jstackpo

Next time please post a new question (even though it has similarities with old ones) as a new topic. This will avoid a mixture of responses that can get confusing. You have a mixture of parliamentary misbehavior and possible legal (contract relations) difficulties. Suggest that you fix or check out the latter before they get (possibly) worse. Then we can take a shot at your parliamentary problems -- you do have some! Be sure you post the parliamentary questions as new topics -- one question per topic will help.

RONR sez (p. 388) that members in debate cannot relinquish time to other member speakers, but if you mean non-members speaking at a hearing or the like, then that is up to the rules established for the hearing.

Your organization is free to make restrictions; they should be placed in the bylaws. But be careful how you phrase them: unintended consequences and all that.

I'll get back to you eager folks ere the weekend is up. (Busy for a while.)

The VP is not going to fill a vacancy "created by...", his term has ended. Full stop. If he can't be elected for a regular full term, then your recourse is to amend the bylaws to strike out the restrictive reason why. Or beat the bushes for another candidate.

Coupla points: 1): Majority vote is enough IF there was notice given ahead of time (see index page 696), otherwise 2/3 vote is required. 2): The original minutes are not changed, but the current meeting minutes describe the change. Why not just move to strike the "public comment" altogether? Fewer arguments, perhaps.

If a majority agrees to the changes (or 2/3 if there was no notice of the motion to amend the previously adopted minutes), sure. Yours is a prime example why minutes contain (or should contain) only what was done, not what was said.

Yes. A resignation is, per page 289, actually a request to be allowed to quit. So until the resignation is accepted, the person remains a member.

Since a "majority vote" is based on "those present and voting", and nobody is "present" in a mail vote, you will have to define "majority vote" for yourself in the section of the the bylaws that authorizes mail voting. Commonly the members who return a ballot (possibly even a blank one) are considered "present" and the majority decision is based on the count of ballots containing a vote. Whether "enough" ballots are returned -- a sort of pseudo-quorum -- is a separate question also to be specified in bylaws. The same considerations apply to e-mail voting.

Has the current president actually resigned? Or did he/she "step down" on a temporary basis, to participate in debate, for example. The vice president either becomes the president, or presides until the president assumes the chair again. There is no such critter as "interim president" in RONR.

Alphabetical order (p.421) except call on the president last and then only if his/her vote could make a difference in the outcome.

Since the motion (the recommendation phrased as "On behalf of the XXX Committee, I move that...") comes from a committee no second is needed. (No harm done if some enthusiastic member seconds anyway.) The motion is then handled as any main motion would be. I don't know what you mean by "do pass". Eventually the members vote "Yes" or "No" on the question of adopting the motion.

Oh, I dunno, LSU Football seems like a continuing emergency to me. If, after a "suitable" interval, the meeting remains inquorate, the members can set an adjourned meeting (page 242) at a more convenient date (after the LSU football season) and adjourn (go home and watch the game). That in effect does "postpone the meeting" but in a proper manner. I think, but others may correct me -- PLEASE DO -- that the adjourned meeting must be scheduled prior to the next regular meeting of your association. Yes, true, page 244.

Correct; a (fake) motion to "suspend", or the corrected "postpone", could ONLY be made in a meeting, when the item to be postponed was pending - or was known to be coming up at the meeting (that latter "postpone" would be an "incidental main motion". Let's not go there.) Some orgs allow the president or the board (or someone) to reschedule an entire meeting for "emergency" reasons before that meeting time comes around, but that power must be in the bylaws. What kind of "emergencies" do you have in Santa Fe?

Doctor Kapur, don't you have rounds that you should be getting to? Or an ER to keep running smoothly?

And sit down -- right NOW -- and read Chapter XX in RONR -- it contains all the proper (aka "due process") steps you need to know to keep out of trouble yourselves.

If the parliamentarian(s) are really restricted to advising the chair (their proper roll) and they can settle between themselves who is in the advice giving position at any moment (and the other one keeps quiet), that might work out. But if they have any other duties see https://www.dropbox.com/s/jbcnnjcq5l9eaux/Problems With co-anything.docx?dl=0 Why does the org want to do this? It is easy to think up invidious reasons. Will they have divided loyalties? Is the org willing to pay a double fee for their professional services?

That is out of the question, too.

Unless there is some special rule in the bylaws about postponement before the meeting begins, any effort at "postponement" would have to take place AT the meeting, and what would be postponed would be consideration of whatever motion (bylaw amendment) was pending at the time. Postponement would also be limited to no more than a quarter in the future so it seems that 2012 is out of the question. Of course the meeting could set an adjourned meeting and then adjourn. Or send the whole works to a committee. Lots of ways to delay. Enjoy your flight!

1) There is no e-book version but here's a link to a Windows (only) CD: http://www.robertsrules.com/ 2) Who selects the committee chair(s) is controlled by the bylaws, or if they say nothing, RONR, page 175 and other places -- check the index, p. 680. A little caveat emptor: RONR is due for an update in a year or so which will put the (expensive) CD version a bit behind the curve.

Better to ask for "debate", rather than "questions and comments". It encourages folks to stick to the topic, and if you are lucky, prefix their remarks by "I rise to speak in favor of (or in opposition to) the motion." Better be somewhat academic and "fussy" that lead folks into confusion.

Using standard phrasing helps with getting your point across: "Mr. Chairman, I move that....[exact statement of what you want]" is sure clearer than "Mr Chairman, seems to me, I think, that it might just perhaps be a good idea (I'm not making a "motion", mind you just a suggestion for the membership) if we did [such and such] or maybe [this and that] or possibly [who knows] or maybe not..."

A couple of observations to head off possible controversy later on: 1). You wrote: "changes to our bylaws require a 2/3rds majority of those present at the meeting" Do you mean "a vote of 2/3 of those present and voting" or do you mean "a 2/3 vote of those present" whether the others abstain or not? The latter is a more difficult threshold to reach, and if the vote is close, can make a difference. Your phrasing is a tad ambiguous; my two offerings are straight from RONR page 402 and are clearly defined in the book. 2) As J.K. noted neither you, as moderator, nor the bylaws committee can, on your own, prevent floor amendments; only the membership can, by a 2/3 vote, do so. Another possibility to consider if it seems that there are indeed going to be, or are, numerous floor amendments, is for someone to move to send the whole mishegas back to the bylaws committee for the committee to review and come back at a later meeting with appropriate adjustments to their original proposals.

Well, p. 423 is pretty firm. So is p. 97. Is that the "rule" you are asking about?

1) The "Service Gap": Page 585, "Section 3" of the sample bylaws. I'll let you have a go at figuring out the difficulty -- let you know tomorrow if you give up. 2) The "Logic Bomb": p. 588, the last two lines of "Article VIII". ditto