Shmuel Gerber

The book is being misquoted. What is says is "8. A negative vote on these motions can be reconsidered, but not an affirmative vote." The words "these motions" refers to the head of the paragraph, which says, "The motions to Rescind and to Amend Something Previously Adopted:"

See https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/38364-welcome-to-the-official-ronr-q-a-forums/

Not that I can recall. 🙂 Why does this matter?

"Custom 2:25 In some organizations, a particular practice may sometimes come to be followed as a matter of established custom so that it is treated practically as if it were prescribed by a rule. If there is no contrary provision in the parliamentary authority or written rules of the organization, such an established custom is adhered to unless the assembly, by a majority vote, agrees in a particular instance to do otherwise. However, if a customary practice is or becomes in conflict with the parliamentary authority or any written rule, and a Point of Order citing the conflict is raised at any time, the custom falls to the ground, and the conflicting provision in the parliamentary authority or written rule must thereafter be complied with. If it is then desired to follow the former practice, a special rule of order (or, in appropriate circumstances, a standing rule or a bylaw provision) can be added or amended to incorporate it."

This seems to me very similar, or maybe even identical, to reports of officers, boards, and committees.

I see now that you put a question in the title of the topic. The president can give a report that includes recommendations, although it is best practice for another member to move their implementation. As far as taking up a question before its appointed time, I would want to know how it came to appear under New Business to begin with. But in any case, once the question has been decided it is too late to raise a point of order about these irregularities.

Do you have a question?

Public speaking by non-board members is not governed by the ordinary rules of debate. Often the rules are stricter. Regardless, this is a judgement call for the chair and members of the board.

Although there is no specific rule in RONR against bringing the same charges twice, it does say this: "63:5 A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated." And "if the charges are not substantiated, the officer or member is exonerated and any authority, rights, duties, and privileges of office or membership that had been suspended are automatically restored." (63:30) I think it is reasonable to assume in most cases that it would be unfair, and a violation of due process, to prefer charges again and hold another trial at a later time for the same offense. But if (very) good cause can be shown, then it's possible that another investigation and trial might be justified. For example, if criminal proceedings were brought and the member was found guilty in a court of law, I don't think the society would be required to keep him as a member simply because its own investigation and trial were insufficient to prove guilt.

It seems clear from your description that the debate that happened at the meeting is independent of the question being presented by ballot. I would not describe this at all as "only the voting process is being delayed." However, I don't think any of that is relevant. Your bylaws say that they can be amended by a mail vote by the membership. If one or more members think that this is not in accord with the law, let them show you the exact law that they think prevents it, or at least some reasonable evidence of the existence of such a law as it pertains to a vote of the membership in your particular type of organization, and then the organization can make some judgment as to whether it is applicable and means what they claim it means.

What do you mean by "Chair starts debate"?

There's nothing wrong with a member's reading his motion from papers. In fact it is recommended.

😁

I'm not particularly fond of this formulation, although it conveys the correct idea in practice. I think what it really means is something like "For example (assuming that there are no voters having fractions of a vote…) … If 19 votes are cast, 10 is a majority (more than 9½), as are 11 through 19, but 0 through 9 are not." But I'm not saying you should expect to see such wording in the 13th edition. 🙂

Atul, can you be sarcastic?

I doubt that this provision relates to amendments adopted by the board. We are not here to interpret statutes, but I get the sense that this issue has been raised in the past and that we are continually retreading the same ground.

So far, all we know is that the quorum requirement is "more than 2/3 attendees". That's not exactly a lot to go on. I guess we also need to know whether or not in this board "fractional persons" exist. 🙂 This logic is almost unassailable, yet everyone here (including me) seems to think it is probably wrong in this case.

9:6 "Each regular meeting normally completes a separate session, as explained in 8:4 (see Adjourned Meeting, 9:17–19 below, however). Some societies have frequent meetings for social or cultural purposes at which business may be transacted, and also hold a session every month or quarter especially for business. In such societies, the term regular meeting applies particularly to the regular business session."

Yes, I misread that part. So for purposes of this election, is this person, in fact, a "voting member?" That's an interesting question. I don't see why it would be unfair to allow such delegates to vote in the election, unless the votes are secret and there is some concern that the delegate will disregard the instructions from the members. Another approach is to provide for alternates at the convention, which is a typical bylaw provision anyway. Such a provision could also include the possibility of the delegate reclaiming his seat from the alternate some time after having excused himself from acting as a delegate (which he could do after the election is conducted).

Your bylaws take precedence over RONR. So, what would be more correct is to go according to the existing bylaws, unless and until the relevant provisions are amended to say something else. A quorum depends on the number of voting members present. I don't think the fact that, in a particular scenario under your bylaws, a certain member is restricted in casting a vote for himself, would prevent him from being counted toward the quorum.

That depends on what the bylaws say regarding amendments.

Yes. I'm asking you to explain why the book says what it says. 🙂

How does this first point affect a rule of parliamentary procedure?

The bylaws in question do not require previous notice and require a 2/3 vote to amend. In the 7th and 8th editions of RONR, this paragraph began with "No amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or rule to be amended." In the 9th edition, this became "Unless the bylaws permit their amendment without previous notice (which they should not do), no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or rule to be amended." That was clearly an improvement over the previous editions, but it didn't directly address the possibility of considering a bylaw amendment under the default rules in RONR when no notice is required but notice was given, in which case the ability to adopt amendments to the pending bylaw amendment that goes outside the scope of the notice depends on whether a majority of the entire membership is present. In the 10th edition, the text was changed to what it still currently says in the 12th edition. I agree that it can cause confusion, and so can what is said in 35:4.

A motion should be made and adopted to appoint a committee to revise the bylaws. When the committee is done with its work, the secretary of the organization should include notice of the proposed revision with the call of the meeting at which it is expected that the revision will be considered. At the meeting, the committee chair would move "to amend the bylaws by substituting for the existing bylaws the committee's proposed revision as given with the notice of this meeting."