Remedy for improper procedure ruled "proper"

[Guest David]

Our board has adopted Robert's Rules of Order, and we have a parliamentarian who is not the presiding officer. At a recent meeting, a procedure on an amendment to a motion was timely questioned through a "point of order." Although the procedure was improper, the parliamentarian ruled the procedure proper and said her ruling could be appealed to the chair. The ruling was appealed to the chair, who then sided with the parliamentarian. The board proceeded to vote on the improper amendment, the meeting business was concluded, and the meeting adjourned. Now the parliamentarian has discovered that her ruling was incorrect and that the procedure followed was not proper. Does that make the board's action on the amendment invalid? What is the remedy, if any, for the improper ruling? Thank you in advance.

[jstackpo]

1) The chair, not the "parliamentarian", rules on points of order.

2) If you disagree with the ruling you appeal the ruling of the chair (to the membership who make the final decision).

3) All this is water over the dam (or under the bridge) at this point. The vote stands, unless there are p. 251-type violations.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . unless there are p. 251-type violations.

Indeed. And I'm sure Guest_David knows what those are.

[Guest David]

Thank you. I'm hardly an expert on the Rules and generally rely on our parliamentarian, so this is very helpful.

[Tim Wynn]

Thank you. I'm hardly an expert on the Rules and generally rely on our parliamentarian, so this is very helpful.

This would be a good place to explain the details and get some opinions on what the ruling should have been.

[sMargaret]

It's possible that you may wish to review your parliamentarian's understanding of RONR, as well. That whole bit about the ruling of the parliamentarian and "appeal to the chair" is worrying.

[Gary Novosielski]

I agree. This sort of mistake on the part of the parliamentarian is pretty stunning. It indicates a lack of even basic familiarity with RONR.

...and I'm NOT talking about getting some point wrong about whatever she was ruling on. I'm talking about the fact that she actually thought that parliamentarians make rulings. That's the more troubling part.

[Tim Wynn]

I agree. This sort of mistake on the part of the parliamentarian . . . indicates a lack of even basic familiarity with RONR.

...and I'm NOT talking about getting some point wrong about whatever she was ruling on. I'm talking about the fact that she actually thought that parliamentarians make rulings. That's the more troubling part.

I think we can all agree on that.

[David A Foulkes]

I... generally rely on our parliamentarian....

You'll want to reconsider this practice. In the interim, look here for an exciting alternative to future bamboozlement.

[Guest David]

It was all very confusing and apparently highly improper, so it's embarrassing to share it on this board with everyone who really understands the rules! My apologies in advance, and please be assured I now have the "in brief" edition on my Kindle. We had a main motion, which was amended. While discussing the amendment, someone made a second motion to amend. That amendment to an amendment was challenged procedurally, but the parliamentarian ruled it proper. (I now understand that was not her place.) Then that amendment was amended again. Several more amendment attempts were made, and the board voted on amendments to the amendment to the amendment to the motion at least twice. Ultimately, the main motion passed in significantly modified form. Thereafter, another motion was made and voted on which slightly altered the main motion. It was not identical to the main motion, but was a subset of one of the amendments. It passed and therefore modified the main motion. I do not understand if this is a page 251 violation or not. The vote was not a revote of the main motion. Rather, one of the amendments had two parts which were voted on together and the second/last motion was basically a separation of one of those two parts. Consider this hypothetical: the amendment proposed $100 to Organization A and $100 to Organization B. They were voted on together and passed together as part as an amendment and as part of the main motion. Then, someone moved to give Organization B no money, and that passed, leaving us giving only $100 to Organization A. Thoughts?

[Gary c Tesser]

Where does this "thoughts?" come from?

[Gary c Tesser]

Yes, "third-degree" amendments are improper, as I trust Guest_David remembers from his first or second complete reading of his new RONR - IB (I trust at least one reading already, as his post #10 is four hours old as I write), on p. 49 - 50. But whatever was enacted that way will stand, since it is too late to object (p. 90, footnote). However, I am concerned that the later main motion may have been in conflict with the motion already adopted -- see Official Interpretation #2006-17, "Conflicting Motions," at www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_17 . (Then again, 2006-18 might apply. It's six in the morning.)

[Tim Wynn]

Amending something previously adopted without notice requires a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership.

[Guest Edgar]

. . . please be assured I now have the "in brief" edition on my Kindle.

I believe that's the edition that coordinates with the 10th edition of RONR, not the current (11th) edition. Not that it matters much other than that pages references on this forum will be different.

[Guest David]

Amending something previously adopted without notice requires a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the ENTIRE membership.

The second motion passed by a majority of the entire membership.

[Guest David]

I believe that's the edition that coordinates with the 10th edition of RONR, not the current (11th) edition. Not that it matters much other than that pages references on this forum will be different.

I could not find an electronic version of the 11th edition, but did note the different page references.

I am grateful to all who have assisted me here.

[Shmuel Gerber]

I agree. This sort of mistake on the part of the parliamentarian is pretty stunning. It indicates a lack of even basic familiarity with RONR.

...and I'm NOT talking about getting some point wrong about whatever she was ruling on. I'm talking about the fact that she actually thought that parliamentarians make rulings. That's the more troubling part.

I think we can all agree on that.

You don't know what the bylaws of this organization say. They may very well (or very poorly) provide for the parliamentarian to rule on questions of procedure.

[Tim Wynn]

You don't know what the bylaws of this organization say. They may very well (or very poorly) provide for the parliamentarian to rule on questions of procedure.

Ready to buy another round, are you?

[Guest David]

You don't know what the bylaws of this organization say. They may very well (or very poorly) provide for the parliamentarian to rule on questions of procedure.

Ready to buy another round, are you?

You'll both be relieved we have no bylaws, but that is entirely proper under state law. That much I do know.

[David A Foulkes]

You'll both be relieved we have no bylaws, but that is entirely proper under state law.

I did not see that coming.

[Guest Edgar]

You'll both be relieved we have no bylaws . . .

I'm pretty sure that "relief" is not going to accurately describe most reactions to that revelation.

So I have to ask: What is the name of the document that establishes your board and your chair and your ruling parliamentarian? And perhaps the name of your organization. And who gets to be a member.

[Gary Novosielski]

I'm pretty sure that "relief" is not going to accurately describe most reactions to that revelation.

So I have to ask: What is the name of the document that establishes your board and your chair and your ruling parliamentarian? And perhaps the name of your organization. And who gets to be a member.

...and which, presumably, establishes RONR as your parliamentary authority?

[Louise]

You'll both be relieved we have no bylaws, but that is entirely proper under state law. That much I do know.

I did not see that coming.

I'm pretty sure that "relief" is not going to accurately describe most reactions to that revelation.

So I have to ask: What is the name of the document that establishes your board and your chair and your ruling parliamentarian? And perhaps the name of your organization. And who gets to be a member.

...and which, presumably, establishes RONR as your parliamentary authority?

Where is that popcorn-eating smiley face when one needs him?

[Tim Wynn]

Where is that popcorn-eating smiley face when one needs him?

Off eating popcorn, of course. I suppose nothing in life is universally self-evident.

[Louise]

Off eating popcorn, of course. I suppose nothing in life is universally self-evident.

Evidently.