Josh Martin

No. If your Bylaws define a "Past President" or "Immediate Past President" position, then by the simple dictionary definition of the term, the President automatically takes over that position when he resigns as President. If your Bylaws do not define such a position, your board can't just create the position. No. Unless your Bylaws say otherwise, the Vice President automatically becomes President, and the board has no say in the matter. There is no such thing as an "interim President" unless your Bylaws define such a position. So far as RONR is concerned, someone is either President or not. There's no "interim" about it. As for the resulting vacancy in the Vice President position, check what your Bylaws have to say about filling vacancies. If they're silent, the position is filled by the same body which elected the position to begin with, and previous notice is required for the election. This is not permissible unless specifically authorized by your Bylaws.

From a parliamentary perspective, a custom of an assembly which does not conflict with the organization's rules should be followed unless and until a majority votes to do otherwise, however, it seems unlikely that this is a parliamentary situation.

It is up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws.

Lee, while I realize it's often difficult to determine this on this forum, I don't believe any of the members meant any disrespect. As Mr. Mountcastle said, from a parliamentary perspective, minutes are taken of all meetings, and there's no such thing as an "informal" meeting. In non-parliamentary circles, however, the term "meeting" often has a much broader meaning. The use of the word "informal" likely triggered notions of this broader meaning, and so the other posters were attempting to determine whether the "meeting" was a meeting in the parliamentary sense. If this was a regular meeting called for by a rule or resolution of the organization or board, or a special meeting properly called in accordance with the organization's Bylaws, then it was a meeting of the board and minutes should be taken. If it was something else, it wasn't a meeting of the board and minutes should not be taken (nor could the board take action under such circumstances). I also realize many posters simply use the term "informal" to indicate that the meeting did not follow strict parliamentary procedure (which is common for small boards), so if this was your intent, I understand if the posters' questions about informal gatherings seemed disingenuous. I believe, however, that they were legitimate questions.

So far as RONR is concerned, there are no alternates in standing committees. Robert's Rules does not address it. There is no such thing as an alternate for a committee unless provided for in your organization's rules. In RONR, alternates only exist for conventions of delegates. If your organization wishes to have alternates for committees, it will need to develop its own rules to facilitate that. No. No it doesn't. In the current edition of RONR, Chapter 20 is about disciplinary procedures. Chapter 19 is about conventions. So you either read the roman numerals wrong or you are not reading The Right Book.

Assuming there is nothing else in your Bylaws which is relevant to this issue, if the officers chooses not to resign it will be necessary to follow the formal disciplinary proceedings in RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX. You should read that chapter in its entirety before proceeding, as it is crucial that the disciplinary process is properly conducted.

It's not even true that the President has the authority to give directions unless this authority is granted by your Bylaws, and no administrative authority of the President transfers to another officer in his absence unless that is specified in your Bylaws. You're going to need to amend your Bylaws and other rules if you want a "chain of command" of that nature.

The intent of using the slashes rather than arrows was to indicate equality for all the individual officers. The only reason the treasurer is listed before the secretary is because the original poster did so. While it is true that not all societies have a board, this society clearly does, and the President certainly does not outrank the board. I suppose I can imagine a society in which the board has so little power it can't even give directions to the officers but that seems unusual. But yes, if you want to be technical, the pure chain of command is General Membership -> Everyone, and anything else needs to be stated in the Bylaws.

The chain of command is General Membership -> Board of Directors -> President/Vice President/Treasurer/Secretary/Department Heads/etc. RONR does not give any individual any administrative authority over anyone or anything. All authority rests with the assembly unless the Bylaws state otherwise.

The quorum in the Bylaws doesn't apply until the Bylaws are actually adopted. Prior to that time, the assembly is in the nature of a mass meeting, and a quorum is the members present (not any fraction of the members present, because that's silly). Well, that wasn't very smart, but that does seem to clarify the proper interpretation of the ambiguous phrase. In that case, your quorum requirement is way too low, and silly. You will always have a quorum present, which defeats the purpose. Somewhere in the 10-15 range might not be bad for a quorum, based on those numbers. (I'm assuming that 14 is still within the normal range and wasn't an outlier due to some unusual circumstances.) If you wanted a percentage, that would be around 15-20%.

The body (or person) authorized to fill the resulting vacancy may accept the resignation.

Although RONR also notes that a majority is unattainable for the general membership of most organizations. Well, if your average attendance is about 30, then you should probably set your quorum a little lower than that. There's going to be some natural fluctuation in attendance so you should set it below the average. One way of thinking about it is estimating what would likely be your "low point" for attendance barring unusual circumstances (like a blizzard). Another way of thinking about it is at what point would the group be so small that you start to get nervous about them making decisions for the entire organization. Would you be okay with ten members spending your organization's money? What about five? Setting quorum is, of course, a balancing act. If you set it too high, the organization can't get a quorum and can't do anything. If you set it too low, one snowy night the three members who actually show up decide they should go to Tahiti on the organization's dime. I would say that if you're unsure it's better to set it a little on the lower side, as it's a lot easier to fix a quorum that's too low than to fix one that's too high (especially if it's WAY too high). We quite frequently get people on the forums asking what they can do if they can never get a quorum, and sadly the only answer is "Try harder." It sounds like you might have that problem right now.

The rules of decorum apply to all parts of the meeting, including Open Forum. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 379-382.

Sure. Business B never got before the assembly. If you're still hung up on the pg. 95 citation, I'm sticking with what I said previously. No, no, and no. Also, I must admit I'm curious as to whether you're merely arguing this for semantic purposes or if it is your opinion that a motion which dies for lack of a second may not be renewed during the same session.

A motion which dies for lack of a second has not brought business before the assembly. Certainly there are cases in which a motion comes before the assembly without a second, but that is not what this question is about. A motion (regardless of whether it is seconded) is before the assembly when it is stated by the chair, which is made quite clear in RONR, 10th ed., pg. 31, lines 25-27; pg. 36, lines 7-9. A motion which dies for the lack of a second never reaches this stage, and is not before the assembly. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 34, lines 21-24) As for the RONR, 10th ed., pg. 95, lines 2-3 citation, it seems clear that in order for RONR to be consistent with itself, "introduction" refers to the full process by which a main motion is brought before the assembly, not merely the making of the motion.

Your philosophical argument is interesting, but I think the relevant rule is clear. The rule is that "No motion can be renewed during the same session in which it has already been before the assembly, except where its renewal is permitted by a specific rule; and such a rule always implies circumstances under which the motion has in some respect become a different question." (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 326, lines 3-7) Since the motion has not been before the assembly, the prohibition does not apply.

"Dispense with the Reading of the Minutes" is a term of art in parliamentary law, and just as Mr. Tesser said, it means that the reading of the minutes is delayed. It is comparable to the motion to Lay on the Table. See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 456, line 33 - pg. 457, line 6. While it is correct that when the minutes have been distributed in advance the minutes are not read unless requested, this is not referred to as "dispensing" with the reading of the minutes. Don't worry, I've made the same mistake myself.

As long as they remain in the room they count toward quorum.

If it is accurate that the assembly's custom does not conflict with the assembly's rules or the parliamentary authority, it should be followed unless the assembly, by majority vote, decides to do otherwise. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 17, lines 15-18)

Then read Ch. XX of RONR thoroughly before proceeding.

See RONR, 10th ed., pg. 630, lines 1-5 for some really simple wording.

And while we're at it, it isn't necessary to ask for a motion to close nominations, either. The chair should simply declare nominations closed when it is clear no more nominations are forthcoming.

While I agree that the negative vote has no use in determining if the motion is adopted, if the vote is counted, the negative vote should be recorded in the minutes. At the bottom of pg. 454, RONR notes that "When a count has been ordered or the vote is by ballot, the number of votes on each side should be entered;" without mention of any exceptions.

From my understanding of the original post, he's speaking about a situation where a vote of 2/3 of the entire membership is required, so I would think the chair should contact the Secretary or credentials committee to determine the number of member, rather than counting the number of members present.

Then it can't. The board only has the authority provided in the Bylaws. (RONR, 10th ed., pg. 465, lines 26-30) Well, I suppose it will suffice if they agree. I have no idea why they would agree to accept the decision of a board exceeding its authority, but that's their choice. But if they don't agree it looks like you'll have to go to the general membership one way or another - either to ask them to discipline the board members or to amend the Bylaws.