jstackpo

Duplicate post.

It is just a harmless (in my view) phrase denoting a higher threshold for the adoption of a measure than a "majority", which just means "more than half" (simple, or not). It is best to just state the higher threshold numerically as your bylaws do without bothering with any "super" business.

Not required at all, per RONR. See p. 25, 371. But it is a good idea for the presiding officer to have a clear idea what's coming up (a "private" agenda, so to speak) so he/she can run things efficiently and look good in the process.

Duplicate post.

Sure. But other members could be nominated as well. But, if I am counting right, you will still have one vacancy left to fill by another election in June. Or maybe not. This seems a little confused, or perhaps I am.

FPPL: Fundamental Principle of Parliamentary Law. See, e.g., page 251, 263, and the index.

Are you sure about non-members making motions? Footnote on p. 263 allows non-members to speak - with suspend-the-rules permission - but I can't (offhand) come up with any mechanism for non-members making motions. Happy to be corrected, of course.

RONR doesn't deal (much) in "Thou shalt not" -- that's the business of the law and churches. RONR is a "How to" book, not a collection of strictures. Having said that... Since the rights of members are spelled out (page 3, and scattered through the book) there is the strong implication that non-members do not have those same rights. Otherwise what is the point of joining? A non-member is free to try to convince a member to make a motion (&c.) to the non-member's liking, but only the member can carry through with the motion, vote, &c.

I was answering the RONR question -- whether the bylaws overrule RONR is a question for the society to sort out.

No, but the society has to approve of any non-members on its committees before the committee can get to work. See p. 174, 492, & 496

Out of order (unless permission is granted) as far as RONR is concerned. For legal, ask your staff attorney.

RONR says, in effect, that any public hearing rules are set by the Board holding the hearing. And any permission for a non-member of the Board (such as your audience person) to speak during a business discussion has to be granted by the Board, even in response to a question from the board member.

Answering in the order of your 3 questions: The adoption is what matters, not the non-recording of the fact of the adoption. They can't, of course. How did YOU learn about the policy? Yup, and the members should insist that the Board minutes be corrected to show the (newly-?) adopted policy.

Are officers delegates? As noted by Guest Who... that can only be answered by your bylaws and/or your associations interpretation of any ambiguities. See p. 588ff. Denominator is the total number of registered delegates. If lots of them are out at the bar, you may not have enough of them -- a majority of the registered delegates -- in the actual meeting to achieve the quorum threshold. If so close the bar and fetch them back to the meeting.

Check page 21, line 23ff (and other locations: see the index under "quorum, convention"). It is the number of registered delegates, not the total number of possible delegates, that is the denominator for the majority calculation for any particular meeting during the convention.

A VERY formal way to take care of the problem -- which can turn into a teaching moment for parl procedure -- would be for the ExecBoard spokesman to move to adopt the original motion, warts and all, exactly as the ExecBoard adopted. Then have someone (a set up, of course) move to amend the original motion by striking out (or whatever is appropriate) the text that you have discovered to be impossible to implement. Then, when the amendment is adopted, the cleaned up motion can be adopted (or defeated, of course!) with no danger of adopting nullities, or whatever. Parl proc, when used formally, can solve all sorts of problems. (On Saturday evenings, we have an answer to anything here.)

Well, reading between the lines, it appears that you have a unique rule in your bylaws -- the one about "board approved candidates" -- that is not found, and therefore not discussed at all in RONR. Hence only your association (its your rule after all) is qualified to figure out what it means or how it is applied in this write-in situation. See page 588.

Signed like this: Approved, [date], your signature. No need for anything more. Don't forget, it is the association correcting and approving the minutes, not you; you are just the instrument. Take a look at page 468ff. I'll bet your predecessor was putting way too much in the minutes which could be the source of the errors. Don't fall into that trap.

Are you sure your bylaw says "majority of shareholders" and not "majority of the shareholders voting" or something like that? Although we don't usually mess with other people's bylaws here, please quote the EXACT words in the bylaws and we will see what we might be able to do for you.

Right, I was being a strict Robertarian about "postpone", and not paying attention to the org's bylaws which may well relax the quarterly period limit. But that "may well" is up to the organization, not me.

Avoid the first person "we" variant, but include in your rule statement the consequences of failing the test. Also include what you mean by "pass a test" (who's test? how difficult? what grade equals a pass? who writes and grades the test? who checks that the graders of the test themselves know the right answers?); it might be better to drop the while idea.

Nope, renewing a defeated motion is perfectly proper so go for it! Page 336, in the 11th edition, which you really ought to get (it's not on the web). A fair amount has changed since 1915, in case you hadn't noticed....

The only technically proper way to assure that the "May Motion" will come up in September (more than a quarter in the future) would be to simply refer it to a committee, with the assignment to report the motion back to your group at the September meeting. If you want things to sound good, ask the committee to prepare a recommendation as to what your group should do with the "May Motion". As you have figured out, it is improper to postpone to a time that far ahead, (and a complete misuse of "Table" to use it to "postpone").

"On behalf [or upon instruction] of the Committee, I move that...." See p. 511ff. for samples

Our "expert" answers would depend entirely on what the Bylaws say are the rules for amending bylaws. You'll have to read them carefully to answer your own questions.