Wright Stuff

Our political party wants to censure people for every little thing, including bad breath, it seems. It is my understanding that an organization cannot censure a person who is not a member of the organization or who is not subject to the organization's disciplinary authority. Is there a better way to explain censure? It's getting out of control.

What is a "pending" report

Thank you

A person who is nominated for the first election can be nominated for the second election. The person can fill both positions without conflict. At least at some level, the positions are not connected and don't conflict with each other. If this person wins both elections, so be it. Counting the votes for the first election will take significantly longer than counting the votes for the second election, but the first election needs to precede the second election for purposes that don't matter here. At the risk of sounding arrogant, the reason we don't use a single ballot is to eliminate confusion. Unfortunately, the delegates will get confused over which position they're voting for if we do one ballot. We have a lot of experience in this area. I do appreciate the input, and I understand what you're saying. At least at this point, we're willing to accept the risk with the understanding that someone can move to change the process.

There is no overlap between the two offices. One election will not affect the other. If the first election requires a revote (extremely unlikely), it would be conducted when the votes are counted. The purpose is to save time. People leave when things run too long.

I think I just found my answer in 45:6. We can proceed to the second vote after the voting closes on the first vote as we are not interfering with a vote being taken. 45:6 Interruption of Votes. When a vote is being taken, no interruption is permitted from the time that any member has actually voted until all have presumably voted, unless as sometimes occurs in ballot voting, other business is being transacted during voting. Please tell me if you disagree.

Our organization has adopted RONR as our parliamentary authority. There will be two elections at our annual convention. There will be nominations and then a vote for the first office followed by nominations and then a vote for the second office. It will take a while to count the votes for the first election. Can we proceed with the second vote after everyone who wants to vote has voted (voting is closed) or do we have to wait for the votes of the first election to be counted and reported before proceeding with the second election? Our bylaws do not address this question.

If an organization has adopted RONR, doesn't it automatically have an established order of business (unless their bylaws say otherwise)?

Exactly, and because of the very poor wording of our bylaws, she is no longer on the Executive Committee since she was not elected to the Executive Committee at a convention in an odd-numbered year or at an Executive Committee meeting. If she's not on the Executive Committee, I don't see a path to be "elected" IPP. Yes, she was previously elected president, but she has never been elected IPP. It's a really stupid problem. I guess the Executive Committee could move to elect the IPP to the Executive Board, but it hasn't happened. Changing the bylaws is not an option at the moment.

Our county is not the only one. There are problems throughout the state. The damage is done. I'm not sure how they're going to fix it. Maybe they're not going to be able to fix it.

Yes, she was elected chair. She was never elected past chair. I understand your logic, but I don't think it holds up since all positions have terms. In any case, since I made this post, I contacted the parliamentarian. The officer who told me that the IPP was still on the board is the one who told me what the parliamentarian said. His response to me was, "The officer is a delightful person, but in this case, she is wrong." So, the person who told me lied. Something is wrong in Denmark, as the saying goes.

I'm a nobody, but even I don't see how there is an ongoing debate on this topic. This question is clearly answered in RONR. We dealt with it at length during COVID. Participants in an online meeting do not have to have an open mic all the time. It's reasonable for them to be muted. However, the participant must be the one controlling her mute button.

That's a great question. My understanding is the ex officio means by virtue of their position. For example, some elected officials in county government are ex officio members of the Executive Committee. They never sit for an election at the county convention, and they (were previously) automatically members of the Executive Committee. They now must be elected at either the convention or an Executive Committee meeting. Since they have to elected at one or the other, are they still ex officio? If so, then I agree with your comment.

Our county has been told by the state that no person can be a member of the County Executive Committee unless he or she was elected at the annual convention in an odd-numbered year or at an Executive Committee meeting. Here is the language from the county's bylaws that puts the IPP on the Board: The County Officers and the Immediate Past Chair shall comprise the County Executive Board of the County Executive Committee. The opinion from the state actually wiped out all ex officio positions in the county bylaws. The state's opinion overrides the county's bylaws. Ignoring whether it is a bad idea to have an IPP on the Executive Committee or on the Executive Board, how can the provision above be interpreted that the IPP is on the Board? The state's parliamentarian assured us that the IPP is on the Board even though he was not elected to it. There are no other provisions in the bylaws that say that a Board member does not have to be a member of the Executive Committee. How do you elect an IPP?

site:robertsrules.forumflash.com "Rob Elsman" “I apologize” Entered in Google for example…

The chair announced that no second was necessary since the motion came from the committee. However, the motion did not come from the committee; it came from a person in the delegation who was not on the committee. No second was made, but the process continued as if it had. No harm, no foul. She sort of stated the question and called for a vote, which passed. While the question seems to be a very minor technicality, RONR is made up of many, many technicalities. When the handling of those technicalities is unclear, it's helpful to ask here for clarity. I actually wonder if the need for a second really has any value. I've seen a motion fail for lack of a second, but considering how much time is consumed asking for seconds on almost every motion (not including the organizations that record the name of the person making the second), the time spent defeating a motion that cannot attract a second seems minimal compared with the time spent asking for seconds.

@Josh Martin, thank you for the comprehensive answer and for the cites. I really need to get better at finding things in the book. It's not from lack of effort.

When a committee chair or member makes a report to the delegates at an annual convention, the motion to adopt the report (if it is one that needs to be adopted) is customarily made by the person making the report at the end of the report. Assume that the person making the report does not make the motion to adopt the report, and the convention chair calls out, "Is there a motion to adopt the report?" A delegate (not a member of the committee making the report) obtains the floor and moves the report's adoption. Does this motion require a second? Where is the answer in RONR? The closest reference I can find is 7:2(4): "Whether it requires a second. (A main motion does. Whenever it is stated in this book that a certain motion “must” be seconded, or “requires” a second, the precise meaning is as explained in 4:9–14, and the requirement does not apply when the motion is made by direction of a board or committee.)" [Emphasis added.] The motion was made by a member of the delegation who is not on a board or the committee. There is not a problem that needs to be solved. All is well. It is helpful to understand how to answer these hair-splitting questions.

Please elaborate for those of us with similar questions following along.

Depending on the nature of your organization, you may not have a legal cause of action, which may be why you can’t find an attorney.

The resignations were made during the highly charged meeting. Do the resignations have to be withdrawn during a meeting, or can the members who resigned give notice of their intent to withdraw their resignations prior to the next meeting? If the resignations have to be rescinded at a meeting, it seems that this “intimidating” chair could entertain the first motion from someone (selected in advance) to move acceptance of the resignations before the “resigners” have an opportunity to withdrawn their resignations. How would you advise the resigners to proceed at this point to avoid the chair’s gamesmanship?

Thanks very much for the discussion. I'll just chalk this one up to "I don't get it." Maybe one day I will.

The state bylaws contemplate their use by the counties if the counties do not adopt their own. There are many provisions in the state bylaws that ("Unless the county's bylaws indicate otherwise, the number of widgets..." (It really doesn't say "widgets".) The county bylaws can deviate from the state bylaws but they cannot conflict with them. I'm not sure the organization makes any sense. Correct. The adopted bylaws cannot be in conflict with the state bylaws. That is exactly what I think my question is. That's helpful. I'll read it a few times. 1. Delete article III B2 [from the county bylaws] which empowers the chair to nominate up to 2 additional members of the executive committee. 2. Delete from article X [from the county bylaws] the phrase "or within the 12 months prior to becoming a party official." 3. Add a section C to article III [from the county bylaws]: A list by name of the members authorized above shall be presented to the county convention for approval." The original main motion was to rescind the adoption of the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend the county bylaws as above. No further action is necessary. The motion to rescind the county plan failed. The subsequent motions to amend the county plan passed. (Unrelated to this question is, upon further examination, the changes to the county plan that passed did not solve any of the problems they thought they were solving.)

Well, I don’t know what else to offer, so I guess I’ll let it go. Yes, it was confusing to be confronted with the situation that could arise again in the future. There is not a continuing problem. My question is more educational than remedial since I’m a proverbial beginner. The main motion was to revert to the state bylaws and throw out the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend the county bylaws. The question was on doing away with the county bylaws. The motion to substitute was to change the county bylaws instead of throwing them out. Thanks for trying to help. It’s frustrating in that we have not been able to come up with a succinct answer in the several interactions in this thread with extremely knowledgeable people, so I don’t feel so bad that we weren’t able to come up with a succinct answer instantly during the convention. 12:22(2) seems to me to be on point, but maybe it’s not. Thanks for trying to help. Maybe I’ll find the answer one day.

Yes. If the county does not adopt their own bylaws, they have to follow the state bylaws. Let me try again. The county has its own bylaws. A motion was moved that the county stop using its own bylaws and revert to the state bylaws. That motion is proper under the organization's bylaws. After the motion was made, a motion to substitute was moved that was actually in the nature of an amendment to the county bylaws. The content of the county bylaws was not the subject of the motion. The bigger question was whether to use the state bylaws or the county's bylaws. The motion to substitute was to amend some of the details of the county's bylaws.