jstackpo

1 hour ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

one of the lawyers she referred to was also not informed enough to give us or her correct information..

So what else is new?

15 minutes ago, wayne brody said:

Doesn't sound right to me,

Your instincts are spot on.  If enough folks leave, then no quorum - no business (with a few exceptions, page 347), says RONR.

But go look carefully at your bylaws... some do say that an initial quorum present "persists" (in the rules if not in actuality) even though the attendance dwindles. 

Seems to be advised against for decent sized associations:  page 22.  Too much overlapping work, I suppose.

In committees it seems to be OK, page 500, as long as the committee is "small".

The relationships between Boards and their (non-member) hired hands is not covered in RONR at all.

I suppose it is a matter of contract law or employment law or something.  But what do I know?

(Dan:  don't answer that!)

Since the censured person is still restricted from whatever, it is perfectly proper to rescind the unexpired or unexecuted portion of the original motion.   RONR p. 308, line 21.

Looks like your reference is to the 1915 edition of Robert's Rules.  Get the current edition here :

http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

Or in your local bookstore.

And if you have ever wondered why the higher threshold is set at 2/3 (rather than some other supermajority vote) take a look here:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/nr6plnkvmy5gt4o/Why Two thirds.docx?dl=0

This is pretty much a judgment call - and the call can only be made by the association members at the next meeting.

Soon as the meeting is called to order, anyone can raise a point of order that the meeting is not proper because of the inadequate notice.  After the chair rules, an appeal will lead to a majority vote on whether the notice was adequate or not. See RONR, page 247ff, for the details of how this is processed. .

Another approach to "What happens to the vote?" is to consider that just it would be dilatory to move, say, that "all the members levitate up to the ceiling now and dust the light bulbs" it is also dilatory to request a lawyer to do work for what turns out to be less than his/her usual and customary fees.  A point or order that the dilatory motion should not have been introduced in the first place would cause the whole works to go away and you could start over with a clean slate.

By your tie vote, you declined to disapprove the application, which does NOT mean that you approved it -- unless your planning committee has special rules of logic all its own.

Question 1):  So... can the applicant apply again since his application is in a sort of double negative limbo?  Your rules might answer that question (but probably do not). If he can, be sure, as you note, to phrase the application in the positive: "Shall it be approved?"

2).     If there was no point of order raised when the chair bullied you into postponing without a vote, the bully won.   Ask your lawyer if he/she can get away with that without a fight.

3)  Beats me.  That is probably a legal question.  RONR would say: "Yes, as members they can vote, no matter what they know or don't know."

Yes - all valid.  The usual is that the mover but not the seconder are named in the minutes.

7 hours ago, .oOllXllOo. said:

Can anything be done if the Manager has exercised powers not granted?

Easy answer:  fire him/her and get a new manager.

Perhaps more practical answer: negotiate to get better behavior with the above as an option.

It's the feminine ending: la grille.

Or, in Thomas Jefferson's phrasing...

[1.2] And whether these forms be in all cases the most rational or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more material that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be an uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members.

"Caprice" and especially "captiousness" are particularly nice words for the context.

She must be the grille of your dreams...

T. Ralph noted:  "RONR isn't very popular over here, sadly."

Is there a common equivalent in the U.K.?

(No parades in my neighborhood, sadly.)

... On Memorial Day weekend? And no problems for us to solve?  Sure is quiet around here.  Enjoy the parades.

Setting aside any governmental rules that may apply... (like for the congressional record)...

Sure you can ask... but since the "recommendations" sound to me a lot like debate in favor of your "particular topic", and RONR has it that you do NOT include debate in minutes -- "Minutes contain what was done, not what was said" is our mantra -- you would have to obtain the permission of the assembly to include the text of your "recommendations". 

I am not dead sure it it requires a suspension of the rules (2/3 vote) to include your text (since a majority can take it out next meeting when the minutes are approved); but my colleagues may think differently.   A majority vote may well be enough in the case of debate points in minutes, particularly since "Whereas" paragraphs, which sure look like debate sometimes, are OK and are adopted by majority vote right along with the motion.

6 hours ago, Guest When... said:

If someone wanted to delay discussion or prevent a collective body from acting on something controversial 

Unless your organization has some very special rules, not in RONR, removing an item from an agenda will do nothing of and by itself to delay or prevent consideration of that item.   Instead of coming up as a "General Order" (which is what an agenda is for), the item (motion) can be moved by any member who wishes to do so as an item of New Business immediately after "General Orders".   See page 371 and page 353.

It is proper most any time, but for what purpose do you wish to remove an item?

Well, I'm not too clear on the route the information took from the finance committee to your meeting, but it doean't really matter.

A motion brought up by anybody, on their own, that wasn't in the initially adopted agenda, would fall under the New Business heading in the Standard Order of Business -- page 353 & 371 -- and would be perfectly proper (as long as it fell within the general objects of your association).

3 minutes ago, Shmuel Gerber said:

In this example, there is no repeated balloting necessary, because five candidates are elected according to the rule in sentence 2. The last two sentences therefore do not enter in.

Damn, I didn't set up the example correctly!   Give Fred 9 votes, then D&E are tied for the 5th place.

So does "All of them" refer to

1)   D & E

or

2)   D, E, All the others (with less than 7)

I think 2) is correct but the "All of them also..." phrasing remains a tad ambiguous as it could refer to all of the tied candidates (D&E) only.

Page 441, lines 18ff, last line in paragraph states "All of them also remain..."

What grouping of candidates does "All of them also remain..." refer back to?  The full collection of candidates who did get majority votes, or the smaller set who all got the same (majority) vote and are tied for the last available slot. Or some other combination?  The word "also" clouds things (for me, anyway).

Example:  Five board positions to be filled; multiple candidates; competent tellers; majority needed to elect: 7

Talley:  Alice: 12; Bob: 10; Charles: 9; David and Eve both get 8; Fred: 7; All other candidates get less than 7.

Who participates in the repeated balloting?   (Disregard the "suspend the rules" business in the footnote.)

A, B, C, D, E, F  ?

D, E, F ?

D, E ?

D, E, F, All the others ?

&c.

Yes, it is a full fledged "meeting".

Any point of order about a failure to follow procedural rules must be timely - page 250.  You said there was no point raised.  End of story.   But...

Now the fun begins:  Was the premature call to order of the meeting a "continuing breach of order", for reason e) (page 251), i.e., the (tardy or no-show) absentees had the right to be assured that the meeting wouldn't start until (at least) 15 minutes after the planned opening time?  

I don't know.  I suspect the only authority that can answer that is the assembly itself interpreting your rules at a later meeting via a point of order raised then.  See page 588.   

If the answer is "Yes", the meeting shouldn't have happened and it should be declared null and void.  It, then, was not your first meeting of the term.

A point of view that works for me, in lectures, is that RONR is a (big) toolbox that empowers the user of the tools to get things done. An enabler, not a restraint.

or even "with unalloyed joy" in some special cases.