George Mervosh

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About George Mervosh

  • Rank
    Professional Registered Parliamentarian

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pittsburgh PA
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

1,889 profile views
  1. Once again, please read the cited pages. Of course
  2. It's not a motion to adjourn. It's establishing an adjourned meeting which in essence is a continuation of the November meeting. I suggest you read the cited pages. If your group wants to adopt bylaw language to help with whatever the problem is, that's fine, but until they do, an adjourned meeting is an option.
  3. No, but while the election is pending in November, your group can establish and adjourned meeting to take place before the next regular meeting in December and then postpone the election to that adjourned meeting. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 242ff
  4. This member of the Q&A research team has no doubt that reporting the count is an essential element of a ballot vote. But what I did believe is, that particular element of a ballot vote could be superseded by a special rule of order rather than a bylaw level rule, and I did not believe that an assembly violating the rule regarding the report of the count would be non-compliant with a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote by ballot for an election. Now we all have more to think about. I find this discussion extremely enlightening.
  5. Considering what your bylaws say, removing her is going to be very complicated in my opinion. "Careful thought should be given to whether, given the circumstances of the particular organization, it is preferable (1) to permit removal of officers only for cause, through disciplinary proceedings that may involve a formal trial (see p. 654, ll. 4–13), or (2) instead to permit their removal at the pleasure of the membership by a two-thirds vote, a majority vote when previous notice has been given, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice (see p. 653, l. 27 to p. 654, l. 3). To accomplish the first alternative, the bylaws may provide that officers "shall hold office for a term of ______ year(s) and until their successors are elected." To accomplish the second alternative, the bylaws may provide that officers "shall hold office for a term of ______ year(s) or until their successors are elected."" RONR (11th ed.), p. 574 Why not just wait and see what you noted she's a busy lady already and things are running well for now.
  6. You have two choices.......let her serve until her term is up or she resigns, or have her removed by the society via the disciplinary procedures in RONR. (I think that's 3 choices now that I think of it.)
  7. 64 amendments? Sound like a typical NAP Convention. (but I digress, so my apologies to our moderator)
  8. Didn't I just say something about a talkative member and disciplinary action?
  9. I didn't suggest stopping it, but I did note the situation was tricky. The talkative member could face a disciplinary issue later.
  10. Sure, as long as no one who was in the meeting held in executive session reveals what was said during it. That could prove tricky. As an aside, in a regular assembly, discussion isn't permitted without a pending motion.
  11. Mr. Honemann's comment on the content is exactly correct. RONR (11th ed.), pp. 481-489 is a much better read and answers your question.
  12. The Webster New World Order Robert's Rules is not the same as RONR (11th ed), nor is it an official publication of The Robert's Rules Association.. It's just a knock off. See
  13. From FAQ #2 Without exception, ex-officio members of boards and committees have exactly the same rights and privileges as do all other members, including, of course, the right to vote. Therefore, in layman's terms, yes.
  14. The earlier answers you received remain unchanged by this.
  15. The referral lists are really small, in comparison to the total number of members in each group........really, really small.