Billy D

In a recent Special Town Meeting that was called to pass a budget, there were two other Articles warned for voters to decide. The one in question for discussion here read : Shall the voters of the Town of Washington vote on all public questions by Australian ballot pursuant to 17 VSA 2680 (d) ? At the time of the meeting, the Selectboard Chair felt that she wanted to amend the warned question to be more specific, and so a motion was made to amend the question to : Shall the voters of the Town of Washington vote on voter submitted petitions by Australian ballot pursuant to 17 VSA 2680 (d) ? As you can see, the amendment simply substitutes one type of voting category for another, which changes the question altogether. In my view, this originally warned question may not be amended as such., because it becomes a completely different question, and the very purpose for establishing (by statute) the criteria for a public warning is negated. Do the following two sentiments validate my analysis? 1 -- “An amendment must always be germane — that is, closely related to or having bearing on the subject of the motion to be amended. This means that no new subject can be introduced under pretext of being an amendment.” (RONR, 12th ed.: 12:6) 2 -- "Remember that a Town Meeting can’t take up an issue unless it is warned. The same general principle applies to amendments. You can’t take an article to buy a truck and amend it to buy a road grader, because the amendment raises a subject that hasn’t been warned. For the same reason, you can’t convert an article to raise money by taxes to an article to borrow money to pay something. Amendments must be germane to the motion they seek to amend, meaning that the amendment relates to the motion. An amendment cannot introduce a new and independent question or raise an issue (disguised as an amendment) previously decided by the assembly." (The Vermont Institute for Government) I raised a Point of Order, and a muddled conversation ensued and the process continued. The "amended" question passed. It is my belief that this is an invalid addition to our town's voting allowances and must be struck down post-passage. It seems to violate both Robert's Rules, and State of Vermont statutes establishing warning criteria for Town meetings. Any thoughts? Billy D.

Hi Josh Martin -- Thank you for such an extensive reply to my question. I have read it over a couple of times, and things seem clearer to me now. I will make use of this excellent answer and share it with our Moderator who I am sure will relish it as well, as he is new to RONR, and the Moderator position, and he is always eager to find the deeper truths. Thanks Again, Billy D.

Thank you J.J. and Josh Martin. Your expertise is so appreciated. I have just returned from our voter event, and I have one last question, which may meet the same fate as others in this posting - "RONR has no rule on this subject. This will be subject to the town's rules and applicable law, or in the absence of such rules, at the discretion of the assembly." In our meeting today, when the floor was open for debate, a town official stood to read a letter into the debate which was being presented from one of the Select Board members who was out of town on vacation. The absent Board member in her letter stated that she was addressing the assembly as a resident and not as a town official. The moderator allowed the letter to be read into the debate, the contents of which were both self justifying for her actions on this issue, and also dredged in victimhood and self pity for the sufferings of her personal sacrifices. She indeed was speaking as a town official despite her opening remarks proclaiming otherwise. Some of her ire was directed at me in a veiled manner; the most vocal opponent of her project. This scenario did not seem right to me and so I stood and raised a "Point of Order", questioning why if everyone else could attend personally, was it fair for her to "attend" as an apparition, where there is no accountability for her comments. If I were to stand and deliver statements like the ones that she was delivering, there would be many people returning comments of their own into the mix. In this case she was able to deliver the blows and escape any accountability or return replies. It did not seem fair. The moderator immediately denied an intervention to the "Point of Order" and allowed the Board member's letter to be read. After 20 seconds, the Moderator intervened and stopped the reading, and corrected himself to allow me to speak my objection, which was then denied and the reading continued. What do you think? Is that allowable? The content of her remarks is not really the question here, it is the allowance to read the letter into the debate. As a secondary aspect to that, her remarks come as part of a town-wide smear campaign and scapegoating, with both acts and threats of violence directed at me, and she was allowed to contribute to that without an opportunity to respond. In fairness, our Moderator is new to this, but sharp and dedicated.

Our town's Selectboard in Vermont has recently amended it's ATV Ordinance. The state allows for a "permissive referendum" which allows 5% of registered voters to call for a Special Meeting to disallow the adopted Ordinance to take affect, leaving the original Ordinance in place. Our Town and State uses Robert's Rules. A couple of questions: *** During debate, are members of the assembly allowed to make use of an outline or notes to guide them through their allotted time to speak? ***Is informational material allowed in the hall (copies if the Ordinance and amendments) other than what the Town must display by law? *** Are people allowed to wear political stickers, pins, badges on their clothes? *** If there are questions of legality of certain amendments that would challenge the legal validity of the amended Ordinance, are those issues brought to the member's attention during regular debate, or can that be handled under a Point of Order/Information? Can a motion be made to address that legal issue negating a time-factor that limits speech, for the explanation to comfortably occur? *** We are told that no one can be within 10 feet of the ballot counters, which disallows members oversight of the counting. Is that permissible? ** We are told that non-residents and non-voters will be allowed in the room. Is that permissible?

Thank you Joshua Katz for your help and advice, which makes a lot of sense to me. Best, Billy Donovan

Our Food Coop will have its Annual Meeting soon. The Proposed agenda by the Board of Directors is very limited and restrictive in an effort to shield themselves from direct questions providing accountability after a tumultuous year. As I read in the R R Eleventh Edition, I see and basically understand the process for altering an agenda, but I want to check with the "experts". I will include a few passages below from our Bylaws that may influence the power of Robert's Rules to affect that change. #1- THE BYLAWS SAY - The Board shall convene an Annual Meeting of the Members of the Coop, to consider only matters warned in the notice of that meeting,....etc #2- THE BYLAWS SAY - Questions concerning procedure at at Annual Meetings of the Members shall be resolved by means of reference to the most recent edition of Robert's Rules of Order except where the Board has superseded them with written policy statements or prior votes to observe other procedures. #3- THE BYLAWS SAY - The Coop is guided by the seven cooperative principles, as articulated in the International Alliance in 1995 Do either of the Bylaw provisions #1 or #2 noted above negate the opportunity for agenda revision that is presented in RR? Does the Bylaw provision mentioned as item #1, fulfill the "written policy statements or prior votes to observe other procedures", mentioned in item #2? On #3 above - I included this but I should maybe assume that those "Cooperative Principles" are not binding upon us since it says we are "guided" only? What I would plan to do is to insert into the agenda -- 2 items for a vote, (The Bylaws provide for "voting to conduct other business" with approval by a simple majority). And include an allotted amount of time for the members of the assembly to ask direct questions of the Board which is not allowed by the current, printed and distributed agenda, which has strict time allotments for each topic of discussion, and a firm ending time. It is my understanding that the members are the ones with the ultimate authority to set the time allotments and limitations? Another question - Is there a counter parliamentary procedure that can thwart the attempt to make the changes to the agenda, at the outset, as the motion is made and the vote is taken? I said above, that the meeting is soon.. real soon, like tomorrow night!! ... and I am flying by the seat of my pants as usual. Any help on this is so greatly appreciated. Thank You !! Billy D.

I am a member of a Food Coop in Vermont. Our Board has recently announced a complete revision of our Bylaws, and the new document will be considered and voted on by the full assembly at a Special Meeting of the Members that will be held in an "electronic meeting". Our Bylaws DO NOT allow for anything other than "in-person" meeting, and the current Bylaws specifically state that changes to the Bylaws be voted on at Annual or Special meeting. The Bylaws specify Robert's Rules as authoritative in Special Meetings of the Members. Additionally, members were previously asked in 2015 to adopt a Bylaw proposal that would allow for future electronic meetings for votes for Bylaw changes, and the assembly overwhelmingly voted that proposal down. The Board, and the General Manager are all aware of this restriction, and are proceeding with the vote regardless of the lack of stated allowance in the current Bylaws that would clear the way for this to take place. The electronic meeting format gives the Board considerably more control over the process, and they have also called for the vote on a weeknight, and have given a strict time window of just two hours to consider the entire new document. They are really trying to ram this through with as little external influence as possible. What can I do in this situation that can effect a change, or a direct challenge to the meeting and vote? (Note: The meeting will be moderated by an independent member of the small city we live in.). Billy Donovan -- Vermont

I am a member of a food coop in New England. There is some dispute about whether we allow electronic meetings, and if we can refer to the very specific guidelines and definitions in Roberts Rules. There are two references to Roberts rules in our Governing Documents. The Bylaws, and the Policy Governance Documents. The Bylaws state (in the section entitled "Deliberation and Voting"... 4. Rules of Order: Annual and Special Meetings of the Members shall be chaired by the President or, in the case of the President's absence, by the Vice President or another member of the Council chosen for this purpose by the Council. Questions concerning procedure at Annual and Special Meetings of the Members shall be resolved by means of reference to Roberts Rules of Order except where the Council has superseded them with written policy statements or prior votes to observe other procedures. Questions concerning procedure at any meeting of the Council shall be resolved in accordance with the Council Meeting Policy section of the Cooperative's Governance Policies. My understanding here is that this section only applies to the conducting of business at either of the two meeting types mentioned, (and not to decisions made about whether a meeting can be electronic or not), and that the exception, by way of "superseding...other procedures", is likewise only applicable to the business conducted in real time at either of these two meeting types and cannot be taken to apply to other areas of coop business outside of those two meetings, (such as determining if we allow electronic meetings or not).To cover those other areas of coop business the Bylaws points to our Policy Governance Documents for specificity. Is this correct? The Policy Governance Documents read, in the section on "Council Meetings" : G4.3 While seeking consensus, the Council will finalize decisions through the use of motions, seconds, and simple majority vote. While the Council shall strive for simplicity in decision making, it shall be governed by Robert’s Rules of Order (2011 edition). In this section, my question is... does this say that Roberts Rules shall be used as a point of reference in all Coop business conducted by the Council or only when casting votes? Does this authorize the use of RR for all Coop Council business? To be specific... Our Bylaws clearly state that Bylaw changes can only be made at Annual Meeting or Special Meeting of the members. I take this to be "one room/area" as defined in RR. There are no references anywhere in our Bylaws to electronic meeting or voting. However the entire Bylaw Committee and the General Manager assert that "Annual Meeting or Special Meeting of the members" could be electronic, or in-person, even though electronic is not mentioned. Another question...Would we follow Roberts Rules for the governing and control of the Bylaw Committee. For example, this committee's work has spilled over into a "new Council" having just elected 4 of 9 members. RR states the Committee would have disbanded at the time of the new council. Would our Policy Governance Documents point to the use of RR to confirm that the Committee would need a new charter under the new council? Also, maybe this is the most important question. The Bylaw Committee gave its final report to the Council in Feb 2019, at which time the Council voted to proceed or adopt the Committee recommendations and bring them to a vote of the members. Since that time, Covid hit us, and the vote has been delayed, and a new Council was seated last month. Does the new council need to take a revote on adopting the recommendation? It would seem so given that the Council is the sponsor and all new Council members are responsible for bringing the changes to the members, and not the previous Council. Isn't it most typical that at the time of adopting the Committee recommendations, the Committee is disbanded and the Council is the one responsible for bringing the proposal to the members, and the Council is the one to determine the specifics of the meeting, (plan implementation) and not the Committee. The policy Governance Documents, under the title "Committees" states that Committees are for "research and to develop proposals"... it says nothing about implementing a plan which is what they are trying to do. The Committee is on hyper drive and seems to be wrestling the power away from the Council. With an all new Council, they are a little shy about what to do. Thanks, I know that is a lot but your help is appreciated, we are dealing with some pretty wily committee members who like their power. BD