Shmuel Gerber

Well then I have to disagree. I don't see what the point would be in having a rule that enfranchises the members in a certain way, if 2/3 of the members voting could get their desired outcome by suspending the rules when they could not achieve it directly.

Well I still think there is something fishy about suspending this rule. If this method of electing the committee were prescribed directly in the bylaws, would you still say that the rules could be suspended so as to disallow cumulative voting?

That's an interesting point, but I don't see why it should make any logical difference.

I do not think that the rule in 46:43 protects "a minority of a particular size" as contemplated by the rule in 25:2(7). In that case, maybe the rule cannot be suspended at all, as suspending the rule would take away a member's right to vote (as many times as he is entitled to).

Especially when he's absent. 🙂

That's an interesting point, but under such a theory a motion, even if it requires only a majority vote, could never be adopted by unanimous consent, because absent members might have shown up to vote against the motion during the time it would have taken to vote.

Or the vote could be taken, without suspending the rules, before they show up. By being absent, they have no say in the matter, so it doesn't matter what they could do if they were present. If you were talking about a situation in which the election could not be held at that time but a motion is made to suspend the rules controlling the election, that would (or at least might) be a different story.

This seems to me a terrible argument, because only 120 members are present, and the absentees cannot vote for anyone regardless of which rule is in place.

I don't know what else to tell you. Apparently something went wrong. 🙂 I've cleared the cache on the system end, and I suggest you do the same in your browser. And click those little slider icons next to the URL in this page to clear the cookies and site data from this site.

The forum software was upgraded yesterday. Did you have the problem both before then and since?

Please stop trying to post messages with external links. Thank you.

What rule?

No. Yes.

Robert's Rules of Order says nothing about this.

I think semi-colons are used only in by-laws.

It's not listed in the index, but RONR does mention semicolons with regard to the Object article in the bylaws, in paragraph 56:18 of the 12th edition.

I think the train of the topic has left the rails, if indeed there ever were any.

You say there will be no applicable bylaws, but then you talk about the current bylaws. From your descriptions it seems that this organization already exists, but according to RONR, it is the adoption of bylaws that creates the organization. Without further details I don't see how we can help figure out what vote is required to adopt new bylaws.

I'm sorry, but this sounds like mumbo-jumbo to me. Are there bylaws in place or not, and if so what do they say about their amendment?

See RONR (12th ed.) 56:15. If the text has been distributed to the members in advance, the committee chair can move its adoption without reading it. See 4:5.

Repairing your mistakes in the most humorous way possible would be a close contender, IMO.

I would say it is written as a separate provision, but obviously the first provision must be fulfilled as well: "Proposed amendments to the bylaws not mailed to the State Executive Committee thirty days prior to the convening of the State Convention shall not be considered in order unless the propounder of the proposed amendment shall have first furnished a minimum of one thousand (1000) copies of the proposed amendment, and it [the proposed amendment so furnished] must receive a two-thirds vote of the Delegates present and voting at any State Convention [to be approved]." The structure is almost identical to the other provision requiring printed copies, which specifically says "to be approved".

Right. If members decide to do something on their own when they have no valid power to act for the organization, they are responsible for what they've done. Although in most cases, I'm not so sure that the primary risk isn't borne by those who actually carry out the decision. But maybe that is a legal question rather than a parliamentary one. 🙂

No kvetching, no hissing, no spitting (p. xxxiv). Are parliamentarians just a bunch of killjoys? 🙂

Without disciplinary proceedings, I don't think the society can “order” the board members to repay unauthorized expenditures in the same way that it can order the treasurer to issue a check, or the secretary to issue a meeting notice. But the society can demand such payment the same way it can demand something from anyone who owes it money. The society can determine that the action taken was outside the board's authority and therefore the board members are personally responsible. And then if the board members don't want to pay, the society can attempt to force the issue, either through legal proceedings or an internal disciplinary process. My quibble is not with whether the board members may have to pay or do have to pay, but I'm just not thrilled with your proposed distinction between parliamentary requirements and legal obligations. There may always be legal considerations regarding the real-world ramifications of decisions made in a meeting; parliamentary procedure is merely concerned with how those decisions are validly made, and does not itself impose financial obligations. But it is true that RONR makes mention in several places of incurring monetary obligations, such as: • "It is different with members who have not paid their dues up to the date of sending in their resignations. Until they have settled their dues, the society is under no obligation to accept their resignations, and thus additional amounts may become due." (32:8) • "Members cannot be assessed any additional payment aside from their dues unless it is provided for in the bylaws." (56:19) • "Punishments that a society can impose generally fall under the headings of censure, fine (if authorized in the bylaws), suspension, or expulsion. The extreme penalty that an organization or society can impose on a member is expulsion." (62:1) • "The usual possible penalties for an officer are censure or removal from office, although in special circumstances others may be appropriate (for example, to repay into the society's treasury funds that the officer has been found guilty of misappropriating, perhaps with an added fine)." 63:33(f) But I think those are just useful provisions for a society to have, usually arising out of the nature of bylaw provisions, and not really matters of parliamentary procedure per se.