Josh Martin

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Josh Martin

  1. Yes, but unless this is a meeting of a committee or small board, he should relinquish the chair before doing so.
  2. It was out of order - but to be clear, they need to ask the board's permission. It is not up to the chair alone to grant or refuse permission for a non-member to speak.
  3. If the committee chair fails to follow Mr. Mervosh' advice, then no, he may not speak against the recommendation - but he may vote against it.
  4. What exactly is the nature of the violation?
  5. That would appear to be the case. The rules of decorum are found in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 391-394. I see no parliamentary issue with this, provided that nothing in those bylaws conflicts with your new Articles of Incorporation. If you are the Parliamentarian, however, someone else should make this motion, so that you may retain your appearance of impartiality. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 645-648.
  6. An assembly which does not have a quorum is permitted to consider incidental motions "related to the conduct of the meeting while it remains without a quorum." It seems to me that an appeal regarding the question of whether a quorum is present is such a motion. For the sake of simplicity (and setting aside the officers for a moment), suppose there are 20 chapters, and each chapter is entitled to five delegates. So there could potentially be 100 delegates. However, not every chapter actually sends all five delegates, and some delegates get sick and don't go to the convention, and so on, so there are ultimately only 80 delegates who register with the credentials committee. A majority of the total possible delegates is 51. But a majority of the registered delegates is 41. This has nothing to do with whether the officers are considered delegates. If the assembly determines that there is clear and convincing proof that a quorum was not present, then yes, any action that was taken is null and void.
  7. Why not? It seems like just another form of correction to me.
  8. If the member is present, they must decide immediately. If the member is not present, they must decide promptly upon being informed - no exact time is specified in RONR. Do your bylaws actually grant the board the authority to "approve" or "disapprove" candidates for office? If so, it will be up to your organization to interpret its own rules. Again, do your bylaws actually give the board the authority to do this? So far as RONR is concerned, the board has no business "approving" or "disapproving" candidates in an election by the general membership. If the membership elects, the membership elects. The board doesn't have veto power. If your bylaws provide otherwise, it is up to your organization to interpret those rules. I suppose, if that is what your bylaws say.
  9. If the general election fails to fill a position, then the first thing to do is to see if the bylaws provide that officers serve "until their successors are elected." If they do, then the incumbents would continue to serve until they resign or the membership completes the election. If the incumbents resign, or if the bylaws do not contain the "until their successors are elected" clause, the position could be filled in the same manner as any other vacancy, except that the person the board elected to fill the position would serve only until the membership could complete the election. If your bylaws provide their own rules for what to do in the event of an incomplete election (and it seems they might, based on your other thread), follow those rules.
  10. If it is part of your powers and duties as President to appoint committees, then replacing this person as committee chairman would come up under the President's Report, not Unfinished Business. Reports of officers come before committee reports. As for dealing with a member who is speaking when he does not have the floor, and who persists in this behavior after the chair directs him to stop, see RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 644-648. As for employing a local parliamentarian to serve as a professional presiding officer, both the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians provide referrals. Finally, I am concerned about the nature of your "questioning" of the committee chairman during his report. Could you elaborate on what you said?
  11. "A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." (RONR 11th ed., pg. 91) "Other business" does not seem very clear or specific to me.
  12. It is ultimately a bylaws matter, but generally speaking, only delegates are eligible to vote at a convention of delegates - whether on the election of officers or on any other matter.
  13. Neither. The position is not vacant. The Immediate Past Chair is still a member of the Steering Committee. It just looks like he won't be doing anything. This is one of many reasons why most members of this forum (myself included) advise against granting any automatic status to the Immediate Past Chair.
  14. Robert's Rules allows for a board to conduct all of its business in executive session, and to keep all of its minutes solely for the board to review, if the board wishes to do so. This is at the board's discretion. Any limitations on what the board may or may not do in executive session will be found in the board's own rules or in applicable law, not RONR.
  15. Assuming the remaining three members all vote, two. It is also not correct that the member who is affected by the agreement can't vote, unless your bylaws or applicable law so provide. So far as RONR is concerned, he should not vote, but he has the right to do vote.
  16. Mrs

    No. The only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction. If there are no corrections, you may declare the minutes approved.
  17. No, giving notice of a motion to rescind does not put the project on hold.
  18. Based on the facts provided, it seems to me it should be under the Executive Committee's report.
  19. Some additional details may be helpful, but generally speaking, there is no purpose in making a motion not to do something.
  20. No, it does not. The membership may still make corrections.
  21. ballot counting

    No, the chair would rule on the Point of Order, subject to appeal. A Point of Order is a claim that some aspect of the rules was not followed, not a claim that the count is incorrect. The exact remedy for this will depend on the specifics. If a member wishes for a recount, he simply moves for a recount. The member may request this, but is at the assembly's discretion whether to grant the request.
  22. If your board has its own rules regarding the consent agenda, then those rules must be followed. I don't know what those rules provide. Even if it is not permitted to place these items on the consent agenda, I believe it would still be in order to say "Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I request that the committee's recommendations be considered as a whole."
  23. If there are six seats and you vote for ten candidates, your ballot would be counted as an illegal vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416.
  24. Frankly, this is what some societies want - to elect a board to do pretty much all of the work, but reserve the right to overturn the board on particular matters. If the organization wishes to amend its bylaws to restrict the Executive Committee's powers, it is free to do so. As noted, you could also try to elect board members who share your views. I would also note that a motion to rescind may be adopted by a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.
  25. If the closed session rules are your only concern, the solution is simply to enter closed session again, which should be done for disciplinary matters anyway. As for this business of the report being "sealed in an agreement with that employee in exchange for separation," that sounds like a legal issue, not a parliamentary one. RONR has nothing to say about "sealing" reports.