Shmuel Gerber

Earlier you said that the statement in your bylaws regarding the board dismissing a member "is the one and only statement in the entirety of the Bylaws addressing any matter of discipline whatsoever." But now you seem to be saying that it would be appropriate to bring a charge before the board for "violation of facility rules". This implies that the board has some jurisdiction regarding enforcement of facility rules. Which one of these is correct?

It's not clear to me how the special meeting is being called. Is the assembly itself at one meeting deciding to call a special meeting? Or are you trying to get a majority to agree outside of a meeting (e.g. by email) that a special meeting called by some other persons (e.g. the president or a number of members requesting it) will be held in executive session?

Matters discussed during an executive session are not secret from the members of the body that is meeting.

Lesser discipline, perhaps. You're still not talking about lesser charges. You're talking about imposing a lesser penalty for the same charge.

Again it seems to me that you are conflating two things. If the board finds the member guilty of "conduct detrimental to the objectives of The Association" but there is less than a 2/3 vote to dismiss the member (or actually a vote of two-thirds of the entire Board, which is not the same as a 2/3 vote), then maybe you have a question whether the board can suggest some lesser punishment to the membership. But I still don't quite understand what lesser charge you think can be brought if the member was found not to have engaged in conduct detrimental to the objectives of the association. Conduct only slightly beneficial to the objectives of the association?

You make a good point.

You seem to be confusing a charge for a lesser offence with a lesser punishment for a given offense. You also may be confusing a charge (a statement of "an offense—that is, a particular kind of act or conduct that entails liability to penalty under the governing rules—of which the accused is alleged to be guilty") with a specification (a statement of "what the accused is alleged to have done which, if true, constitutes an instance of the offense indicated in the charge") RONR 63:24. According to what you've posted, the board simply has the power to dismiss a member for "conduct detrimental to the organization." If nothing that the member is suspected or accused of rises to this level, then the board has no power to bring any charge at all. Of course, I haven't read your bylaws, and for some reason you refuse to quote even the relevant provisions. You say you "would agree that, if a charge of conduct detrimental to the organization is preferred, then the motion to punish may not be less than dismissal." Well, if your organization agrees with that as well, then it would seem there is nothing left for the board to do if no such charge is made.

What about Principle #7? "The imposition of a definite penalty for a particular action prohibits the increase or diminution of the penalty. If the bylaws state that a member shall be dropped from membership on a board if he misses three consecutive regular meetings of the board, he cannot be retained by vote of the board, nor can more severe penalties be imposed, such as a fine in addition. If, for example, it is desired to allow the board to diminish or waive the penalty, or increase it, the bylaw must not make it definite or must specifically provide for diminution, waiver, or enlargement."

The board can agree that if the member resigns, further disciplinary investigation will be dropped. I see no need for the board to inform the membership of charges that are not being brought, when the whole purpose of the resignation is to avoid the embarrassment of expulsion.

Doing this would require the EC to actually meet, and we have no reason to meet other than this requirement. Which is why I was thinking originally that I just need to have one EC meeting per year and record all the queued-up EC decisions in the minutes of that meeting, so there's something in our minutes book. A reason to meet would be if any member of the executive committee disagrees with a proposed action. The purpose of having a committee or board instead of one officer make these decisions is to have the benefit of more than one person's opinion, not to rubberstamp every action ever proposed.

The rule in RONR (12th ed.) 24:3 states, "when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory and is not allowed." A member may appeal from the decision of the chair even if the decision is based on a rule, if the member disagrees with how the rule should be interpreted and applied to the particular situation.

This second paragraph is confusing because, as you say in the first paragraph, there should not be a motion to reconsider the vote on the motion to Amend, but rather a motion to reconsider the votes on both the main motion and the amendment.

This is getting well beyond the scope of the forum. @FreedomThroughRules If there is anything from your last post that you want to save, please do so right away because pretty soon it will probably be deleted.

Then what the [bleep] have we been talking about for the past 20+ responses?

If the Constitution makes no mention of standing rules, then I would tend to agree that no standing rules can be adopted. But it does provide for rules of parliamentary procedure (Robert's Rules of Order and special rules of order), so I don't think many will be persuaded that the provision has no effect.

Haven't you heard? We're all textualists now.

The text of 44:13, "In an appeal from the decision of the chair, a tie vote sustains the chair’s decision, even though his vote created the tie, on the principle that the decision of the chair can be reversed only by a majority." refers specifically to the motion known as Appeal, as discussed in §24 (see especially 24:3(7)). It has nothing to do with how the chair decides to vote on some substantive question. That is a vote of the chair, not a decision of the chair.

Then they should have attended the meeting. That's true under the rules in RONR. But I can see why it may not be self-evident in all cases. For example, suppose the annual dues are currently $100 and notice is given of a motion to amend the amount to $10, with the rationale that the organization should charge only minimal dues to broaden the membership and should raise the needed funds by other means. There may be many members who are perfectly OK with adopting such an amendment, but would be adamantly opposed to reducing the dues to $90, which would neither encourage much new membership nor provide the funds needed to run the organization. If such members think that this amendment exceeds the scope of notice, they would be wrong but not illogical.

I don't recall that discussion (which of course doesn't prevent anyone from finding it if it exists), but I think I do recall a fairly recent disagreement over whether it takes a 2/3 vote to adopt an agenda setting a time for adjournment at a meeting with a pre-existing order of business, as would be required to adopt an agenda setting a special order. My contention is that a majority vote is sufficient to set the time for adjournment. In short, I'm saying that to schedule a time to adjourn takes a majority vote; the assembly can then adjourn earlier by majority vote (at the time that it wants to adjourn, although not while other business is pending), but it will take more than a majority vote to delay the time for adjournment.

By that logic, the entire article specifying the parliamentary authority should be ignored. As Mr. Martin has already noted, in any organization the Constitution supersedes any conflicting provisions of adopted standing rules.

Because the paragraph is dealing principally with adjourning without a motion, and this case is distinguished from what is treated in the next paragraph: "21:15 When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business (41) at each regular meeting (9), the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, “Is there any further business?” If there is no response, the chair can then say, “Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.”"

By the way, I think the bolded sentence in my reply above was added in the 10th edition, but I'm too lazy to check right now.

According to Table II, No. 3, a motion to adjourn in advance of a time already set requires (only) a majority vote. I think the book is pretty clear about the fact that the adoption of an agenda or program does not mean that adjourning earlier will require more than a majority vote: "21:14 Cases Where the Assembly Can Adjourn Without a Motion. If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned, as described for a recess in 20:6. If the assembly does not then wish to adjourn, the matter is handled as a case of setting aside the orders of the day, as explained in 18:8 (see also 41:56). If such a meeting wishes to adjourn earlier, it is done by a main motion, which, however, can be adopted by a majority vote (see 21:3). …" I don't see any rule that would make the vote requirement different from a majority in a session consisting of a single meeting. The only scenario I could think of where more than a majority vote would be required to adjourn is if it is desired to fix, in advance, a different time for adjourning than the time that has been previously set. In that case, the assembly is not attempting to adjourn immediately, which would require only a majority vote, but is instead attempting to amend something previously adopted, which in the case of an adopted agenda requires either a 2/3 vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership.

The rules in RONR generally assume that there is a whole number of members, each of whom is entitled to cast one vote (if present at the time of the vote). "Majority of the voting power" could indicate that multiple or fractional votes are possible.

This is news to me. 😀