lenghy sick leave

[Guest Martin]

Our organization's bylaws are very simple. Our bylaws state that if a matter is not in the bylaws or differs from the bylaws, then Robert's Rules superceeds our drafted bylaws. We have a situation that I have not seen addressed in either. Our current bylaws state that our meeting must have either the secretary or treasurer present along with the President to run an official meeting. Our secretary has been out all year on sick leave. The treasurer can not attend tomorrow's meeting due to a vacation. Does Robert's Rule really require either of these elected business officers to be in attendance to have an official meeting? If so, is there any way that we can appoint a "pro tem" for the secretary's position to fall into the bylaws requirements? This is a very important meeting due to elections which has been held on the first Thursday of October for the past 90 years. Being that it is a volunteer organization, many members had to make special arrangements to attend this meeting, such as taking days off of work or changing shifts. Many do not feel it is right to put the meeting off a whole week because one member decided to go on vacation last minute. Please help! All advice is greatly appreciated!!

[hmtcastle]

Our current bylaws state that our meeting must have either the secretary or treasurer present along with the President to run an official meeting.

Then that's the rule you're stuck with and it doesn't matter what RONR says about it.

The next time you're able to have an "official meeting", you might want to amend your bylaws to remove the rule that lets the absence of one or two people bring business to a grinding halt.

[Guest Martin]

Then that's the rule you're stuck with and it doesn't matter what RONR says about it.

The next time you're able to have an "official meeting", you might want to amend your bylaws to remove the rule that lets the absence of one or two people bring business to a grinding halt.

That's just the thing. Our bylaws clearly state that if a matter is not in the bylaws or what is in the bylaws differs from what Robert's rules dictates, then Robert's Rules superceeds our drafted bylaws.

So what would RONR dictate to do in this matter??

[hmtcastle]

Our bylaws clearly state that if a matter is not in the bylaws or what is in the bylaws differs from what Robert's Rules dictates, then Robert's Rules supersedes our drafted bylaws.

Frankly, that's hard to believe.

But in the extremely unlikely event that Robert's Rules supersede your bylaws, you can have a meeting without the president present, without the secretary present, without the treasurer present, without the vice-president present, without the sergeant-at-arms present, without the chaplain present, and without the parliamentarian present.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Our current bylaws state that our meeting must have either the secretary or treasurer present along with the President to run an official meeting.

Okay. That is YOUR rule. Not Robert's Rules of Order.

Does Robert's Rule really require either of these elected business officers to be in attendance to have an official meeting?

No.

You don't need your president, nor your secretary, nor your treasurer (like your customized rule does), to run a meeting, if Robert's Rules of Order applies, and if you have no bylaw saying otherwise.

All you need is a quorum.

A chair pro tem, and a secretary pro tem, (two "essential" meeting officers) may be elected for the duration of that single meeting. And they don't have to be anyone in particular. They don't even have to be members, for that matter. Anyone can be a pro tem meeting officer.

That's all you need.

You could be missing 100% of your officers, and still hold a meeting, as long as the quorum threshold is satisfied.

But if your bylaws say otherwise, then OBEY YOUR BYLAWS. Robert's Rules of Order never overrides a bylaw.

...is there any way that we can appoint a "pro tem" for the secretary's position to fall into the bylaws requirements?

No.

If your own bylaws require the physical presence of three specific officers, then you cannot expel your president temporarily, or expel your secretary temporarily, or expel your treasurer temporarily, and magically re-instate them after adjournment. Their terms of office cannot be suspended or ignored.

[Guest Martin]

Frankly, that's hard to believe.

But in the extremely unlikely event that Robert's Rules supersede your bylaws, you can have a meeting without the president present, without the secretary present, without the treasurer present, without the vice-president present, without the sergeant-at-arms present, without the chaplain present, and without the parliamentarian present.

Article #9-Parliamentary Authority

sec.1 The rules contained in "Robert's Rules of Order Revisited" shall govern this company in all

cases to which they are applicable and to which they are inconsistent with this constitution and bylaws.

Am I interpreting this correctly?? Thank you for your advice on this matter!

[Guest dan]

Article #9-Parliamentary Authority

sec.1 The rules contained in "Robert's Rules of Order Revisited" shall govern this company in all

cases to which they are applicable and to which they are inconsistent with this constitution and bylaws.

Am I interpreting this correctly?? Thank you for your advice on this matter!

Never heard of Robert's Rules of Order Revisited. Mean "Revised"?? I think you left out "not" before the word "inconsistent", or you have weird bylaws.

Your rules override RONR, I think.

Another reason to look at your specialized rules about who has to be at an official meeting is suppose the seretary and treasurer are permanently unavailable (e.g. they die). You can never have an official meeting until others get elected.

[Guest Martin]

Never heard of Robert's Rules of Order Revisited. Mean "Revised"?? I think you left out "not" before the word "inconsistent", or you have weird bylaws.

Your rules override RONR, I think.

Another reason to look at your specialized rules about who has to be at an official meeting is suppose the seretary and treasurer are permanently unavailable (e.g. they die). You can never have an official meeting until others get elected.

Opps. Nice catch Dan. Forgive me but it is Revised. You are correct on that one but after double checking there clearly is not a "not" before the word "inconsistent". So to me, as written, the bylaws are really worthless and we are governed by Robert's Rules. Is that the way you interpret this situation as well?

I am trying to find areas to correct out simple bylaws. This seems to be a major starting point. Thank you!

[Weldon Merritt]

after double checking there clearly is not a "not" before the word "inconsistent

But are you really looking at the original provision, or just a copy that may have had the “not” inadvertently omitted? As often pointed out here, the actual wording of your bylaws is (or at least should be) in the minutes of the meeting (or meetings) at which they were adopted or amended. Anything else is merely a copy.

[hmtcastle]

I am trying to find areas to correct out simple bylaws.

Click on "How Your Organization Can Adopt RONR" for the recommended wording.

Make sure you know exactly what your current bylaws say. As Mr. Merritt suggested, you may very well be quoting from an inaccurate copy. As your own posts indicate, it's easy enough to type "Revisited" when you meant "Revised". Or "opps" when you meant "oops". Or "out" when you meant "our".

Regular posters on this forum have omitted the word "not" so many times that it's sometimes referred to as "falling through the 'not' hole".

Again, as Mr. Merritt said, the "real" bylaws will be found in the minutes.

[Guest dan]

Regarding whether the "not" before "inconsistent" is an error, intentional, or something else - the recommended bylaws wording from RONR is:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

[Gary Novosielski]

Regarding whether the "not" before "inconsistent" is an error, intentional, or something else - the recommended bylaws wording from RONR is:

"The rules contained in the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt."

Shouldn't that be "or"? Yes, I know it isn't, but shouldn't it be?

As I read this, in order for a rule in RONR not to govern, it would have to be inconsistent with both they bylaws AND any special rules of order, not merely either one.

[hmtcastle]

Shouldn't that be "or"? Yes, I know it isn't, but shouldn't it be?

As I read this, in order for a rule in RONR not to govern, it would have to be inconsistent with both the bylaws AND any special rules of order, not merely either one.

The burden on the 11th Edition grows heavier every day.

[Gary Novosielski]

The burden on the 11th Edition grows heavier every day.

From your lips to Honemann's ears.

[Dan Honemann]

Shouldn't that be "or"? Yes, I know it isn't, but shouldn't it be?

As I read this, in order for a rule in RONR not to govern, it would have to be inconsistent with both they bylaws AND any special rules of order, not merely either one.

No, "and " is fine in this context. For another example, look at Rule XXVIII, Clause 1, of the House Rules.

[hmtcastle]

No, "and " is fine in this context. For another example, look at Rule XXVIII, Clause 1, of the House Rules.

If the following is the clause referred to, I'm afraid I don't see an analogous use of the word "and" indicating an "either/or" condition. But perhaps I'm looking at the wrong text.

1. Upon adoption by Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget under section 301 or 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets forth, as the appropriate level of the public debt for the period to which the concurrent resolution relates, an amount that is different from the amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that otherwise would be in effect for that period, the Clerk shall prepare an engrossment of a joint resolution increasing or decreasing, as the case may be, the statutory limit on the public debt in the form prescribed in clause 2. Upon engrossment of the joint resolution, the vote by which the concurrent resolution on the budget was finally agreed to in the House shall also be considered as a vote on passage of the joint resolution in the House, and the joint resolution shall be considered as passed by the House and duly certified and examined. The engrossed copy shall be signed by the Clerk and transmitted to the Senate

[Dan Honemann]

If the following is the clause referred to, I'm afraid I don't see an analogous use of the word "and" indicating an "either/or" condition. But perhaps I'm looking at the wrong text.

1. Upon adoption by Congress of a concurrent resolution on the budget under section 301 or 304 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 that sets forth, as the appropriate level of the public debt for the period to which the concurrent resolution relates, an amount that is different from the amount of the statutory limit on the public debt that otherwise would be in effect for that period, the Clerk shall prepare an engrossment of a joint resolution increasing or decreasing, as the case may be, the statutory limit on the public debt in the form prescribed in clause 2. Upon engrossment of the joint resolution, the vote by which the concurrent resolution on the budget was finally agreed to in the House shall also be considered as a vote on passage of the joint resolution in the House, and the joint resolution shall be considered as passed by the House and duly certified and examined. The engrossed copy shall be signed by the Clerk and transmitted to the Senate

I think Rules XXVII and XXVIII got switched around.

[hmtcastle]

I think Rules XXVII and XXVIII got switched around.

Is this the clause in question?

1. A Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner shall not directly negotiate or have any agreement of future employment or compensation unless such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, within 3 business days after the commencement of such negotiation or agreement of future employment or compensation, files with the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct a statement, which must be signed by the Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, regarding such negotiations or agreement, including the name of the private entity or entities involved in such negotiations or agreement, and the date such negotiations or agreement commenced.

[Dan Honemann]

RULE XXVIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The provisions of law that constituted the Rules of the House at the end of the previous Congress shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable, and the rules of parliamentary practice comprised by Jefferson’s Manual shall govern the House in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with the Rules and orders of the House.

[Guest dan]

No, "and " is fine in this context. For another example, look at Rule XXVIII, Clause 1, of the House Rules.

I think "and" is correct.

Suppose the phrase was "not inconsistent with the rules and regulations of xxx", where there are a list of rules and a list of regulations. We would, I think, treat the phrase as inclusive of the entire lists taken together.

Or, "not inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws of xxx", where there is a separate constitutuon and bylaws documents.

[hmtcastle]

RULE XXVIII

GENERAL PROVISIONS

Thanks for providing the text.

In this instance the phrase "of the house" modifies both the Rules and the orders, hence the use of the word "and". In other words, it's just shorthand for saying, "the Rules of the House or the orders of the House". In the RONR citation, there is no comparable phrase (e.g. "of the Society"). And note that, in Guest_dan_'s examples, there is an "of" phrase.

So I'm stickin' with Mr. Novosielski on this one and look forward to the 11th Edition.

Put another way, what would be changed (i.e. lost) if "or" were substituted for "and"?

[Gary Novosielski]

No, "and " is fine in this context. For another example, look at Rule XXVIII, Clause 1, of the House Rules.

But see also RONR p. 16, l. 12-13

[Tim Wynn]

I prefer "or," as well.

Also, I find that Mr. Honemann's statement that, "'and' is fine," does not exclude him from preferring "or."

That said, I doubt the use of "and" would, in reality, create the type of hypothetical problems we're dreaming up.

Furthermore, I'm sure Opie's bylaw is a mistake, not a conscious deviation from the norm.

[David A Foulkes]

I prefer "or," as well.

Also, I find that Mr. Honemann's statement that, "'and' is fine," does not exclude him from preferring "or."

That said, I doubt the use of "and" would, in reality, create the type of hypothetical problems we're dreaming up.

Furthermore, I'm sure Opie's bylaw is a mistake, not a conscious deviation from the norm.

For what it's worth - p. 16 ll. 8-14 (specifically l. 12) uses "or." Just thought I'd mention it.

[Tim Wynn]

For what it's worth - p. 16 ll. 8-14 (specifically l. 12) uses "or." Just thought I'd mention it.

Mr. Novosielski already did. It's official now that you've noted it, though.