jstackpo

And, as a little reminder, RONR does not require a formal agenda for meetings at all.   You just follow the standard order of business (OoB) (p. 25) without regard for what specific items (motions) may or may not come up under the appropriate OoB headings.

It is very wise, however, for the chairman (with the Secretary's help) to prepare a "personal agenda" for his/her own use ahead of time.  This may reduce the chances to be blindsided.  And will also lead to more efficient (over within 2 hours) meetings.  And the chair will look good.

The vote is valid. 

Minutes are just a record of what was done (motions adopted, &c), NOT a form of ratification.   If the minutes are incorrect, because an adopted motion isn't included, correct them.   And it isn't proper to delete correct information from the minutes - in another context that would be tampering with, or destroying,  the evidence.   Big trouble.

That is entirely up to you, collectively.   I suppose it depends on how deep you want your secrets to be.

You might check if the non-profit law in your jurisdiction has anything to say about "closed" ("Executive Session", RONR, page 95) meetings.

Guest Rob:  Are those enough options for you? 

Well, your first stop should be on page 574, with particular attention to the "or until"  business and your bylaws.

If that doesn't pan out, have a go at Chapter 20.  (You may have a long road ahead...)

Perhaps you are looking for "Roll Call Vote":  page 420.

If the bylaws say (and, of course, I am making this up as I go along) in effect:  "Anybody member who reaches age NN, shall become a Lifetime Member" and then the bylaws go on to say such things as no dues required, full membership privileges, &c., a particular Lifetime Member cannot individually amend the bylaws to get out.   So no resignation possible. 

The potential problem with being generous with "Lifetime Memberships", is that they, the lifers, could count toward the determination of the quorum (if a percentage is used for that).  So if lots of lifers are in retirement homes (and don't get around much any more) the association could have a problem with inquorate meetings.   Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NR551AVRgWI   

Nope.  You wait until the vote is finished, then raise the point of order  --  page 250, lines 30ff.

Do your bylaws vest the power to the board to decide what the members will or will not consider in any particular meeting?   Suppose you, the membership contend that a particular issue should be dealt with right now, when the "board"  (which isn't meeting during the membership meeting at all)  says otherwise.  What then?

Oh... Kay...  but is it possible to resign a "Lifetime Membership"?     Other than by "extreme prejudice?

Who decides whether a change is "fundamental"? 

The "not past the next regular meeting" limit is firmly in the rules, so if, as in your example, you may not hear from your funders until after the next meeting (or ever...), you can still postpone the motion to the next meeting.  Then when that next meeting comes around (and no funds yet) you just postpone it again to yet another (next) meeting. 

In defense of "No"...

Although the book (ROR or RONR) says they "can" adopt Special Rules, the quoted bylaw bylaw is specific that the rules IN the book (and bylaws) are they ones they have to follow.   Since an adopted  Special Rule is manifestly NOT in the book it would be improper to adopt and follow one.

The second version of the "Parl Authority" bylaw allows for other rules and takes care of the non-book rules.

Answering as I read along.

Question 1:  Strictly speaking, no, but your current Article X, Section 1 is probably more honored in the breach than the observance.  Your proposed change -- straight out of the book, of course -- is infinitely better.

Question 2:  Document your Special (and Standing) Rules and attach the document to any and all copies of the bylaws, but don't turn "your" rules into formal provisions of your bylaws.  Much easier to make changes in the future. Page 17, line 11ff.

Implicit Question  (I think): Yes, any one of "your" rules (Standing or Special depending on their application) can change RONR's rules any way you like. (Even to the detriment of your organization, so take care.)  So the answer to Question 3 is "Yes". If you want to change the intent of RONR's rule by changing "should" to "shall", go for it.  But use caution.  And be ready for nasty questions, such as: If a member is forced to abstain (by your rule) does he/she count toward the quorum during the time or moment he is abstaining?  With sparse attendance, this could make a big difference.  If he is forced to abstain, may he still participate in debate on the question?  Offer amendments" &c.

Jeffersion's good advice:  Don't change RONR for light and transient causes.

The standard RONR rule is that the only way that each individual member's vote is recorded by name is if the group decides (majority vote) to conduct a roll-call vote  --  see page 420.  

The group could adopt a special rule of order that every vote (presumably on main motions only) is conducted by roll call, or at least the voters and their votes are identified in the minutes less formally. 

The common thing is that the chair estimates who won (by listening to ayes and nays, or looking at raised hands, or even counting those hands), states which side has won the vote, and goes on to the next item of business.

So to the extent that a roll-call vote (or other tabulation of members' votes in the minutes) requires an additional rule, RONR does have such a restriction.  But it is easy enough to eliminate the "restriction" if the members wish to do so.

I thought the unedited version was MUCH more interesting.

If you authorize it in you bylaws, sure  --  see page 97.

BTW, it is best if you raise a new question (even on an old topic) as a "New Topic"  --  click the big green button on the main page.

Seems strange:  Did someone make the motion? If the mover wasn't there how did the content of the motion get to the meeting?

Can you clarify the facts, please.    (Bedtime (on he east coast) I'll be back in the morning...)

Here's a little something to give you nightmares over the next few months...

https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/04/securing_electi_1.html

Sleep well.

(At least RONR requires paper ballots on page 424ff.)

8 minutes ago, LIH said:

But the stipulation is "those present and eligible to vote." If I have someone's proxy, are they in some sense present?

If the bylaws say so, yes.  But it had better be in the bylaws, or at the very least, in the terms of the proxy.

You asked:   "This final item seems to exclude proxies. Correct?"

I would say no, not correct.  The main point of giving someone a proxy is so that someone, who is present at the meeting, can adjust his votes (both his personal vote and that of the proxy he carries) if the content of the motion (bylaw amendment)  is changed (via amendment) from the original proposal.   The "total votes cast" includes the carried-by-proxy votes in both situations 3.a and 3.b.

However the final item (3.b) does, in my view, exclude absentee votes since what the absentees voted for (or against) is no longer the same text as was originally proposed.   The proxy votes, since they are cast by people there at the meeting can vote  and, I would say, are are counted is determining the number of "those present and eligible to vote".

The quorum is an entirely separate issue and should be carefully defined elsewhere in your bylaws.

An additional problem for you: 3.b would apply if there were nominations from the floor in an election so that the resulting question of who to vote for is not (quite) the same as an original "slate" that was sent out for potential absentees to select from.  Do you cover that possibility?

The easy solution for all this mess is to do away with absentee votes altogether; let the proxies take care of non-present members.

And stop using the phrase "2/3 majority".  "2/3 vote" will do just fine.

"Informal Consideration" is just a relaxation of the rules pertaining to debate - see page 540.    So I suspect "questions asked..." would not go in the minutes.

Precedents are commonly unique to each organization - they are, in effect, local rules.  There is no RONR rule forbidding a Parliamentarian serving as a committee chair but the parliamentarian is, more or less, supposed not to be directly involved in the business of an association, only its procedure in meetings - see pages 465-467.

If you have paraphrased your bylaws accurately, it appears you have a built-in inconsistency...  To wit:

You first say:  "Our bylaws accommodate absentee ballots"   and then go on to describe two different vote thresholds, both of which speak of votes cast at a church business meeting.    But absentee votes are manifestly NOT cast at a church business meeting, so, unless you have other provisions you haven't mentioned, it seems those absentee votes should not be counted.

Perhaps your paraphrase is the source of the problem.  Can you quote the exact bylaw words, please?

Presumably (correct me please if I am going in the wrong direction) when DHHFisherman writes "decide for themselves" that would entail the Board's adopting special rules of order (that would apply to itself only, of course) that differ from the small board rules of page 487ff.  And that would require attaining the voting thresholds of page 17 within the board membership.