Hypothetical request

[Guest Susan]

I've been double-dog daring our president and immediate past president to consult with a parliamentarian. They've been taking exceptional issue with the things I've been saying - or the points of order I've been raising with them.

When I've described their antics - the universal response seems to be See FAQ #20.

Now if these people contacted a parliamentarian, I assume they would receive a more diplomatic response.

So I'm going to pose the question from what I believe is the chair's standpoint:

(purely hypothetical - because I don't think I've annoyed them enough *yet* to get them to ask for help)

"As the presiding officer, I feel the need to protect member rights in my organization. For the first time in our organization's long history, we had a contested election at our annual meeting. The day before the meeting, I wondered how best to handle this situation and I looked at our bylaws which said -

'A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Officers shall be elected at the annual membership meeting the second Wednesday in September. Nominations for officers will be due by the May meeting.'

"I had erroneously called for and accepted a nomination after the May meeting deadline, and felt in the interest of fairness to the group, could not allow the name on the ballot. When asked if a write-in vote was allowed, I stated no, we could only vote for the names on the ballot.

"Needless to say, this caused much an uproar in my group, and they are calling for a re-vote. Please advise on the best method of handling this situation."

Thanks!

[hmtcastle]

"Needless to say, this caused much an uproar in my group, and they are calling for a re-vote. Please advise on the best method of handling this situation."

Although it appears that you (i.e. the president) exceeded your authority, nothing that was done appears to constitute a "continuing breach". In other words, the time for raising a point of order has past.

That does not, however make you immune from any disciplinary sanctions the membership might decide to impose.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

"As the presiding officer, I feel the need to protect member rights in my organization.

For the first time in our organization's long history, we had a contested election at our annual meeting.

The day before the meeting, I wondered how best to handle this situation and I looked at our bylaws which said -

'A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS. Officers shall be elected at the annual membership meeting the second Wednesday in September. Nominations for officers will be due by the May meeting.'

Bylaw "A" is a rule which is "in the nature of a rule of order."

As such, it is suspendable.

As such, when violated, it generates no continuing breach.

"I had erroneously called for and accepted a nomination after the May meeting deadline,

and felt in the interest of fairness to the group, could not allow the name on the ballot.

Q. How did the president get involved in printing the ballot?

Q. In what way (under what circumstance) did this president do his "calling" and his "accepting"? (Was it at midnight on a Sunday? Was it during a meeting?)

When asked if a write-in vote was allowed, I stated no, we could only vote for the names on the ballot.

This was dead wrong.

The voter is not limited to the names nominated.

[Rob Elsman]

I've been double-dog daring our president and immediate past president to consult with a parliamentarian. They've been taking exceptional issue with the things I've been saying - or the points of order I've been raising with them.

When I've described their antics - the universal response seems to be See FAQ #20.

Now if these people contacted a parliamentarian, I assume they would receive a more diplomatic response.

So I'm going to pose the question from what I believe is the chair's standpoint:

(purely hypothetical - because I don't think I've annoyed them enough *yet* to get them to ask for help)

"As the presiding officer, I feel the need to protect member rights in my organization. For the first time in our organization's long history, we had a contested election at our annual meeting. The day before the meeting, I wondered how best to handle this situation and I looked at our bylaws which said -

'A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Officers shall be elected at the annual membership meeting the second Wednesday in September. Nominations for officers will be due by the May meeting.'

"I had erroneously called for and accepted a nomination after the May meeting deadline, and felt in the interest of fairness to the group, could not allow the name on the ballot. When asked if a write-in vote was allowed, I stated no, we could only vote for the names on the ballot.

"Needless to say, this caused much an uproar in my group, and they are calling for a re-vote. Please advise on the best method of handling this situation."

Thanks!

So, what's your question about RONR?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

So, what's your question about RONR?

I dare say, the original poster said:

S1. "Needless to say, this* caused much an uproar in my group."

S2. "They are calling for a re-vote."

S3. "Please advise on the best method of handling this situation."

... implying that the original poster is indirectly asking ...

Q. If there is a "best method" within Robert's Rules of Order which applies to the action S1 which triggered the "uproar" of S2?

***

footnote:

* pronoun "this" = "I had erroneously called for and accepted a nomination after the May meeting deadline, and felt in the interest of fairness to the group, could not allow the name on the ballot. When asked if a write-in vote was allowed, I stated no, we could only vote for the names on the ballot."

***

Depending on circumstances, the are two "best methods."

(a.) do it.

(b.) don't do it.

That is, either re-do the election; or don't re-do the election.

Since the membership is dissatisfied with the integrity of its own election, the membership is free to set aside the results of Round One and go to Round Two, while correcting all the defects it found in Round One.

But the membership doesn't have to.

[Guest Susan]

Q. How did the president get involved in printing the ballot?

Q. In what way (under what circumstance) did this president do his "calling" and his "accepting"? (Was it at midnight on a Sunday? Was it during a meeting?)

[susan continues hypothetically]:

"Well, gee whiz. We don't print ballots at all. The membership is told at each meeting which nominees were properly nominated, then is told whom they may vote for by writing names down on blank pieces of paper. (again this was our first contested election - I didn't know how to proceed.)

"As president, I sent emails to a group email discussion list asking for nominations up until a week before the election. These nominations were posted to the entire group less than a week before the meeting."

This was dead wrong.

The voter is not limited to the names nominated.

[susan greatly appreciates this information. Susan cannot remember any election in her life from voting for Homecoming queen to city council to presidential elections where write in votes were not allows. Susan wonders why members of this group buys into this nonsense.]

[Guest Susan]

Bylaw "A" is a rule which is "in the nature of a rule of order."

As such, it is suspendable.

As such, when violated, it generates no continuing breach.

Clarification: if the chair decided to *not* uphold the decision to throw out a nomination, the chair would not have been in violation of bylaws.

Further clarification as plainly as possible because I want to be sure I understand:

The members should have been allowed to vote for that nominee. OR write in that nominee.

________________________________

Why is this a suspendable bylaw?

I thought bylaws were immutable laws of the universe- as long as they didn't violate the law.

[hmtcastle]

The members should have been allowed to vote for that nominee. OR write in that nominee.

They were; they just allowed themselves to be bullied by the president. When told they couldn't do what they should have known they had a right to do, they should have said, "Sez who?".

[Josh Martin]

'A. ELECTION OF OFFICERS Officers shall be elected at the annual membership meeting the second Wednesday in September. Nominations for officers will be due by the May meeting.'

"I had erroneously called for and accepted a nomination after the May meeting deadline, and felt in the interest of fairness to the group, could not allow the name on the ballot.

Okay, Mr. President. So far so good.

When asked if a write-in vote was allowed, I stated no, we could only vote for the names on the ballot.

Oops. Write-in votes are always allowed, unless the Bylaws specifically prohibit them.

"Needless to say, this caused much an uproar in my group, and they are calling for a re-vote. Please advise on the best method of handling this situation."

You should apologize to the assembly and inform them that your announcement was in error, however, this does not result in a continuing breach, and a revote is not in order. Explain your situation to the assembly and ensure you won't make such a mistake again.

Then pray that the assembly doesn't take disciplinary action against you.

"Well, gee whiz. We don't print ballots at all. The membership is told at each meeting which nominees were properly nominated, then is told whom they may vote for by writing names down on blank pieces of paper. (again this was our first contested election - I didn't know how to proceed.)

"As president, I sent emails to a group email discussion list asking for nominations up until a week before the election. These nominations were posted to the entire group less than a week before the meeting."

That's all very interesting but none of it is significant in a parliamentary sense. My previous answer stands.

Clarification: if the chair decided to *not* uphold the decision to throw out a nomination, the chair would not have been in violation of bylaws.

If the chair had allowed the nomination, he would have been in violation of the Bylaws, however, after the election is over, this would not cause a continuing breach.

Further clarification as plainly as possible because I want to be sure I understand:

The members should have been allowed to vote for that nominee. OR write in that nominee.

The bottom line is that members have the right to vote for any eligible person, whether or not that person has been (validly) nominated, unless the Bylaws state otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 425, lines 14-16)

Why is this a suspendable bylaw?

I thought bylaws were immutable laws of the universe- as long as they didn't violate the law.

Bylaws which are in the nature of rules of order are suspendable. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 254, lines 28-34) The Bylaw regarding nominations could have been suspended by a 2/3 vote to allow nominations from the floor.

[Guest Susan]

Thank you for all your responses.

I will continue to challenge our leadership to consult with a parliamentarian themselves if they don't like what I have to say. (And they don't)

The end result will not be further erosion of our rights.

You all appear quite competent in smelling something fishy from a mile away.

The current re-vote is a debacle of another order of magnitude - I don't even have to run that one by you.

Thank you.

Do you like to hear stories of success on this discussion board? The constant desperate pleas for help must get tiring.

[Guest Susan]

One more question -

We have *not* adopted RONR - yet. But would like to do so at very next meeting by adopting a resolution (outlined on your very helpful website).

Is submitting this resolution in writing to be put on the agenda considered previous notice?

I have a good hunch that a good majority of the membership will be present at the next meeting, though I want to know that submitting it as an agenda item is previous notice.

In short - when previous notice is not defined - what can be accepted as previous notice?

[Kim Goldsworthy]

Do you like to hear stories of success on this discussion board?

No!

This Q&A Forum is not the place for such distractions.

The constant desperate pleas for help must get tiring.

The designers/owners of this Q&A Forum apparently don't think so.

(If they did, then Mr. Moderator would not have applied ruler-to-knuckles so often when a posting isn't EXCLUSIVELY focused on THE BOOK and ITS CONTENTS.)

• Interpreting bylaws is frowned upon.

• Mentioning other parliamentary authorities is a punishable offense.

• Quoting Mark Twain or Abraham Lincoln is subject to immediate stink-eye.

[Kim Goldsworthy]

... which reminds me ...

I read a good quote attributed to Mark Twain, today.

"History does not necessarily repeat itself. But it does rhyme."

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[Josh Martin]

Is submitting this resolution in writing to be put on the agenda considered previous notice?

No. Previous notice may be accomplished by including the resolution in the call of the meeting or by announcing the motion at the previous meeting, provided the next meeting is within a quarterly interval. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 116, lines 6-15)

In short - when previous notice is not defined - what can be accepted as previous notice?

If the assembly has every intention of adopting RONR as its parliamentary authority it seems to me that RONR may already be considered highly persuasive. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 16, lines 23-26) It thus seems perfectly logical to use RONR's definition of previous notice.

[Gary Novosielski]

One more question -

We have *not* adopted RONR - yet. But would like to do so at very next meeting by adopting a resolution (outlined on your very helpful website).

Is submitting this resolution in writing to be put on the agenda considered previous notice?

I have a good hunch that a good majority of the membership will be present at the next meeting, though I want to know that submitting it as an agenda item is previous notice.

In short - when previous notice is not defined - what can be accepted as previous notice?

For an ordinary resolution, as opposed to a bylaws amendment, previous notice normally is not required. But when it is:

Previous notice can be given at the preceding meeting by announcing your intent to bring a motion to adopt RONR at the next meeting. If you intend to offer this as a bylaws amendment (recommended), that should be stated at the time.

Previous notice can also be included in the "call" of the meeting at which you intend to move this resolution. The "call" is the official notice of the time and place of the meeting distributed a reasonable time in advance (by mail or as otherwise provided in the bylaws) to all members, usually by the secretary.

Not all societies issue a call for regular meetings if the date, time, and place of each meeting is established in the bylaws or by a standing rule, such as "third Thursday of each month". It is required to call regular meetings when at each meeting the assembly decides the time or place for the next one. It is also necessary to call all special meetings.

The call of a meeting typically does not include the full agenda of the meeting. But if your organization customarily distributes a draft agenda in advance of the meeting, including the time and place of the meeting, then this could be sufficient to provide previous notice of any items of business described, at least briefly, in the agenda.

If this is merely an agenda that will be passed out at the beginning of, rather than well in advance of, the next meeting, then it would not be sufficient.

The basic purpose of a previous notice requirement is to give members sufficient advance knowledge that a particular topic may be discussed or acted upon at a future meeting, if this knowledge might influence their decision on whether to attend. If you have no better definition currently in existence, let that be your guide.

[Josh Martin]

For an ordinary resolution, as opposed to a bylaws amendment, previous notice normally is not required. But when it is:

A resolution to adopt a parliamentary authority for an existing society, even if not made as an amendment to the Bylaws, is not quite an "ordinary resolution," but is comparable to the adoption of a special rule of order. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 15, lines 25-27) While previous notice is not strictly required, it is desirable, as it allows adoption by a 2/3 vote. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 28-31)

[Guest Pseusan]

Mr Goldsworthy et al:

Frowning and stink eye duly noted - I will banish myself from these boards to avoid any further breach of the rules.

One more comment, though, none of you need reply. Perhaps you will only swell your chests with pride (or dismay), at what I have gleaned from your tutelage.

If the resolution is declared passed by the chair - regardless of previous notice, and regardless of a 2/3 majority vote - or whatever circumstance may befall that moment in our next meeting, and no member raises a timely point of order, we will have successfully adopted RONR.

In gratitude.

Pseusan.

(That was one joke I *got*)

[Josh Martin]

One more comment, though, none of you need reply. Perhaps you will only swell your chests with pride (or dismay), at what I have gleaned from your tutelage.

If the resolution is declared passed by the chair - regardless of previous notice, and regardless of a 2/3 majority vote - or whatever circumstance may befall that moment in our next meeting, and no member raises a timely point of order, we will have successfully adopted RONR.

Well, there is a complication involved in this instance. If previous notice is not provided, the motion requires a vote of a majority of the entire membership for adoption. If less than a majority of the entire membership is present, the declaration of the motion as adopted would violate a rule protecting the rights of absentees, and therefore cause a continuing breach. It is important to very carefully read the first sentence of the second paragraph of Official Interpretation 2006-18 before applying its conclusions too broadly.

Other than that possibility, however, your statement is accurate.

[Trina]

....

Do you like to hear stories of success on this discussion board?....

Yes, within reason. When weighing Mr. Goldsworthy's answer, keep in mind that most posters here are offering personal opinions, especially when we wander outside the pages of RONR. Besides, a brief update on what happened next will often lead to more questions/comments which are relevant to RONR.

Mr Goldsworthy et al:

Frowning and stink eye duly noted - I will banish myself from these boards to avoid any further breach of the rules.

....

Please do not, as you say, banish yourself. Just put up with a certain amount of stink eye, and stick around .

[Gary Novosielski]

Yes, within reason. When weighing Mr. Goldsworthy's answer, keep in mind that most posters here are offering personal opinions, especially when we wander outside the pages of RONR. Besides, a brief update on what happened next will often lead to more questions/comments which are relevant to RONR.

Please do not, as you say, banish yourself. Just put up with a certain amount of stink eye, and stick around .

Because, as Mark Twain said, "The more things are forbidden, the more popular they become."