Casey239

Larry - There are many version of Robert's Rules of Order. The official version is the one you posted, RONR Newly Revised 12th edition. However, another book which points to this official version is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief which is in its 3rd edition. Here is what I found for you: Robert's Rules Simplified book by Arthur T. Lewis (thriftbooks.com) Robert's Rules of Order: A Simplified, Updated Version of the Classic Manual of 9780425116906 | eBay

Mr. Martin - thank you for clarifying your position. I appreciate the time you took to reply and sift through the "election" process. One of my responsibilities as Parliamentarian is to work with a committee of 4 to review and rewrite the bylaws as needed. We will have to look at the President Elect and the terms of office. This org was founded in 1991, a totally different generation and culture. I can foresee a few changes....

Josh- Really? I'll use my situation= no one was in that office of president-elect for the last 2 years and now with a new election which we just held, no one stepped up for the position of president elect for this term either. We have an executive committee and rest of commissions are full. In your #2 scenario, the "the position will remain vacant until election can be completed at a later time." So the election should not have been held and completed ? I read your response as stating that the group should have delayed the election until we found a president elect. If that is the correct reading, then it seems that all the other commissions would suffer as would the membership. ?? Last year, we changed our bylaws to lessen the time as president elect. It was 2 years as president elect followed by 2 years as president. No one has the time to do this anymore. We changed it to 2 years total, 1 as president elect, 1 as president. That makes the work of the nominating committee more difficult as its nearly constant, but still no takers, no floor votes, no interest.

Mr. Elsman - You may be right; it's entirely possible that our group has reached its natural end. We will go down fighting though! This group has survived for 33 years, through 9/11 and through Covid. It will eventually morph into another form, but I am sure it will persist.

James - our church women's group had a similar situation with our elections. Neither the nomination committee nor a floor vote could bring up nominees for the office of President-Elect. All other positions were filled. As far as I know, the position doesn't go away. There is always hope that someone will step up. In the meantime, we are punting by rotating our Board members to fill the gap as needed.

How sad...parliamentarian does more than that. Think of structure, bylaws, representing the assembly, ensuring said assembly has a voice in all issues, think infrastructure and bones upholding a fragile body. I have decided that as parliamentarian I can educate - so I'm writing a newsletter to inform the assembly of our goals and inserting a sneaky Parliamentary Minute as a staple to held inform about procedure. I'm also starting a resource library for our new leaders of committees. Big goals, we shall see how it works out. It is what you make it....🥈

Yes. Each president of our non-profit, volunteer church group serves 2 years. When the next President takes over, the Immediate Past President usually moves over to be a member of/or chair to the Leadership team. With 2 years of experience, they each have a wealth of experience and knowledge about the membership. This has worked out well for us. If they choose to be an officer and chair the Leadership team, they are then a part of the Board of Directors. Just ensure you have flexibility. For instance, we just had an election. Our current president, soon to be the IPP, is not taking any role in Leadership or other committee. Just giving my two cents....

Thank you Mr. Katz. There is no difference in our statements except years of experience and knowledge! Personally, I don't see the unanimous consent when I read that bylaw - I'm sure it has more to do with hands-on experience! It is not literally stated, which is what I meant by common sense. In any case, thank you all.

Mr. Honemann, good point. It is not as clear as it should be. The intent of the bylaw is to say that if there is more than one candidate (or nominee) per office, in other words, multiple candidates for one office, there will be a written ballot vote. If there is a tie between candidates nominated, there will be a second written ballot vote taken. We will need to have our bylaw committee work on the wording of our bylaws in the coming months. Thank you...again...

Thank you all for your advice. Not to belabor the point, but for clarity, this is what the bylaws literally say: Article VI - Nominations Section 5: A. The slate of officers projected by the Nominating Committee will be presented to the general membership. However, nominations (approved by the nominee prior to nomination) may be made from the floor at the March general meeting prior to election in April. ARTICLE VII – ELECTIONS Section 1: The officers of the Council shall be elected by membership at the General Meeting in April. Section 2: The candidates shall be elected by voice vote. If there is more than one person nominated for office, there will be a written (ballot) vote. In the event of a tie, another written (ballot) vote will be taken. Section 3: Newly elected Officers shall be installed in May and assume their duties at the final Board meeting in May. Your posts have given me all I need to proceed with these issues in terms of advising the President. What I hear you all saying between the lines is to use common sense and reasoning instead of adhering to the letter of the law. It would be very easy to get legalistic here. I'll keep that in mind going forward as new issues and complexities are encountered. Thank you again for your expertise and knowledge - this is a wonderful Forum!!!!

Thank you both. Now that I've thought more about the issue of the ad, it is moot. The Board is allowed by our Bylaws to approve up to $250 at their discretion. Anything more than $250 needs membership approval. The ad has not been placed yet, and it is $40. We probably shouldn't have brought this to the membership to begin with. But since we did ask them, it looks like Ratify is the way to go. Good to hear that we can still ask for nominations from the floor. Mr. Katz, I realize that the President is the person to take this action. We do have a Parliamentarian but she is very lax and disinterested. Until I take the office in May, I will defer to our present Parliamentarian although the President is looking for guidance from me. It's a little sticky...

As I've been studying RONR and RONR In Brief -- and have come upon a situation with my CCW Group. I am not yet the Parliamentarian of this group, but I've been paying attention to the proceedings in meetings. Two items specifically: 1. In our last general meeting, we had a debate on whether to place an ad in a local Diocese paper. The membership voted no. That was accepted. Yesterday, in our Board meeting, it was decided to go ahead anyway and place an ad. The president was feeling much pressure to do so by the leaders of the Diocese. My feeling is we need to bring this back to the membership at our next meeting, which is next week. 2. Also our elections are coming up. Our Bylaws state that we announce nominations in March and elect at the next meeting in April. The president, who leads the meeting, was not advised to ask for nominations from the floor in March. We missed the boat on this point. We ask the membership to vote next week at our April meeting. Our Nominations committee has a full slate of officers, one per office. The president wanted to do it by acclamation, but our Bylaws state that we must use a voice vote. So, please help me understand if I'm on the right path. My take is to: 1. Use the Reconsider motion to reconsider the vote to not place the ad. I was in favor of not placing the ad, so I think I can do this. [RONR 12th Ed. 37] 2. Since our Bylaws supersede RONR, we cannot use Acclamation in the election of officers. The nominees were presented this month, and they will again be listed for membership in our April meeting, then they will vote on them. It will need to be a voice vote per the Bylaws. I don't see a way to get nominations from the floor a this point. I joined NAP and downloaded the Membership Study Guide. I've been doing a chapter a day; my exam is next month. Thank you for reading through this and helping me understand the complexities of RONR more clearly!

Thank you. I'm learning that this is the case -- the RONR Newly Revised Ed. 12 is the book, not pointing to it via In Brief. Amazon delivered the full book to me today, so I can get reading! As far as the bylaws go, that is one change I will make. We break, as a group, from May - September, so there is a lovely summer to work out any changes and present them to the Board of Directors, then the Assembly in September. This time, we will have open discussion on the changes which hasn't occurred much in the past. I'm looking forward to this!

Thank you. No doubt I'll be back with more frequency in the Fall when all that reading turns into practical application. I do appreciate this forum!

Thanks for your comments, Mr. Elsman. I hear you. Theoretically, you may be right. However, the reality for me is that I am walking into this role and I want to do the best I can with it for our organization and membership.

So the point was not whether we should use the RONR but that the chair should be able to do it without a separate person doing it? As I stated, we are a volunteer organization, and while we come from many different careers, few of us are polished in parliamentary rules, if any. It is difficult enough to get people to volunteer to chair, never mind do both jobs. As I understand it, my role will be to advise the chair on rules and be a silent leader. From what I've read, I will be a resource to the Chair, the Board, and the Assembly. For instance, we haven't had open discussion on issues for at least a year; I will change that so all have a voice. I can see we also need to work on our bylaws and clarify the language a bit.

Mr. Goodwiller - yes, I was thinking about that. Are the self study courses any good? There are so many out there! Also, I am retired, so maybe fun to see if I would qualify but I wouldn't be using it as a business. I do love a challenge! Mr. Elsman - While we are a local group out of a local parish, we are connected with the Diocese Council of Catholic Women and then upward to the National Council of Catholic Women. So my guess, although I've only been part of this group for 3 years, is that since NCCW goes by RONR, we will too. We deal with a lot of fundraising, giving to local charities, scholarships, so I think they want to have an orderly process. We are all volunteers, so the chairwoman, in this case, changes every 2 years. RONR gives us some consistency. Those are my thoughts....

Thank you! I will order a copy of RONR and read it thoroughly; I have a few months! I found Zimmeman's In Plain English RONR as I was looking for ways to conduct electronic meetings that would mesh with RONR. She is a parliamentarian of 30 years, and very clearly states that her guidance on zoom meetings and conference calls are not per RONR. But they are helpful.

First, this is a great forum. Thank you. I will be Parliamentarian next year (Sep - May) in my local council of catholic women. in our bylaws, we have RONR In Brief as our resource to go by. When I am installed in May of this year, I'd like to add the RONR in Plain English by Zimmerman. It doesn't need to be in the bylaws. In Plain English has the logistics for electronic media, zoom meetings, conference calls, which I think we will need going forward. We are now only 81 strong, but we're looking to increase membership and that will necessitate that we update to the 21st century! So, can I use this or do I just need to go by RONR In Brief? I am not a professional parliamentarian, nor has anyone been in the history of our group (1991). I just want to do it correctly. Thank you for any help you can offer.