jstackpo

'Fraid we can't help you much; RONR doesn't deal with "conflict of interest" (the words aren't even together in the book) so you will have to decide for yourselves, collectively, what to set up (or ignore, of course).

A quotation from Jefferson's Manual (page 129 in this edition) goes a long way toward resolving the difficulties that poster Stephen V/saa seems to have encountered...

>>>>>>>

Almost certainly NOT.   Check the bylaws as to who, what body, can amend the bylaws, and do it by the book.

Well...  that may depend on the bylaws of the POA.  My experience is that many POAs have bylaws that give complete authority and power to the Board.

Are yours like that?  If so get yourself on the Board and set out to amend the bylaws to distribute power to the people!

Canadian, also?   (Assumed from "provincial society").

I may be a tad pedantic in this response but, hey, this is a college related association, right? 

Who can vote and a determination of a quorum are independent matters. 

Who can vote is set by your (and your national association's) bylaws. In general members can vote - that is a right of membership.

A quorum is simply a number:  the number of members who have to be present for a proper meeting.  In your case this seems to be more than half (a majority) of the "active collegiate" members of your chapter (less those "excused" - who does the "excusing"?).

You will have to ask your national association what it means by "active members"  RONR simply says that all members (whether "active" or comatose) can vote.  Any further distinctions or restrictions on voting rights are to be found in your bylaws. And you have to sort them out.  They are your distinctions, not RONR's.

The term "special resolution" doesn't appear in RONR so you will have to look in your rules or bylaws to (possibly) get a definition, if there is one.

7 minutes ago, Guest Stacy said:

 Is there anything in  Robert’s rules to prevent this??? 

Not really.  Coupla points, however...

1)  You didn't run your election for RecSec properly.   Office elections are not Yes/No contests, but are A vs. B (vs. C, &c) contests.  The way to vote "against" someone is nominate and vote for someone else.  (See page 430.)  From what you say it seems your did that, eventually.  If someone is running unopposed there is no need for a vote at all - just declare the person elected (unless the bylaws require a ballot vote).  See page 443.

2) Presumably -- but check your bylaws -- the Board has the authority to fill vacancies, which is what they did.    (It sounds a little like a set-up, but we can't do anything about that here.)

So your new RecSec is properly in office.

39 minutes ago, Guest Guest both_hands said:

 But worst of all is the label of “previous question“ for the proposal to "close debate”. 

It seems that 99 out of 100 attendees at meetings have not one clue as to what is occurring when the motion for “previous question“ is called.

As has been pointed out many times before (I am sure), adopting the motion for the "Previous Question" includes more that just closing debate as it includes preventing further amendments or other subsidiary motions (except Lay on the Table) - page 197-8.  A simple motion to "close debate" wouldn't accomplish as much.  So until parliamentarians can come up with a better(?) descriptor than "Previous Question", it seems that term of art will have to do.

It has been my experience that those 99 attendees full well know what "PQ" will accomplish; they just use the incorrect term "Call the Question", or the like (usually without getting recognition -- but that is a different problem). 

Is this a governmental organization?  With special rules about notice and the like?

Or one working under RONR's rules exclusively?  

If the latter, chances are that it is proper ("legitimate" smacks of legal questions -- we don't do legal here.)

The delegate can move that a ballot vote be used.  Majority decision needed to do so. See page 283ff.

Presuming (without checking back in all the responses) that e-meetings (like with Skype or some other similar electronic medium) are authorized in your bylaws, then the absence of one member (presuming again that this doesn't kill the quorum, however you may define it) does not introduce a "unanimity requirement". 

I don't think you can fault anyone who is following the bylaws.   (That is the mantra we live by here!) 

Also anything that smacks of denying someone the right to run for office (in a technicality of the sort you describe) has a very bad odor. 

Put all the completed nominations received on the ballot.

Sure.

And you can raise both if either...

1) You wish to cheat, or

2)  You are carrying a proxy for an absent member.

Welcome, and come on back with those questions as soon as you want to.

Whether the board's minutes should be "opened" or not is completely up to the members of the board -- majority decision.

Reading between lines, I suspect that those board minutes contain far more material than RONR requires in minutes documents -- see page 468 for what is really required.  If you stuck to the "include what was done, NOT what was said" rule, then it would seem that there would be little or no public "difficulty" in opening them.  They would contain only the motions adopted and passed on to the council, which have become public anyway.   But if the minutes contained debate and argument (particularly if individual's points of view were noted) then you could have a problem.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

While RONR gives illustrations, I don't take it as a rule per say. I like to use three columns: the current text, the changes shown as mark-up (strike crossed out, insertions in bold, then either highlighted or in a different color), and the text as it will appear if the amendment is adopted. 

And along the top of the three columns write out the exact text of the motion to amend, e.g., "I move to amend Article II, Section 3 by striking out the words ... and inserting these words ... ".   Or if the amendment text is long just say "Amend by inserting a new Section 4 as shown in the center column below."

It might seem to be overdoing it, but it makes it crystal clear exactly what changes are being proposed.   And makes it easy to propose amendments to any amendment text that a member is unhappy with.

First, check your bylaws:  Look for an Article titled "Amendments" (or the like) probably toward the end of the document.

Did your president follow the procedure in that article, to the letter?  If so, you have no grounds for complaint. 

If not, come back here and tell us about it, and we might be able to help.  Please quote -- EXACTLY -- the text of the "Amendments" article.

And if "adjourn" was on the agenda, it could perfectly well be defeated.  (Adopting an agenda does not adopt motions in the agenda.)

Adopting an agenda means that the items (clear motions, one trusts) listed in the agenda become special or general orders - page 371.

Once all the general orders are disposed of, any member can bring up a new motion - this is  part of "New Business".  At this point things can go on as long as the members put up with it.

So adopting an agenda gives the agenda items higher priority that really new business.

If there wasn't, then the defeated motion could be renewed -- i.e., simply be offered again -- which would give folks an opportunity to "change their vote" on a second time around.

28 minutes ago, Guest Zev said:

The Treasurer's report should be referred to an auditing committee, and it is the auditing committee's report that is accepted or rejected.

Well... sorta...  an annual report of all the association's transactions is part of Annual Meeting (or fiscal year) business  --  that is what should be referred to an Audit Committee (or the like) for careful review.   Monthly "updates" need not be audited (unless the association really wants to keep tabs on the Treasurer, for whatever reason.)

See page 477.

And a request for precision, Sandi ...

When you say "appointed a special committee", do you mean established AND appointed ( 'appointed' means "named people to the committee"),  or either one, or both?

Does the president have the authority to do either or both?  That would have to be in the bylaws (or in a motion establishing the committee and empowering the president to name its members)?

I'm not quite clear on your situation...

If you, collectively, have no bylaws, you have no association at all, let alone no Board, and, of course no chairman in the first place.

And if that "and/or until..." business is unfamiliar to you, look in RONR, page 574 (and the last line on the preceeding page).

Then pass that copy of RONR on to your Bylaws Revision Committee to be sure the members look at Chapter XVIII.