Beyond Form and Example

When Robert’s Doesn’t Say What to Say: Beyond Form and Example

Karen Watson, PRP

Parliamentarians are consultants who expeditiously advise the chair what to say . Much of the advice provided is based on verbatim Form and Example in Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th Edition) (RONR (12th ed .)) . 1 Yet, what happens when a situation is encountered for which no Form and Example is provided? How does the parliamentarian advise the chair when RONR doesn’t say what to say?

“. . . in each of the succeeding sections covering the different motions of parliamentary law (11-37), is a subsection headed Form and Example giving a script showing the words to be spoken by a member making the motion and by the chair in stating and putting the question on it . . .” RONR (12th ed.) 10:37

The Format of Form and Example – Verbatim and implied

There are numerous subsections labeled Form and Example scattered throughout RONR . A parliamentarian must be familiar with Form and Example and be prepared to help both the presiding chair and any members who lack familiarity with this format .

Verbatim Form and Example headings are in quotes . An example for the chair is, “Are there any further nominations?” (46:8) For members, the nicely condensed and alphabetized tinted pages, starting on p . t34, provide the exact words to be spoken when making motions .

Form and Example is implied when Robert’s doesn’t say what to say . For a presiding chair, an example of an implied Form and Example is, “…each ballot should be folded in a manner announced in advance or stated on the ballot itself .” (45:27) What the chair should say is implied, but no verbatim Form and Example is given .

Beyond Form and Example

When a situation is encountered for which no Form and Example is provided, a parliamentarian must draw from his or her parliamentary compendium built on foundational knowledge and experience . Foundational knowledge comes from knowing the underlying principles of parliamentary procedure gained through study and research in the reference books of our profession and credentialing issued by the National Association of Parliamentarians® . Experience can be acquired from having personally served as a parliamentarian in a situation without verbatim Form and Example and/or from other parliamentarians who willingly share their experiences to broaden ours .

What’s in Your Compendium?

Below are true meeting situations . There is no verbatim Form and Example . Draw from implied Form and Example in RONR, your foundational knowledge, and experience to expeditiously formulate advice for the chair . Following each scenario is the advice given to the presiding chair at the meeting with the RONR reference and some tips For the Future to advert these situations from happening in the first place! 1 . Scenario . After the ballot count has begun, a member seeks recognition, then tells the presiding chair that one teller is best friends with one of the candidates and therefore is disqualified to serve as a teller .

Advice. CHAIR: An individual is not disqualified to serve as a teller except for a direct personal involvement in the question or in the result of the vote to the extent that they should refrain from voting . Moreover, frequently, tellers chosen to protect the interests of each opposing side . (45:26) 2 . Scenario . A ballot contains pre-printed names of nominees running for office . When the chair states, “Are there any further nominations?”, a member shouts, “Objection!”

Advice. CHAIR: Will the member state the reason for the objection? [If the objection pertains to the procedure (pre-printed names on the ballot)]

CHAIR: According to RONR (12th ed .) 46:28-29, the procedure is allowed . An objection cannot be made because any eligible individual can be nominated, and elected, even though the individual’s name is not pre-printed on the ballot . The member may make a motion for debate on the nominations, at which time he can speak against (using decorum) the candidacy of any nominee . 3 . Scenario . A member accepts appointment as a teller . The meeting proceeds to other business during the counting . The teller stops counting, seeks recognition of the chair, and makes a complaint that he is missing business during the meeting .

Advice. CHAIR: Does the member request to be excused from his duty as teller? [If yes,] If there is no objection, the member is excused . The chair now appoints [name of member] as teller . [If no,] Until such time as the member requests to be excused from his duty, he shall continue to serve as teller .

For the Future, before appointing tellers, the chair can emphasize that serving as a teller may take the individual away from business should the assembly vote to continue the meeting while ballots are counted . (45:30) 4 . Scenario . In a large room, the sound system infrequently cuts in and out . Balloting has begun . During the recess, a candidate confronts the chair, “I have been told by another member that my speech was barely intelligible due to the sporadic audio of the speakers . I want to give my nominating speech again . ”

Advice. There is no simple answer in this situation . The parliamentarian might inquire of legal counsel if there are any grounds in this situation to warrant cessation of the vote . Otherwise, the chair should inform the member that the voting has begun and should not be interrupted (46:6) and that no Question of

Privilege was raised by any member at the time of the “offense . ”

For the Future, prior to the meeting, the chair can inquire of sound technicians to ensure the sound system is properly functioning . Once the meeting is called to order, the chair can ascertain (by raising a question of privilege) if the audio is clear for all members simply by asking . (19:1-13) 5 . Scenario . When the results of the election are read, the candidate, who withdrew his name, was announced as elected . A member shouts, “Objection!”

Advice. In this situation, the chair has an opportunity to educate the members . [After referring to the organization’s bylaws], CHAIR: There can be no objection .

The individual has met the qualifications of the office and received a majority vote .

The individual is declared elected regardless of his withdrawal . (46:31)

Then, the chair should expeditiously ascertain if the elected individual either declines to hold the office (since he withdrew his name) or accepts . (32:3 and 32:4) 6 . Scenario . One of the tellers informs the chair that the other teller refuses to sign the Tellers’ Report .

Advice. In a meeting, the appointment of tellers may be the most important of all .

“I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this—who will count the votes, and how . ”2

While it might be preferred that all tellers agree with the Tellers’ Report, in RONR (12th ed .), there is no requirement for tellers to do so .

The Chair might inquire the reason(s) for a teller’s refusal to sign and work toward a resolution . Reasons might include (a) the method or procedure of counting, (b) the tools being used (calculator, laptop, computer program), (c) lack of understanding the kinds of votes (e .g ., difference between quorum and vote requirements), or (d) lack of understanding the difference of the ballots .

For the Future, before appointing tellers, the chair can diligently instruct tellers what is expected from them . The chair can stress the benefit of tellers being in agreement with the Tellers’ Report . This will include informing them that they should immediately stop at any time they think the counting is being done in error in order that adjustments may be made to correct any suspected error or discrepancy . The goal is an “unchallenged” election . (23:6, 45:26, and 46:49)

In preparation for serving an organization, the parliamentarian should review governing documents including state statutes . If, as in this situation, the state law requires tellers’ signatures to be on the Tellers’ Report, the chair can submit a request to the assembly to excuse the “refusing” teller from duty, then, appoint another teller . (45:10) 7 . Scenario . The annual meeting of an organization that allows proxies has adjourned .

After adjournment, an owner, who possessed a significant number of proxies, raises a Point of Order . He believes his candidate did not win because his proxies were not counted .

Advice. Every parliamentarian must be prepared to explain voting issues, including a member’s right to change his vote up to a certain time (excluding a vote by a method that provides secrecy) . (4:42 and 45:8)

This situation was subsequently referred to higher management and may be pending with legal counsel at this time . Even though the Point of Order was not made during the meeting (it was made after the vote was announced and the meeting adjourned), the owner’s right, according to state law, made his point a valid “continuing breach .” (45:50 and 23:6) Both the verbal recording of the meeting and the contemporaneous script of the chair confirmed that the chair announced that proxyholders should check at the tally desk during the recess .

For the Future, the chair can be adamant to emphasize the instructions for proxies/proxyholders . 8 . Scenario . A highly-charged election is being conducted that will determine the future direction of an organization . Nominees are in two camps and their speeches mostly complain about ‘the other side’ . Before the ballots are collected, a member states he could not tell on which ‘side’ nominees were, and therefore, he wants the candidates to give their speeches again .

Advice. Depending on time and the sufferance of the organization, there are at least four ways to address this situation . CHAIR: Speeches will not be given again because (choosing any of the following): 1) The meeting rules regarding nomination speeches were adopted and followed (if applicable) . 2) Instructions regarding content of nominating speeches were given to nominees (if applicable) . 3) Each nominee had equal time for his/her nominating speech . 4) The content of each nominee’s speech was his/her choice .

This does not preclude a member from making a motion to suspend or amend the meetings rules, thus allowing nominees to give speeches again, provided no balloting has yet begun . (25:14-15, 2:16-24, and 59:27-27)

For the Future, the chair can emphasize the instructions for giving nominating speeches . (46:27) 9 . Scenario . Immediately after the first nominating speech, members erupt into cheering and clapping .

Advice. The author’s prior personal experience with this situation and foundational knowledge produced the following compendium for advice for her next chair when the situation surfaced at yet another organization’s election . • “The chair is supposed to look out for the interests of the assembly and to see that this liberty is not abused so as to interfere with business .” (Parliamentary

Practice, Henry M . Robert, p . 154)

• The Chair is responsible “ . . . to assist the carrying on of debate in a smooth and orderly manner .” (43:19) • “During debate, during remarks by the chair to the assembly, and during voting, no member should be permitted to disturb the assembly by whispering, walking across the floor, or in any other way . The key words here are disturb the assembly .” (43:28) • Slight breach of order (first warning) . “Chair simply raps lightly, points out the fault, advises member(s) to avoid it .” (61:10) • Dealing with Discipline in a Meeting . After first warning, call the member to order . (61:11) CHAIR: The members’ passion in the election is appreciated and enthusiasm for their candidates is acknowledged . Yet, the Chair’s responsibility it to ensure the purpose of this meeting is to conduct official business of the organization in a manner that is as efficient and effective as possible . Therefore, the Chair is compelled to advise members to act accordingly with appropriate debate decorum . This is your first warning . The author is happy to report that the remainder of the meeting was civil and peaceful .

Conclusion

As parliamentarians, we must be familiar with and utilize verbatim Form and Example in RONR to advise the chair expeditiously and accurately what to say . Then, for situations when there is only implied Form and Example, we will do well to draw on foundational knowledge and experience, our own personal experience as well as the collective experience from among our colleagues, when advising our chairs .

Have you served as a parliamentarian in situations such as these? If yes, please share your experience! Please email KarenWatsonLincolng@gmail.com so your insight may be added to her compendium of advice for chairs when Robert’s doesn’t say what to say . NP

1 In this article, the 12th edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised is cited. References are as follows: section:paragraph. 2 Boris Bazhanov, The Memoirs of Stalin’s Former Secretary, 1992.

karen Watson, PRP, earned the PRP credential in 2010 and started her business the next year. She has experience serving a wide-range of clients in over 100 different meetings. This year marks the third time she has been awarded Nebraska Parliamentarian of the Year (2013, 2018, 2022). She has presented at NAP national conferences and serves as parliamentarian for the Nebraska Department AMVETS Ladies Auxiliary. Her favorite service as a parliamentarian is training non-profit, newly-elected, board members. Currently, she is a member of a parliamentary Masters Group with colleagues from Canada, the East Coast, Mid-West, and Hawaii.

&Questions Answers

The intent of this column is to provide general answers or advice (not formal, official opinions) about the questions asked . The answers are based on the most recent edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, unless otherwise indicated, and do not take into account such governing authorities as statutes, bylaws, adopted special rules of order, other parliamentary authorities, or earlier editions, except as specifically mentioned .

The abbreviations used in these questions and answers are explained in National Parliamentarian Vol . 83, No . 1, Fall 2021, p . 18 .

Questions should be emailed to npquestions@nap2.org.

QQuESTION #12:

Our club’s bylaws require notice to be given of any proposed bylaw amendment. I gave previous notice at my club’s last regular monthly meeting in July that I would be proposing an amendment to our bylaws to allow for electronic meetings. I didn’t have the full text of the amendment ready yet and didn’t specify where the amendment would be placed, but

I thought that I provided enough to properly inform members of the proposal. That July meeting had no quorum but there were members there who heard me give notice of my plan to propose the amendment at the next meeting in August. However, when I arrived at the August regular meeting, the president refused to allow me to bring up the amendment.

Was this correct? Is it true that previous notice can’t be given if there is no quorum? And couldn’t the secretary have placed my proposal into the call of the meeting so that we could consider and vote on it at the August meeting?

ANSWER:

RONR (12th ed .) 10:44-51 explains previous notice of motions, when it may be needed, and provides examples of how it can be given . “Previous notice” is an announcement that a motion will be introduced in the future . It may be required for the adoption of some motions, such as bylaw amendments, or it can be used to lower the vote required to adopt certain motions . Previous notice may be given orally, at a meeting, unless an organization’s rules require it in writing . If the rules require the notice to be given in writing, it could be required either in writing at a previous meeting or in writing in the call of the meeting . Usually the full text isn’t required, just an accurate statement of purpose .

&Questions Answers continued

A member may give previous notice of a motion when nothing is pending, or the member may be able to interrupt pending business, although they can’t interrupt a person actually speaking . It’s still in order to give previous notice after the assembly has voted to adjourn, as long as the chair hasn’t declared the meeting adjourned . When previous notice is given at a meeting, the chair should repeat the information, and the secretary should record it in the minutes . Instead of being given at a meeting, previous notice may also be provided to each member by the secretary with the call of the meeting at which the motion is to come up for action . RONR (12th ed .) 10:51 notes that this sort of previous notice may be placed in the call of a meeting, especially in cases where there is a duty or established custom of providing notice in this manner . In this example, the member requests the secretary to provide the previous notice with the call of the meeting, and it’s done at the expense of the organization . When previous notice is given orally at a meeting, there must be a quorum for it to be valid . RONR (12th ed .) 40:9 states in part that: “The prohibition against transacting business in the absence of a quorum cannot be waived even by unanimous consent, and a notice (10:44-51) cannot be validly given . ” At the August meeting referred to in the question, the president was correct to disallow the member from proposing the bylaw amendment, since notice had not been properly provided, due to there being no quorum at the July meeting . The president should have informed the member at the July meeting that previous notice could not be properly given because there was no quorum, and instructed them to either: (a) request the secretary include the information with the call to the August meeting (if allowable by the organization’s rules or custom); or (b) to attempt to give the notice at the August meeting to propose the bylaw amendment at the September meeting . If it is acceptable for previous notice to be provided in the call of the meeting of the club, then the member could have requested the secretary to place the information in the call of the August meeting so that the bylaw amendment could be considered and voted upon at that meeting .

QQuESTION #13:

At our club’s last regular monthly meeting, we took a ballot vote on a certain motion. Every member had received a ballot package upon check-in with four ballots, labeled A-D. The chair explained that all members were to use Ballot A on the vote on the certain motion, mark

&Questions Answers continued

either the YES or NO box, and place it in the ballot box. No other ballots were to be placed in the ballot box. There were 25 votes cast using Ballot A, and 2 votes cast using Ballot B (both marked “NO”). The tellers included the 2 votes cast using Ballot B as illegal votes, and declared that there were 27 votes cast. The tellers’ report stated that since there were 27 votes cast, 14 were needed for the motion’s adoption, and that 14 votes were cast in favor, 11 votes in opposition, and 2 illegal votes. I realize it didn’t affect the result, but I’m confused as to what should be done regarding illegal votes. Should the 2 illegal votes have been counted toward the majority vote requirement?

ANSWER:

RONR (12th ed .) 45:32-38 and t52 provide guidance on what ballots to count, what makes a ballot illegal and/or not part of the total, and how the tellers’ report should state the counts . If a ballot is unintelligible or includes a vote for an ineligible choice, then it is treated as an illegal vote, and is counted in the votes cast, although it cannot be credited to any specific choice . An example of an unintelligible ballot is if both YES and NO boxes are marked . An example of a vote for an ineligible choice is if someone writes in the word “maybe” instead of marking the YES or NO box . Unintelligible ballots or ballots with ineligible choices are counted in the votes cast, and so they affect the number needed to achieve the voting requirement . If a member circles the YES or NO box instead of marking it, that would be considered a technical error, and would not make the vote illegal, since the meaning is clear—that vote would still be counted toward the YES or NO totals . Ballots cast by one or more persons not entitled to vote can be classified into 2 categories: whether the ballot is identifiable or unidentifiable as cast by a person not entitled to vote . An identifiable ballot cast by a person not entitled to vote should not be included in the total number of votes cast for computing the majority vote . If unidentifiable ballots were cast by persons not entitled to vote, and there is a chance they could affect the result, the first ballot vote is null and void and a new ballot vote must be taken . In this particular case, the 2 ballots were identifiable because they used the wrong ballot (Ballot B instead of Ballot A) . It can be argued that they were

&Questions Answers continued

identifiable ballots cast by a person not entitled to vote, since every member was entitled to vote once (using Ballot A only), but not twice (using Ballot B or any other ballot) . Using Ballot B may have been a member trying to vote an extra time . Or a member could have used Ballot B because they simply spoiled their Ballot A . The reason the Ballot B votes were cast is immaterial— it only matters that those 2 ballots should not be included in the total number of votes cast or in the majority vote computation . Therefore, the tellers’ report should have stated that 25 votes were cast, 13 votes in favor were needed for the motion’s adoption, 14 votes were cast in favor, and 11 were cast in opposition . RONR (12th ed .) doesn’t have any guidance on how to record the 2 illegal votes that are not counted in the votes cast total but it seems appropriate to note them as illegal or invalid votes cast using the wrong ballot . If the 2 votes cast using Ballot B were counted in the total number of votes cast, then it follows that members could destroy the possibility of achieving a majority vote by casting all of their additionally lettered Ballots to make the majority vote number impossible to reach . It is worth noting that RONR (12th ed .) 45:29 states in part that: “In collecting the ballots, it is the tellers’ responsibility to see that no member votes more than once—for the assurance of which the assembly should adopt some reasonable and orderly method .” The tellers are ultimately responsible, but they are human and they could miss someone sneaking in a second ballot, someone using the wrong ballot, or a non-voting member casting a ballot, etc ., and if a questionable situation happens, the club may need to adopt specific rules regarding how ballot votes are cast and counted to ensure accuracy . One group chose to call the roll to have each voting member, one by one, put their vote into the ballot box, to ensure that no one voted more than once .

Ann Homer, PRP, Editor

Questions & Answers Research Team

Rachel Glanstein, PRP Azella Collins, PRP

Timothy Wynn, PRP, Parliamentarian/Consultant