Questions and Answers
Adapted from http://groups.yahoo.com/group/parliamentary
Answered by Paul McClintock, PRP
Question 1:
Following the treasurer's report at a regular meeting I have heard the presiding officer state "The report will be filed for audit." On several occasions recently I have heard the statement "The report will be filed." Which is correct, should be used, and why?
Answer:
Parliamentary Law (PL) p. 322 says, “The duty of the auditors is to examine the report of the treasurer, and his books and vouchers, and see that all the money received is properly accounted for.” This is in the context of an annual financial report. Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) p. 459, l. 33, says “an annual report should always be audited.” These reports should be audited prior to presentation by the treasurer if possible, with the auditors' “Audited and found correct” statement and signatures added to the bottom (p. 461). (“It is preferable for the treasurer to have his report audited before he submits it.” PL p. 323) If the annual report is presented before an audit is done, “The report will be filed for audit” is appropriate. If already audited, the vote is taken on the audit report, and filed as adopted.
Treasurer reports at regular meetings more frequently than annual need not be written, nor filed. RONR suggests a “verbal” report/statement (p. 459, l. 28), and it need contain no more than the cash balance on hand, or that balance less outstanding obligations.
My NAP units typically have written monthly reports showing period starting balance, total receipts, total disbursements, ending balance, and the reports are checked by the auditors along with the checkbook and vouchers. But this is beyond what RONR recommends.
Interestingly, PL (p. 321) adds two additional items to the suggested report: total outstanding receivables (assets, amounts due the society), and total outstanding obligations (liabilities, amounts due by the society). And PL suggests that for each of the Receipts, Disbursements, Assets, Liabilities categories, that subtotals by class (e.g., dues, sales, fines) be reported, but not the itemized details.
Thus, “will be filed for audit” is in accord with PL for the annual report if not yet audited, and “will be filed” if already audited, and no mention of filing if for a monthly report which need not be audited.
__________
Question 2:
I understand the principle of “one person, one vote” as well as some of the ways that exceptions are created. But where is this rule explicitly stated in RONR?
Answer:
“A deliberative assembly - the kind of gathering to which parliamentary law is generally understood to apply - has the following distinguishing characteristics: ... In any decision made, the opinion of each member present has equal weight as expressed by vote - through which the voting member joins in assuming direct personal responsibility for the decision, should his or her vote be on the prevailing side.” -- RONR pp. 1-2.
Note also that RONR p. 393 says: “The chair cannot vote twice, once as a member, then again in his capacity as presiding officer.”
If Ms. X is an elected member of the finance committee and is later elected to fill a vacancy for treasurer, who is an ex officio member of the finance committee, X is now a member of the committee by virtue of a two different reasons, but is nevertheless just one member, and has just one vote.
If a state board is composed of the president of each unit and the chairmen of all standing committees, and Mr. Z is both a unit president and state standing committee chairman, Mr. Z is none-the-less only one member of the state board, and has only one vote.
RONR in essence has a one-member-one-vote rule rather than a one-person-one-vote rule, and some argue that if membership can be corporations as represented by designees, then a single person designated as the representative of two different corporate members may in fact be properly considered to be two different members and have two votes. Corporations are legally persons. I'm not 100% convinced of this line of reasoning, and know of no PA or court case addressing it, but it is somewhat reasonable.
Bylaws or higher level rules can of course supersede the PA (RONR) as they generally do in ownership organizations. If a member owns 100 shares of stocks, he gets 100 votes at the shareholders meeting. If proxies are permitted, a member holding 9 proxies gets 10 votes. A person owing 2 condos in the condo complex gets 2 votes at the membership meetings. And in some condo owner associations, each condo gets a fractional vote in proportion to the number of square feet of the property owned in comparison to the total for the complex. One state organization had rules that delegations to the state convention could vote their "full strength"; if a delegation could have up to 10 delegates but only had 2 attend, the 2 got to cast 10 votes.
In all cases where weighted votes (whether multiple or fractional) are allowed by documents of authority, it can greatly complicate the proceedings for any vote that is not unanimous. Even one person holding enough proxies can be a majority. Special rules will likely be needed for ordering a counted vote. And time should be budgeted for such.
Washington State Parliamentarian October 2008, page 5