Wright Stuff

@Josh Martin and @Atul Kapur, thanks for the responses. I’m happy about the answer. It’s frustrating because now, having heard the correct answer, I went back and read §12 and §35, and the answer is fairly obvious — once you already know the answer. I will confess that, as a beginner, it is very easy to read past the word “subsidiary” in §12.2. Now it jumps out at me!

I just chaired my second-ever convention, and in reflecting on my performance, it occurred to me that I made a dumb mistake. The report of the bylaws committee concluded with a motion to update the bylaws. The proposed amendment was properly noticed in advance of the convention, and a copy of the changes was included in the packet handed out to the delegates. After the motion to approve the changes was made, there was an amendment moved from the floor. During the discussion of that amendment, there was an amendment to the amendment from the floor. Upon reflection, I now believe that the first amendment from the floor was a secondary amendment since the committee’s motion was a (main) motion to amend the bylaws. If I’m correct, the motion to amend the amendment from the floor was actually a disallowed tertiary amendment. While both amendments from the floor were not controversial and passed unanimously, and while the way I handled it was efficient, I want to make sure that I fully understand this process to keep from potentially embarrassing myself in the future. Fortunately, no one in the room knew about the mistake or RONR in general.

They have not. One correction, too. It was only a year ago. It seems like two years.

I will post that information on my return from hosting a convention.

This organization has been experiencing many it-will-never-happen events for the last few years. The problem in this particular circumstance is that the standing rules for this convention did not exist prior to the occurrence of the problem. The question is, what now? The organization ultimately made up its own solution, which has severely fragmented the membership. Amending the bylaws is probably more difficult than amending the US Constitution. Adopting such a standing rule prospectively is a possibility, but doing so does not solve the lingering issue. And then there's the question of whether this problem constitutes a lingering breach.

Good discussion. Thanks.

Got it. Thanks.

To avoid a continued and unintentional hijack of a similarly named thread, I'll ask the question here. This question is not hypothetical. I observed it at a convention a couple of years ago. If there is a ballot vote at an annual convention, and quorum is lost before the vote is finally counted, the results of the election cannot be announced at the convention. There will not and cannot be another convention for one year. This situation is not addressed in the organization's bylaws. Let me repeat: Having another convention is not an option. What is the proper course of action?

The question is more about the short period of time after the last nomination and before the next one. Some people are not as fast as others in making motions and nominations. This response seems like a good one. It acknowledges the motion but ignores it. Is it proper for the chair to declare the motion out of order in that an insufficient amount of time has passed since the last nomination? I would imagine this response: "The motion to close nominations is out of order at this time since an ample opportunity to make nominations must be allowed. Are there any final nominations? <pause>"

We have a couple of people who like to demonstrate their proficiency with RONR by moving to close nominations from the floor once there is a brief pause in nominations. RONR says that motions to close nominations should not generally be used, but I didn't see where it says how to discourage their use. If there is a "rapid fire" motion to close nominations, could the chair rule the motion out of order in that it doesn't afford a reasonable opportunity to make motions? Is there a recommendation for dealing with this issue?

I think that's true, but some of our members have to travel five hours or more to attend a convention. They have to spend the night in a hotel. There is the cost of travel. It is not reasonable to conduct a second convention for the purpose of announcing the winner of the ballot vote.

My question is, if quorum is lost at an annual convention and the result of the vote is not announced, when is it announced? Not every organization can Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn for an annual convention. Inquiring minds want to know.

Interesting. if the meeting is an annual meeting and quorum is lost before the results are announced, the results are not announced for a year?

It was not my intent to bring up a new question. It was a failed attempt at levity to refer back to a prior, quite intensive thread on that subject.

I'll try as soon as I figure out whether the results of a ballot vote have to be included in the minutes....

I am SO confused.

Thanks @Dan Honemann, @Josh Martin, and @Atul Kapur for the discussion. While I don't always ask my questions correctly, I hope I'm getting closer. I really like the idea of Floor Parliamentarians for the reasons stated.

The rules do not provide otherwise. I should have prefaced my questions by saying that we are dealing with a number of counties that are intentionally or otherwise failing to follow RONR even though it is designated as the parliamentary authority in their bylaws. "Leadership" is blocking a number of things because the assembly is not educated in RONR. (I understand that's the assembly's fault, but, in a perfect world, leadership would follow the rules without being "forced" to do so.) Leadership can and does unilaterally make improper decisions all the time; It just can't do so and comply with RONR. The assemblies need to learn to control its leadership. No, the body did not object when the chair unilaterally instituted the no visitors policy. To my knowledge, the policy was not even reduced to writing. What is missing from the discussion is that the body has few if any people who understand RONR well enough to keep its leadership in check which is why I started the discussion in the first place about floor parliamentarians. There are members of the body who want things to run correctly, but they don't want it badly enough they they are going to learn RONR to the necessary degree. It's an all volunteer organization. In fact, there was a discussion in the group recently that RONR has become so complex and, to many, convoluted that they are considering adopting a different parliamentary authority. Our state has a simplified procedure manual for municipalities that is being recommended by a member who was previously a mayor of a small community. I doubt they will be able to dislodge RONR, which is why I'm trying to learn and help. They have allowed things to get way out of hand, and I don't know if or how it can be fixed. The issue of the meeting being closed to visitors is not the question, though. The question is whether there is any parliamentary basis for allowing floor parliamentarians, and it seems to me that the answer is now clear that it's up to the body whether to embrace or support the idea of floor parliamentarians. Maybe that's a good idea for proposing a special rule or order allowing them. The presiding chair, who is also the actual chair in this instance, is "entitled" to have a parliamentarian because it is provided for in the bylaws. There's no argument there.

I understand what you're saying. @Atul Kapur, as I recall, first mentioned floor parliamentarians, but as I'm asking, there is no basis for one in RONR meaning that, while they are a good idea, they have no official basis for them.

In this case, the organization voted to not allow guests to attend their Executive Committee meetings. However, the chair has a parliamentarian at each meeting. Is that parliamentarian a guest? The question is whether there is any entitlement for a hall parliamentarian to attend except as a guest. Since a hall parliamentarian is not a part of RONR, it seems to me that if guests are not allowed to attend, the hall parliamentarian is not allowed to attend and render services. If guests are allowed to attend, he presumably could be required to sit in the guest section, away from and unable to communicate with a member needing the assistance. I love the idea of a hall parliamentarian and have been asked by members to serve in that capacity before, but I don’t see any privilege attaching to the position that ensures the hall parliamentarian will be allowed to attend or participate.

Back in August, there was a thread in which the subject of a floor parliamentarian was raised. The topic is not covered in RONR. So, how could members of a body engage the services of a floor parliamentarian if the organization does not allow guests at its meetings (even though the chair is apparently entitled to a parliamentarian?) I think FPS are sorely needed, but I can see how leadership could block them.

Three people ran for chair of an organization that follows RONR. When the first vote was counted, the two top vote getters were tied. The chair of the convention ruled that there be a runoff between the top two, thereby dropping the lowest vote getter. The organization’s bylaws do not include a voting procedure that would remedy this situation. My understanding is that the fact that the two top vote getters were tied was irrelevant. By definition, no one received a majority. Therefore, the next and subsequent votes should have been for all three candidates (unless one chose to remove himself.) Am I correct?

Understood. Thanks!

No argument there. I was trying to keep the numbers simple. In any case, this thread has been very helpful. A few things are finally coming into focus. Thanks to everyone who has offered input.

I'm on a mission to understand our bylaws, RONR, and the intersection between the two. I'm probably the most knowledgeable person for RONR in the group, and that's scary. The reality is that I'm trying to encourage better compliance with all rules, which I can't do unless I understand them. Clearly And that, I think, is part of my confusion -- conventions versus regular meetings. The county has an Executive Committee and a Board. Regarding the Executive Committee, which is probably 60 people. Assume they all show up at a meeting: Present: 60 2/3 Vote: 40 Majority of the Entire Body: 31 In this case, if a motion is adopted by a 2/3 vote or by a majority of the entire membership, and there are 35 affirmative votes, the motion passes. In the past, I'm not sure, but I think we have probably failed to pass one or more motions that should have passed as the 2/3 vote was not met but the MOEM was met. I don't think anyone in our group has ever heard of MOEM. Now assume that of the 60 members, only 51 show up: Present: 51 2/3 Vote: 34 Majority of the Entire Body: 31 or 26? (Membership continues from one meeting to the next.) There are no conflicts with the bylaws in any of the questions posed here.