RLE56

This is a church conference called under Section 248 of the Methodist book of discipline (BOD). Nothing in the BOD requires Roberts rules, but basically every conference has adopted them. The central methodist church even adresses the fact that different conferences use different versions, which affects how abstentions are counted, see https://www.umc.org/en/content/ask-the-umc-is-the-umc-really-part-11 You are right, however, that somebody may say "this is just a vote, not a meeting, and RONR doesn't apply." I'm working outside the meeting to ensure that nobody tries to pull that.

Thanks everyone. At a church meeting where basically nobody is familiar with RONR, the practical aspect will rule unless the RONR argument is ironclad. It would almost need to say "If a Methodist DS tries to...." for anybody to pay attention. And nobody wants to litigate this after the fact. This is even more of a powderkeg than I said. The conference already forbid certain speakers from addressing the church in any way -- basically those speakers who disagree with the conference. They also have made it clear that they would retaliate by moving pastors around if there was even a vote on disaffiliation. So, any point of order raised needs to be ironclad. This is being repeated in about 7,000 Methodist churches across the country. Sigh.

Thanks Gary. I appreciate the inputs (and reading your inputs on other posts)! Yep, we can suspend the rule at OUR meeting, but that would simply mean that the conference would refuse to ratify our motion at THEIR meeting.

Yeah, I wasn't bothering quoting, sorry for the quote marks. We could absolutely make the motion, but if passed, the motion has to be accepted and ratified by the conference, and their rule is that the DS has to preside. We are not in a position to change that rule.

Yep, I pointed that exact scenario out. Removing the DS could let the meeting proceed, but then the motion would be pointless. The ultimate vote requires that the DS be the chair. Plain english version of the UMC BOD rule: "You can vote to disaffiliate, but with the condition that the DS chair the meeting."

Thanks, George. Unfortunately, removing the DS as a chair isn't an option as the United Methodist Book of Discipline (BOD) prevails: "The district superintendent shall preside at the meetings of the charge [church] conference or may designate an elder to preside." Fortunately, not much else in the BOD interferes with RONR. As for debate on the motion, I could certainly raise a point of order that the DS didn't call on the motion-maker. In raising the point I could also make the right to debate clear to anyone listening. I'm also going to have to face "if you're late to the meeting (arrive after call to order) you can't vote." That was stated in the meeting notice. Fortunately, RONR is clear on that one.

Our "United" Methodist Church is about to have a large, contentious meeting (a disaffiliation vote). The meeting notice specifies that the only business at the meeting is to vote on disaffiliation (which I presume will be raised as a main motion). The meeting will be chaired by the district superintendent (DS) who has no voting rights. I believe that the DS is planning to speak about the motion, giving the "leadership" point of view, not to disaffiliate. He also plans to prevent anyone else from speaking or debating. If he tries to speak after calling the meeting to order but before a motion is made, that's pretty easy to handle: make a point of order that there is no motion on the floor, hence no discussion permitted, covered elsewhere in this forum. But, what if the DS is RONR saavy and tries to make a speech at the appointed meeting time, before calling the meeting to order? Short of simply saying "the meeting hasn't been called to order" and having loud (and perceived as rude) conversations, is there any procedure to deal with this? As far as his desire for no debate: what if he simply states the question, waits 10 seconds politely, then calls the question (seeing no debate)? Or worse, doesn't wait at all? Is there any requirement that he actually call on the person who made the motion, or state in any way that the floor is open for debate? I'd much rather raise a point that he didn't follow some particular procedure rather than raising a point that he didn't wait long enough, which is nebulous. If the floor does open, may the DS talk as a non-member? And, my understanding that the proper way to forbid or close discussion is to make a Previous Question motion, 2/3 vote required. (That may not be hard to get from a congregation who simply wants to get on with voting.) I'm in the North Georgia conference where a judge has already slapped the DS's and the bishop for not following procedure, but they are still playing games, so I want to be prepared. Thanks, Rob

Sorry for going dark for a couple of weeks, COVID intervened. //content.invisioncic.com/r127373/emoticons/default_sad.png I've actually done quite a bit of research into this. Courts have not given deference to the provision. In Azzi v Ryan (120 Misc. 2d at 124, 465 NYS2d at 416), the court stated that RONR was only advisory and could not overrule the statutory default provision permitting proxies, "cannot be used to deprive members of such an essential and fundamental right". There is a different case (Frankel vs. Kissena Jewish Center) that reached a different conclusion, but that was really based on equity: Somebody attempted to simply show up with proxies at a meeting with no notice to anyone and no history of proxy use, and the judge said it wasn't equitable. "Obviously it would be unfair...to permit one party unilaterally to come to an important meeting of this nature and to present four proxy votes." The Georgia code where I am says "Unless the articles or bylaws prohibit or limit proxy voting, a member may vote in person or by proxy." Of course, in my case things are muddier, but even if RONR was clearly established as the authority, it is not the bylaws per se that prohibit proxies. (To say nothing of the fact that our nonprofit dates from the 1940's, so we have to go back in time. I don't think a third party publishing or changing a rule at some time could fundamentally change the rights of members.) (And in a records search, I also found use of proxies in the 1970's, so there's precedent, even if it was a long time ago.) Personally, I'd be shocked if a Georgia court disallowed proxies without it being explicit. The simple moral of the story here is to address proxies in your bylaws, then you don't have to rely on that.

Yeah, that makes perfect sense for everything that is not statutory: If the chair can be appealed, then the assembly can set the rules of order as it pleases (subject to bylaws/statute) by either majority or (worst case) 2/3 vote. That still leaves a quagmire when there is statute involved, but c'est la vie.

Correct, but the state law says that the bylaws can disallow proxies. RONR attempts to do that. But, even when properly established as parliamentary authority, it is debatable whether or not that is enough. In this case, I'm afraid it definitely isn't sufficient.

Precedent: we've never done it before. Especially problematic if X-Y-Z is appealing a decision of the chair. Until we fix the bylaws, think the only way to realistically interpret this is that we can use RONR to protect members' rights but not extinguish them. For example, I'd argue that: * We have to allow appealing chair decisions. * We have to allow reopening of nominations by majority vote, and we have to allow write ins on a ballot, even though neither are provided for in our bylaws. * Conversely, our state laws allow proxy voting unless the bylaws state otherwise. Our bylaws are silent, so I don't think our maybe-use of RONR is anywhere near strong enough to disallow proxies, whether we like that or not. Thanks!

It appears that our nonprofit's bylaws have not properly set a parliamentary authority. This has caused difficulty enforcing rules or procedures ranging from proxies to nominating to even simple motions. Our bylaws, written a long time ago, make two references to RONR in separate areas of the bylaws: "The Board conducts its proceedings as provided in the Articles of Incorporation, Legal Statutes, and Roberts Rules of Order." Business "may be conducted with informality and/or consistent with the latest edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised." It's the last "and/or" that has caused grief. It leads to things like "You can't do X-Y-Z, we don't do that here. We're running this meeting informally." It seems like we have not really adopted RONR as the parliamentary authority. Any comments on whether this is (or is not) clearly the case, or if it is unclear, would be appreciated.