Richard Brown

I concur with Mr. Martin's response. The procedure provided for in the bylaws appears to take this particular disciplinary matter out from under RONR's default disciplinary and trial provisions in Chapter XX. I agree that the member may be removed (or "disqualified") from membership by means of an ordinary main motion without notice. Giving notice might be prudent and help to ward off a claim that the member was denied due process, but in my opinion, notice is NOT required.

I agree with JJ, but I am going to take a slightly different approach. Forget all this business about executive session. Nothing has been said to indicate that this committee is meeting in executive session. Let’s assume it is an ordinary committee meeting. Mr. Esman is taking the position that all committee deliberations are confidential regardless of whether the committee is in executive session I Disagree strongly. If a committee is meeting and I, as a nonmember of the committee, happen to be present during the deliberations or perhaps just overhear the deliberations from another room, in either case, those committee negotiations are not confidential, and I am quite free to go to lunch with a friend or another member of the organization and tell that friend everything that was said during the committee meeting. What was said in the meeting is not confidential unless it was in an executive session. Committee meetings or deliberations are not deemed to automatically be in executive session by RONR. Edited to add: The same thing would apply if I were a member of the committee that was meeting and deliberating. Once the meeting is over, I would be perfectly free to go to lunch with a friend or another member of the society and tell that person about everything we discussed in the committee meeting.

This question comes up, fairly often and @Gary Novosielskiprovided a very good and concise explanation of how it works and how to determine whether the president who has resigned remains a member of the board.

Agreeing with my colleagues, yes, the previously adopted motion can usually be rescinded or amended. Keep in mind, however, that under the rules in RONR, rescinding or amending a motion previously adopted requires a 2/3 vote (or the vote of a majority of the entire membership) unless previous notice of intent to resend or amend the motion is given. If previous notice is given, it can be done with a majority vote.

Yes, by following footnote 1 to section 46:32 of RONR which Mr. Novisielski included in small type as a footnote and you might have missed. Using that procedure, the person with the fewest votes can be removed even after the first ballot. It would require a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules to do that unless you have a rule that permits it. Note that you can only remove his name from the ballot or the list of nominees: the member still remains eligible for election and members can write his name in and he can still get elected.

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, there is no need to break a tie vote (except, maybe, in elections). If the vote on a motion is tied, the motion fails to achieve a majority vote and therefore fails. There is no need to break the tie. There is nothing to decide. The motion failed.

@Rob Elsman I agree with @Josh Martin. There is nothing in RONR that makes committee meetings confidential.

On the surface and based solely on the information you provided, it appears that yes, that is the case and the accused and accuser both get to vote if they insist on it. However, it would help if you could provide more information on how your disciplinary process works and how this board is to function. This is not the default disciplinary process in RONR, but if you have your own customized procedures, they would supersede the default procedures in RONR.

I agree with my colleagues that the president is apparently a member of the board and is therefore entitled to vote just like all other board members. However, his membership on the board and his right to vote is due to him being a member of the board, not due to that bylaw provision about the president being an ex-officio voting member of all committees. As I believe others have pointed out, that provision has nothing to do with this.

I suspect you may find your answer in the church bylaws, or, if the church is incorporated, in the articles of incorporation. At a minimum, they probably describe the powers of the board. Under the rules in RONR, if the bylaws do not provide that the powers granted to the board are exclusive, that generally means that the general membership possesses the same power and can reverse decisions of the board. Edited to add: You might want to look at official interpretations 2006–12 and 2006–13 on the main website here: https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/

Agreeing with Mr. Lages, what do your bylaws say about the composition of the board? Do they not specify who the members of the board are? if the bylaws do not specify, in one way, or another, that the president is a member of the board, then I agree with Mr. Lages that making him an ex officio member of committees does not make him an ex officio member of the board. A board is not the same thing as a committee. I will add that I think it would be rather unusual, perhaps most unusual, if the president is not a member of the board.

In my opinion, the second interpretation is clearly the correct one. It is pointless and almost absurd to provide that a certain number of members may call a special meeting, which, by definition must be for one or more specific purposes, but the chair can ignore the purpose in the request and call it instead for some different purpose.

Agreeing with my colleagues, I would say that most likely, yes, items not on the agenda may be taking up. But as Mr. Katz pointed out, there are exceptions. For example, your bylaws or special rules of order may provide that only items on the agenda may be taken up at a meeting. Your own rules would supersede those in RONR. We need more information in order to give you a more precise answer.

Agreeing with my colleagues, it is hard to fight a "one man battle". you will need friends on the board (or in the membership) who will support you and at least second your appeals. Since there is no "RONR police force" this is really a matter of educating your colleagues on the board. Giving them (or having the board buy them) all a copy of RONR or RoNR In Brief (RONRIB) or a copy of "Robeert's Rules for Dummies" by C. Alan Jennings might go a long way toward educating them. Having a parliamentarian meke a presentation on proper meeting procedure and to highlight the trouble spots might also help convince the chair and other board members they they haven't been doing things the right way. Lastly, I will say that it might be important to "pick your battles" and not sweat the small stuff that really isn't hurting anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.

Well, of course the member who made the request to withdraw a motion may make a formal motion to withdraw the motion if there is an objection to his unanimous consent request. Likewise, any other member may move to grant the other member permission to withdraw his motion if the unanimous consent request is denied. The request or formal motion to withdraw the original motion must be made before voting on the question begins. 33:16 RONR (12th ed.). However, you and I may still disagree. I maintain that section 33:15 is quite clear that the chair MAY, but isn't required to, put the matter to the assembly in the absence of a formal motion. The initial request to withdraw a motion is a REQUEST, not a motion. The chair may insist that a formal motion be made, either by the member who originally made the unanimous consent request or by another member. If the motion is made by the member who made the unanimous consent request, it must be seconded. If it is made by another member, it does not require a second because it is assumed that the member who made the unanimous consent request also wants his original motion to be withdrawn.

My colleagues have correctly answered your question based on the rules in RONR. However, I will point out that RONR also permits a society to adopt special rules of order requiring additional matters to be included in the minutes or to specify that certain things which RONR requires shall not be required in your organization's minutes. In other words, RONR permits you to adopt special rules of order to specify what your organization wants included in the minutes. See §48:3 of RONR (12th ed.).

Agreeing with Guest Anon, it will be helpful if you can elaborate a bit on your question..... unless it Guest Anon's answer was sufficient. However, I will add that your board of directors meetings may be handled pursuant to the "Small Board Rules" in RONR which permit less formality in meetings of small boards of no more than a dozen members and in committees. Under such rules, for example, the chairman can make motions and participate in debate and vote just like all other members. There are some other distinctions.

That is no my understanding of the process. According to 33:15, the chair MAY treat the unanimous consent request as a motion of there is an objection, but he is not obligated to. The chair has the choice of treating it simply as the unanimous consent request being denied and then proceed to the next order of business OR he can put the request to the assembly for a vote as to whether the request shall be granted. There is still another option: If the chair does not put the request to the assembly, another member may formally move that the request be granted. The chair is not obligated to put the request to withdraw a motion to the assembly as a motion unless a formal motion to do so is made. Edited to add: I believe the section cited by Mr. Elsman, 4:59 may be used when there has been a formal motion made to do something, not merely a request as in a request to withdraw a motion utilizing the procedure in 33:14-15.

I agree and probably should have added that caveat to my own answer. I trust that the OP understands that the member does have the right to vote on that issue if he insists on it.

Yes, that is correct. You've got it!

Agreeing with my colleagues, matters that are simply discussed are not normally included in the minutes. However, RONR permits a society to adopt special rules of order that specify additional items that should be included in the minutes and also to specify that certain items required by RONR shall not be required. Your special rules of order supersede the rules in your adopted parliamentary authority, such as RONR.

What motion are you referring to? This question appears to relate to something that is perhaps the topic of a different thread. l It is best to ask follow-up questions about a topic in the same thread.

Yes, but more information would be helpful. For example, if the rules in RONR apply, ordinarily, the presiding officer of an assembly does not make motions or speak in debate or vote by voice vote but there are some exceptions. Two of those exceptions are for the chair of a committee or a small board of no more than about a dozen members. In those cases, the chair can make motions, participate in debate and vote just like everyone else. For a more precise answer, we need more information as to the nature and size of this "committee" or "council".

Unless state (or local) law provides an alternative, you do as Mr. Martin said and keep voting until someone wins (alternate names may be proposed, also) or, if the candidates agree, do as Mr. Merritt suggested and settle the matter by chance such as the toss of a coin. FWIW, and in line with Mr. Elsman's statement, I am aware of a situation where a county council was to fill a vacancy but remained deadlocked on the two candidates with a tie vote. In this case, state law provided that if the council was unable to fill the vacancy within a certain number of days, the Governor could make the appointment. The council remained deadlocked so the Governor made the appointment.

This seems to me more of a legal question than a parliamentary one. I am assuming that the Executive Director (ED) is an employee of the organization and that he is resigning from his position of executive director. Whether his "resignation" becomes effective when submitted or at some other time and whether it must be accepted by someone or some body such as the executive committee depends more on state law and the provisions of his employment agreement than on RONR or parliamentary procedure. RONR does not address employer-employee relations.