Richard Brown

Actually, the last sentence of 46:31(1) of RONR (12th ed.) does provide that an individual may hold two offices simultaneously unless the bylaws provide otherwise. The sentence states: "The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously".

I picked up on that, too. I'm hoping he means "special orders".

What EXACTLY, word for word, do your bylaws say about the powers of the Board?

@A questionerwr need a lot more information regarding exactly what happened, what procedure was used to expel the member, exactly what your bylaws say about the term of office of officers and about discipline or removal from office or expulsion, if anything, You really haven’t given us enough information for us to be of much help.

Nothing in RONR prohibits it. If a member is present when the assembly votes, he may vote even if he was not there for the making of the motion or the debate. Any prohibition of the things you mentioned would have to be in your own rules.

I would think you can make a motion to “go into executive session to discuss the possible purchase of real estate.” In fact, if the Rules in RONR are controlling (which may or may not be the case), you do not even need to provide a reason for going into executive session. You might look at §19:16 in RONR (12th Ed.).

Neither do I. I think both motions are in order.

Guest Cate, who on earth drafted those bylaws? I would say they are much worse than Mr. Gerber‘s statement that they are “not OK as is“. That is a huge understatement! The quoted provisions of these bylaws are terrible – horrible! Maybe the worst I have ever seen regarding elections and voting. They definitely need revising. PLEASE consult with an experienced and knowledgeable parliamentarian on this.

A non-member of the body that is meeting has no right to attend any meetings of that body if the rules in RONR are controlling. However, it appears that this might be some kind of homeowner or condo association. If so, the organization's bylaws or other rules might permit non-members to attend those meetings. Any such rules supersede the rules in RONR. Nothing in RONR requires that directors be members of the organization. Also, the body itself can permit non-members to attend and to participate. Finally, if this is a property owner's type organization, state law might well contain applicable provisions. I suspect this is more a bylaws question than an RONR question. For starters, I would check to see if your bylaws or other governing documents require that directors be property owners or members of the association and what happens if a member sells his property. It also looks like the issue is not so much whether this person can attend a meeting, but rather a question of whether he is entitled to vote on approving the budget as a member of the body that is meeting. Those are two very different questions. More information would be helpful. Edited to add: Guest Newbie, is (or was) this person a director and therefore a member of the board of directors? If so, selling his "unit" would not cause him to automatically be removed from the board unless your bylaws or controlling law so provide. As far as RONR is concerned, a director does not have to be a member of the organization. Again, this looks more like a bylaws issue than a Robert's Rules issue.

I would say yes, because nothing in RONR prohibits it. Any such prohibition would have to be in your own bylaws. Yes, as far as RONR is concerned. I don’t disagree, but would point out that nothing in RONR prohibits an ex officio member from serving as chairman. However, if the intent is to make him chairman of a committee, I agree it is probably better that he be a regular member of the committee.

I do not understand what Guest Melissa is asking.

I mostly agree with Mr. Martin's comments. The only point on which I have a relatively minor disagreement is that based on the definitions and rules iin RONR, I do not believe there is an ambiguity as to the vote requirement to amend the bylaws. I believe it is clearly a two-thirds vote of those members actually voting, whether in-person or via email if authorized by the board. In all other respects, I concur fully with Mr. Martin. (I also agree with his suggested changes to your bylaws).

I don't normally "pile on" once a question has been properly answered, but since this issue seems to be rather divisive in Guest Kip's organization, I will add simply that I agree with the conclusions and the rationale expressed by both Mr. Martin and Mr. Gerber (who is on the RONR authorship team). The member who claims that the motion to Rescind or Amend something previously adopted is not in order is mistaken.

If this organization meets monthly and the meeting dates are specified in the bylaws (such as the second Tuesday of each month), is there even a "call" of a meeting such that it could include previous notice of, say, a proposed motion? Sending a "meeting notice" in advance of regularly scheduled monthly meetings seems more like a courtesy rather than an actual "call" of a meeting. It might include a notice that Member A intends to make a "motion to paint the clubhouse red" at the upcoming meeting, but would such a notice constitute previous notice of a motion as contemplated by 10:44 (RONR 12th ed.)? I would think not unless there is a bylaw provision or special rule of order permitting it.

I agree with my colleagues and will add that I find the secretary's practice of not counting the votes of any "alternates" once quorum is achieved to be most unusual. I haven't seen your bylaws or the ordinances in question, but if "alternates" (the more common term) are permitted, I'm willing to bet that the secretary's interpretation is a stretch. As my colleagues stated, this is a matter of interpreting your governing ordinances. That is something we cannot do for you. Edited to add: BTW, I seriously question the secretary's authority to unilaterally decide which votes she or he is going to count! I would think that the committee (or commission) itself should be making this decision, not the secretary, unless the ordinances grant him or her unusual powers. What does the city attorney say about this?

I agree with the response by Mr. Katz, but have a question for the OP. Guest Ralph, did this take place at a general membership meeting or at a board meeting? If at a board meeting, how large is the board and how many board members were present?

Guest Prestocran, how and by whom are your board meetings currently being scheduled and what EXACTLY do your bylaws say about when board meetings shall be held? How and by whom may regular and special meetings be called? Does the president have the authority to call special meetings? What about regular meetings?

I don't see how §1:6 has anything to do with when meetings are held, which is the OP's question as I understand it. RONR is silent as to whether a board or any other body must schedule its meetings at a time when all members are available to attend. There is no such requirement in RoNR. As to the statement that "all votes are unanimous", we are not told if this is a rule of some kind or if the board is such a congenial body that nobody ever dissents. I hope Guest Prestocran will enlighten us. But, regardless, 1:6 and other provisions in RoNR do say that absent a customized rule to the contrary, decisions are made by a majority vote of those members present and voting. Now, if the bylaws or special rules of order require that ALL board members (not just a majority vote) agree to proposed actions, that is a different issue. If there is such a requirement in your rules, Guest Prestocran, please share that with us and quote for us that provision verbatim.

Either that or someone is insisting that Robert's Rules used to refer to recall elections. I'm not aware that any edition of Robert's Rules of Order ever provided for recall of officers, but I defer to you and Mr. Gerber and Mr. Honemann on that point.

No, it's because RONR describes the proper methods of "giving notice". Mentioning notice of something in an agenda does not meet that criteria. Edited to add: I suppose the fact that an agenda has not been adopted could also be a factor, but I'm relying primarily on the fact that it is not one of the methods of giving notice specified by RONR.

I agree that this is the USUAL role of a committee, but it is possible to create a committee "with power" -- that is, power to do or execute what it is recommending as long as it is within the designated powers of the committee. In other words, such a committee is not limited to making recommendations.

Agreeing with Mr. Elsman, the member who said RONR prohibits “revisiting“ a motion previously adopted is mistaken. The motion to reconsider is another means of “revisiting“ something, but as Mr. Elsman stated, that would not be the appropriate motion to use in this situation. I will also note that, unless this is a small board of no more than about a dozen members and the board is using the small board rules, it would be inappropriate for the chair to make the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. The motion should be made by another member unless this is a small board.

A statement by the chair at the beginning of the meeting along these lines would be appropriate: "On behalf of the board, I welcome our guests and thank you for coming. I remind our guests that this is a meeting of the board, not of the general membership. Although general members are welcome to attend, debate and discussion of matters before the board will be limited to members of the board. General members are permitted to address the board with their concerns during the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting (or at the end of the meeting), but are not permitted to speak or address the board during consideration of agenda items and other motions." Note: If you do not have a "comment period" for members to address the board, you might consider adopting such a procedure. It might even be required by your bylaws or by law if this organization is something like a homeowner or condo association or public body such as a school board.

I think that all of those provisions could be (and probably should be) in special rules of order unless there are conflicting rules in the bylaws. An example would be (an unwise) provision in the bylaws that "all motions shall be decided by majority vote". I don't think a special rule of order requiring a higher vote threshold for email motions would override that bylaw provision.

I agree. The AUTHORIZATION for email voting should be in the bylaws, but the rules and procedures for email voting should ideally be in special rules of order. I did not intend to suggest that those rules should be in the bylaws.