice. The presiding officer of a large deliberative assembly may vote to create a tie or to break one, but unquestionably they shall not do both simultaneously.  

22 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

Just a coincidence?

Hardly! I was inspired by that question with a situation I have encounter at one of my orgs. 

22 minutes ago, Gary Novosielski said:

In any case, if the chair of the standing committee is also presiding at the meeting where the report is received, the committee can designate another of its members to be the reporting member, and to make any motions arising out of the report.  The president could then preside normally over the meeting at which the report was received.

Thank you for this! I think it's the best way to do it, less questioning the impartiality of the chair. 

34 minutes ago, R.S.M said:

What does your organization's By-Laws state about the chairs participation in debate?

Nothing on the topic, it is the standard bylaw out of RONR with minor modifications. The Board is a large one, therefore the Chair has always adhered to all of the rules set out in RONR regarding the Rule Against the Chair's participation in Debate as per 43:29. 

Hi all, I have been looking for an answer to this question in RONR and cannot find it directly addressed.

If the Chairman of a standing committee also happens to be the President of the Board, what occurs when the standing committee reports with recommendations to be debated?

My first impression, as to ensure impartiality of the Chair, is that the President should allow the Vice President to preside for the duration of the debate coming from the committee's report. But it also occurs to me that the President could allow another member to present the report of the standing committee and remain in the Chair during the recommendations, as long as he does not debate of course. This brings up the question of the definition of the reporting member, I have read the sections in the index referring to them, and cannot find a specific definition, other than that they are usually members of the assembly (51:11). 

What are your thoughts? Thank you in advance for your help! 

I have not heard anything about this, but I do find it interesting to see how many university/college boards/senates need the aid of a parliamentarian. 

45 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

It seems the idea was that an abstention may not be a vote, but a person who abstains is still a person voting - a pretzel I cannot begin to untangle.

I have seen this before! Here follows a quote from the procedural bylaw of my local municipality up here in Ontario, Canada: "if any Member present refuses to vote or fails to vote, the Member shall be deemed to vote against the question unless prohibited by statute or this By-law."

Maybe a more experienced member of the forum from Canada could shed light on if this is more common up here than in the US. 

4 hours ago, coffmantl said:

Can a member of City Counsel sign up for Public Comments, then address the counsel as a citizen during the Public Comment portion of the City Counsel Meeting, then resume their role as a counsel person?

Having seen a question similar to this on the AIP forums, it was noted by members of the forum that to engage in debate as a council member may be a violation of open meeting legislation as the topics were not posted in advance. 

I have to premise my statement by saying that I do not have first-hand knowledge of the legislation or your specific situation and am just making a general observation rather than a legal opinion.

Unless there is a rule of your organization to the contrary, RONR states, "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." (470). 

I will let the more experienced members of the forum answer what should be done in this specific scenario; although, I believe, as it is not possible to go back in time and this does not seem to fit the characteristics of a scenario (to my knowledge) that would void the motion itself, it therefore should remain in force. 

1 hour ago, Guest Guest John said:

Amended 10/05]

Section 3. Voting by Ex-Officio Board

Members. Ex-officio Board members shall

have authority to cast a full vote (as a team

when there are co-chairs) at Board meetings.

This section leads me to believe that the Chair's appointees do have the right to vote and are members of the Board with all the privileges of any other member.
 

To my knowledge, the mention that they shall, "cast a full vote (as a team when there are co-chairs)..." is incongruent with RONR, as each member has one vote not some sort of team making one member (half a vote each?) in those situations, it is up to the organization to interpret their bylaws.

This answer would be defined in your bylaws; it is unclear whether the three positions you have mentioned are part of the Board of Directors or are just appointees by the president to carry out specific duties. 

No matter the composition of your Board and who can and cannot vote should be outlined in your bylaws, and without specific text from them, I cannot say if these positions have voting rights or other rights. 

I agree with Atul above. 

I think this situation brings up a bigger conversation of how organizations handle minutes in relation to recordings of meetings. I have found that recordings of proceedings in some organizations cross the line from transparency to tedium when issues arise from reviewing the footage after the meeting and having small (or big) procedural measures repeatedly challenged by members who at times have an axe to grind. I would suggest that if this is something that is a frequent occurrence, the Board of directors should take measures to curb these kinds of unapproved edits and challenges by either adopting a policy or a motion regarding the situation; it is prudent to note that the record of a meeting is the minutes, not a recording. 

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

If the member's vote had been correctly counted, and the Secretary simply made an error in transcribing the vote in the minutes, that would be one thing. My understanding, however, is that the member's vote was incorrectly counted, and the minutes correctly reflect how the member's vote was counted.

I did not think of this when reviewing the original post; after re-reading it, I am inclined to agree with you, Mr. Martin. My answer was based on the assumption that it was a typographical error in the minutes, which in this instance, I now believe, is not the case. Thank you for your insight; I always enjoy learning something new!

An essential factor, in this case, is whether the assembly has already approved the minutes of the meeting with the incorrect vote record. 

If the assembly has already approved these minutes (from the sounds of it this is not the case), you will make use of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted; please refer to page 305 of RONR. The motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, requires a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent. 

In the case that the assembly has not yet approved the minutes (which seems to be the case) when the minutes are to be read (or after reading), the chair should then ask if there are corrections to the minutes. If there are any (which in this case there seems to be) they can be made at that time; they are usually handled by unanimous consent; if for some reason, the assembly denies unanimous consent, it is dealt with through a subsidiary motion to Amend. In this case, I would refer you to pages 354, 355, 473, and 474 of RONR, which all outline the minutes and how they are read and approved. Also, it is important to note that this only applies to meetings where, the next regular meeting will be held within a quarterly time interval, when the session does not last longer than one day, and when there will be no change or replacement of a portion of the membership before the next session. If none of these are the case, refer to pages 474 and 475 of RONR for the procedure of approving the minutes. 

What you have deciphered so far is correct, a parliamentarian who is a member of the assembly which they are advising has a duty to maintain a position of impartiality, which includes not making motions, participating in debate, or voting (except voting on votes by ballot). Parliamentarians cannot temporarily leave their post to debate or make motions as a presiding officer may from time to time, nor can they vote when their vote will make a difference.

The reference in RONR, where you will find all of this information, is page 467, which outlines a member acting as the assembly's parliamentarian; for more information about the office of the parliamentarian, consult pages 465-467.