jstackpo

So the answer (to the title) is "Yes, but the establishment of Standing Committes with power to act requires a Special Rule of Order (cite n/a - my RONR is packed up for a trip).

But you can move to Postpone Indefinitely, and speak in favor of that motion.

See further responses under Topic title of "Mr. Chang".

RONR has nothing to say, specifically, about meeting locations.  Presumably, it is assumed that most members can get there, at least.

As for the "Emergency meeting":  that sounds rather like a "Special Meeting" (page 91) for which a notice of the reason for the meeting is required.  So go to the meeting and raise a point of order that the meeting is improper because of a lack of notice and therefore can't take any official action.   Be sure you have friends there to back you up.

An association elects candidates to multiple (say 3) positions on a Board on one ballot. 

A special rule of order (NOT in the bylaws) has been adopted that requires the voters to indicate their choices for all the positions, including the possibility of a write-in; i.e. there has to be a vote (in my numerical example) for 3 candidates (no more, no less) on each ballot.

Question:  Is a special rule of order "strong" enough to take away the right to abstain in part (Page 407)?

I think not; such a rule would have to be in the bylaws as it takes away a clear individual right to abstain.

But I would like to hear other's opinions, because a "right to not vote" doesn't seem to carry the same fundamental nature as the right to vote.

One thing is just ignore what appears (from what you write) to be a spurious set of nominations.

If that set of names is "accepted" (but by whom?) in  meeting, raise a point of order that it should be ignored for the reasons you cited.

Were other (proper) nominations offered earlier?  In any event, the floor should be opened for nominations (see page 435) prior to the actual elections so you could nominate folks more to your liking.

OK.  it is treated as a special order for the current meeting because it was made a special order for the previous meeting (and wasn't disposed of).

RONR allows non-members of an association to serve on the association's committees, if the permission of the assembly is obtained.  Page 174.

I can't tell from your bylaw quotations if they prohibit non-association members (non-Home owners in your context) from being on (or even chairing) committees.  Best you check that carefully.

But it sure looks that, at a minimum, the president is obliged to get Board, and possibly also association, approval of his/her committee appointees. whether they are home owners or not.

If the committee in question makes a report or a recommendation at a meeting, raise a point of order that the committee is improperly formed and any motion offered by them is improper.

6 minutes ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

An item of business is not a special order unless it is made so in the bylaws or by action at a meeting.

... or if the item of business is an election.  See page 357, line 28.  (Although "may be regarded as" is a weaselly way of phrasing it.  Just who is doing the "regarding"? Either it is or is not a special order. Answering questions like that is what rules are for.)

An item can also become a special order if it is "left over" from a previous meeting - p. 356, l. 35ff.  (No ambiguity there!)

If it a vote on an issue/policy/motion &c, the motion is defeated.

If it is a vote in an election, just try again.

Coupla points...

1)  An agenda, no matter who put it together, has no force unless or until the body adopts it at the meeting.   When it is up for adoption, any member present can move to amend the agenda by proposing to add new items.  Doesn't make much sense to "suspend" an agenda  --  just either don't adopt it in the first place, or amend it to your liking.

2)  Adopting an agenda does NOT -- repeat NOT -- prevent any member from introducing an item of new business (not mentioned in the agenda) when the body reaches "New Business" in the standard order of business.

As J. Katz noted, the rules for a shareholder's meeting may differ from RONR's rules -- check with a lawyer.

1 hour ago, Benjamin Geiger said:

I've become something of a de facto parliamentarian for my organization, ...

Seems to me you are just a (knowledgeable) member, raising appropriate points of order, and the like, as any member would have the right to.  Clearly that is not an "official" position.  So I'll double down on Dan's "No".

24 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

It is possible that the assembly erroneously believed that it was necessary to withdraw a main motion in order to refer that same main motion to the committee.

Another possibility, which is more or less consistent with whatshappening's Step 2, would be that the group felt it was necessary to withdraw the (spurious) motion to "adopt" before they could apply a motion to refer to their motion on the floor -- Step 1.

If that's the case then the committee has the motion in hand (amendment included) and we are all awaiting (with bated breath) the commirree's report at the next meeting, or whenever it was told to report.

Perhaps Guest ESA is asking of absentees could vote (of necessity in writing) in an election taking place at a meeting, where the attendees at the meeting are voting by voice.

If that is the question, the answer is no, unless the bylaws allow it.

Previously written:

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

49 minutes ago, whatshappening said:

Is there a better procedure I can use to protect an amendment I make in the future?

Follow the same process as above but skip the motion to withdraw.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

But combine steps 1) and 2) as they are really just two parts of a motion to do whatever it was.   Making a motion "to approve" is unnecessary (which is why it isn't found in RONR).  Making a motion to do whatever, having it seconded, and then stated by the chair is sufficient to propose something and have it placed before the assembly for a decision.

And depending on how steps 4 & 5 are jointly interpreted, the motion is either now in the hands of the committee (with, as noted, the adopted amendment incorporated in it) awaiting the committee's report at some future meeting or withdrawn and available to be made (again) by anybody at any future time.

3 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

If the chair declared this motion to have been adopted then next meeting raise a Point Of Order to the affect that the proper procedure established in the bylaws for amendments was not followed and that the motion is null and void. If the chair agrees then this particular problem goes away. If the chair disagrees then move an Appeal and have a friend at the ready to second the motion.

But... if the chair rules your point of order "not well taken" and, upon appeal, the membership sustains that ruling, you are stuck with a few new paragraphs in your bylaws. Always can happen.

Good luck figuring out what they mean!

Yes to both questions.  See page 433 for the second one.   The first one goes by the more common (and much better sounding) name of "volunteering".

Unfortunately... RONRIB mentions roll-call votes only in references to the big book (RONR) -- no procedural rules.

So I guess you'll have to get at least one copy RONR for yourself.  Worth every penny!

Yeah, but they could try,  at each meeting, to elect a chair, and then continue with an "incomplete election" over to the next meeting, and so on.

Also p. 444 (line 13) says that you try again at the next "regular business session".  No suggestion, that I can see, that there is a requirement to complete the election in the same session.

And finally (just to pile on) chances are that all the meetings of the "municipal Council" from October to October are all one session - but that would be in the laws for the municipality.

Perhaps...  meeting by meeting, elect a chair pro temp to preside and get (critical) municipal business done.  Agree to rotate the pro tem chairmanship through the three candidates for a few rounds of meetings.  After they all have had a fair chance at the job, and the members have watched them at it, a vote or two might change.  Or one might realize that he/she didn't want the job after all.

Maybe...  (that's the best I can do on a rainy Sunday morning).

Or changing the order of name-calling other than alphabetical.  To "Z first", or "random" or whatever.

If it is not a govt body with special rules  --  and has adopted RONR  --  there is no debate, there can be amendments, and a majority decides the question.  See pages 283ff. and 420ff. for more details. You will find answers to your questions there.

And while you are getting a copy or two of RONR for the association, get, for your Board members, copies of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link: 

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

Or in your local bookstore. 

No limit in the book.

Tell hm/her to leave.  (Politely, of course!)  Non-members (of the board) have no right to attend board meetings.

If a majority of board members wish him/her to stay, that is fine too.  An invitation by the chair only is not enough to let him/her in or to stay; the concurrence (perhaps by not actually objecting) of a majority of board members is a requirement.

Not unless the association (motion & majority vote) orders it to be recorded.

It might be good fodder for a newsletter, however.  Minutes are to record business, not idle chit-chat (or even good Q&A for that matter).