Joseph Clark

Sir, I inadvertently left out the word "not".

if he does raise a point of order, the chair SHOULD rule the point well taken, but the chair, our club president, is not a parliamentarian, nor does the club have one. It's doubtful that the chair will rule the point not well taken. I will research further and advise the chair at our next Executive Committee meeting.

that member is not the chair. Thank you.

Mr. Martin, Thank you. I totally agree. The member alleged that the election was not in accordance with Robert's, but I was a first-hand witness. I will be sure to raise a point of order if he raises a protest at the next meeting, and maybe it will put an end to what has become a ridiculous series of events.

Thank you, Mr. Katz and Mr. Novosielski. I will make that point at the next general meeting. I am expecting my personal copy of RONR to arrive in tomorrow's mail. To all who responded, thank you, and please accept my apologies for any confusion I caused.

Okay, this has gotten much further than I intended. Many of you are assuming that I don't think we should be using Robert's. That is a false assumption. The member is complaining that three years ago (yes, he's still complaining), that a nomination of officers was not in accordance with Robert's, although it was in accordance with the by-laws. He has threatened the club with legal action. Now, I apologize for not specifying legally binding, but at no time did I advocate doing away with Robert's. Thank you all for your responses.

Mr. Honemann, I did not mean to imply that the club should not regard Robert's as its parliamentary authority. That is already stated in the by-laws, Section 1. But that is the only place it is mentioned, and does not state that the club will or should use parliamentary procedure anywhere in the by-laws. Do I understand that Robert's is somehow binding simply because we recognize it as the authority on parliamentary procedure? It's my understanding that Robert's is a guideline for conducting an orderly meeting, not a legally binding requirement unless the by-laws explicitly state that parliamentary procedure will be used. The by-laws are vague, as I have quoted the applicable section in my first post. As Mr. Katz stated, we should apply Robert's unless the by-laws state otherwise, but that isn't binding, in my opinion. I am not trying to be argumentative, but there are so many things open to personal interpretation, I asked here because I believe the members have a much better grasp than either our club member or I have. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Katz. I believe the section is vague, and therefore does not bind us. What makes it difficult for my interpretation is that "recognizing" Robert's does not necessarily mean that we must apply Robert's, and as you advise we "should". I am not a parliamentarian, I am a trustee, one of the Executive Committee members, and I am trying to do what is right for the club. I suppose it could be argued that "recognizing" Robert's as the authority implies that we must use Robert's as the member cited in my post insists, rather than "should" as you stated. It seems like I'm threading through a minefield. Thank you again.

Thank you for the opportunity to ask this question. Our club is a private organization. It is printed in the By-Laws, Section 1. "Each officer shall perform all the duties pertaining to his office. The "Robert's Rules of Order is hereby recognized as authority on parliamentary procedure." This is the only explicit reference to Robert's Rules. The question then is: Does this bind the club to adhere to Robert's? There is a member who insists at every meeting that we MUST follow Robert's, even though nowhere does it state in the by-laws or Constitution, that the club will actually use parliamentary procedure. We do, in fact, use parliamentary procedure at general membership meetings, but this member is stating that Robert's is binding on the club. My interpretation is that Robert's is a guideline, and is not binding in this case. Thank you again.