jstackpo

Also agree that there should NOT be any in-meeting floor nominations. No point, really, since all the ballots have been cast; also how could the absentee (mail-in) voters vote for a floor nomination that they didn't know about? What should happen is this (copied from advice sent to organizations (I work for) contemplating starting mail vote elections): A (possibly substantial) problem with your election process: There is no opportunity for the equivalent of “floor nominations”. Suppose that the NomCom generates a list of candidates some of whom, upon consideration, turn out to be turkeys (or are all, suspiciously, cronies of the President). According to your proposed timing that list goes out to the membership an unspecified time before the start time of the actual election. The members then have X (also unspecified) days to send in their ballots. This leaves no real opportunity to get up a campaign for some other candidate, as a write-in. This all means that you have given the Nominating Committee the power, essentially, to name all the people to take whatever offices are up for election. The requirement that the NomCom produce two names per vacancy doesn’t help much and they both could be “unsatisfactory” to a fair number of your members. The availability of floor nominations serves as a safety valve that may discourage the NomCom from going off the deep end and gives the members the opportunity to put forth candidate(s) more to their liking. May I suggest a revision to your election schedule: Require that NomCom produce its list of nominees some 90 days, or so, before the election start date. Then send that list (not as a “ballot”) to all the members and invite them to submit “floor” nominations for any of the offices. You might want to require a couple of members to join together to present a “floor” nominee; this might help to avoid “off-the-cuff” nominations. But don’t require a large number on a nominating petition since, after all, it only requires one person to make a nomination (no second required) in a “real” meeting. You might also require an “I’m willing to serve” statement from any “floor” nominees to make sure that you aren’t wasting ballots. Then include the “floor” nominees on the official ballot sent out, or posted, some 45 days (or fewer) prior to the voting start date.

Per RONR: No, unless the E-board invites them (majority vote, not president alone). Check you association bylaws, however. You may have a rule that supersedes RONR.

I suspect that the answers to most of your questions are, at least implicitly, in your bylaws. And we, here, are not in a position to work through bylaws with our correspondents. Try this to find someone who might be able to (probably for an appropriate fee): Contact either (or both) the ... National Association of Parliamentarians 213 South Main St. Independence, MO 64050-3850 Phone: 888-627-2929 Fax: 816-833-3893; e-mail: hq@NAP2.org <<www.parliamentarians.org>> or American Institute of Parliamentarians 618 Church Street, Ste 220 Nashville, TN 37219 phone: 888-664-0428 e-mail: aip@aipparl.org << www.aipparl.org >> for a reference or information. Both organizations offer training and contacts with local parliamentarians.

I don't think you will find any statement of such a "negative" rule. The absence of such a rule, changing the vote requirement for a postponed (previously noticed) motion, is a strong implication that postponing such a motion does NOT change the vote requirement. Neither the discussion of previous notice (page 121 and elsewhere) nor postponing (page 179ff.) hints at such a thing. Indeed, page 188, line 16, notes that "the business is in the same condition as it was immediately before the postponement" with an unrelated exception following.

The Board should simply rescind the motion (see page 305) that established the committee.

I trust your bylaws define what you mean by "active". RONR doesn't. In RONR-land one is either a member or not a member, it doesn't matter how lazy you may be.

Well, yes exceptions can be made, sorta. As you adopt the initial bylaws adopt another proviso stating that for the first election there is some other more convenient waiting period. If those bylaws have already been adopted, then you should follow what they say, as HHH said.

One (slightly) subtle way for the chair to generate some balance in debate can come about like this... A series of (properly called upon) speakers all debate in favor, and no "Nay-sayer" shows up to offer his viewpoint. The chair might say "We have heard from [a number of] speakers in favor... are you ready to vote on the question?" Then pause and look around to see if there are any nay-sayers in the meeting. No point prolonging debate when "everybody" favors the motion.

I suppose that "unauthorized expenditures of organizational funds" could also involve calling the cops. But that is definitely beyond the scope of this B-Board.

And tell your "Managing Agent" to go read RONR, pages 468ff.

1. Good, make them earn their keep! 2. I've seen this (non-RONR) rule commonly in Condominium bylaws. Looks to me that both the absentee voters and the held proxies will count toward the quorum at the meeting. But check with a lawyer to be sure, since that is all above my (and RONR's) pay grade. Whether the proxy holders in attendance can vote the held proxies (in addition to their own vote) is a question for your rules (or rule interpretation) to answer.

Unfortunately (for you, anyway) RONR has very little to say about proxies and absentee voting (except by mail). We sympathize with your plight (you are not alone, non-attendance at association meetings seems to be a nation wide, if not world wide, phenomenon -- but that's cold comfort, to be sure) but I am afraid you are on your own as far as Robert's rules go. P. 588 may help when you have the adjourned meeting and the chairs rules on the properness of some of your options.

I don't think so. The sequence would be adopt a motion (bylaw amendment to rescind) to "Dissolve the Church, effective when all the "business" stuff is completed." Unload all the business &c. stuff. Hand the keys to the church (not the kingdom) to whover bought it, and you are done.

Well, OK. You also, per your initial posting, have an "unless otherwise specified" clause which, if you have paraphrased your bylaws correctly, means you can ignore the "when published" requirement, and just set a future date when your amendment to rescind your bylaws in their entirety becomes effective. Just set it far enough in the future to give your Board (or whoever) the opportunity to take care of all the business with your assets that is necessary and probably required by the law (do this with your attorney, of course) and go out of business, spiritual as well as material. Like the advertisements say, "Set it and forget it".

Is the "effective when published" provision actually in your current bylaws? Do your bylaws define "published"? RONR doesn't. RONR's rule (unless stated otherwise in a proviso) is that a bylaw amendment is effective when adopted, and the minutes of the meeting when the adoption takes place documents the fact of the adoption. You do not have to wait for the minutes to be written and approved (at a later meeting, if there is one) for the adoption to be in effect.

The word to use is "recess" - The meeting was recessed to hear the presentation by Dr. Brown. At its conclusion, the meeting resumed.

No, she should not. The Board's minutes belong to the Board and it is up to the Board (majority vote) to decide if they should be shared. The audio belongs only to the secretary and should best be destroyed after the official minutes are written and approved by the Board. The recording is NOT the "minutes" -- see page 471, line 26ff.

RONR very modestly places itself at the bottom of the totem pole. The "assembly's written rules" include all those (gazillions of) rules in the book which special rules of order can, and often do, supersede, mostly for good and proper (local) reasons -- p. 16, line 1-2. Bylaws are (usually) in a higher class, dealing with organizational structure, member's rights, and the like. From time to time "special rules of order" are found in bylaws which then (by association, I suppose) take on the higher authority of bylaws. This can get a little cloudy, (p. 17, line 15) so it is best to keep special rules of order out of bylaws, in general.

If the bylaws don't define an "Interim Treasurer" (sort of like an "Assistant Treasurer", I suppose) then such a critter doesn't exist in your organization. Can some other member write checks? Just seek out someone who can do the treasurer's job while the elected one recovers. Your substitute need not be formally elected, and he/she will NOT have any rights of membership on the Board, such as voting.

If they are bonafide members, and you have no "check-in" requirements in your bylaws or special rules of order (NOT "standing rules"), then it doesn't matter if they come down the chimney to get in to the meeting.

Isn't there always?

Non-member rights? No, none, but there is no rule in RONR that either requires the chair to ask (your "should ... state" has no basis in RONR) or the non-member to explain why he/she is there, just as long as he has permission (implicit or explicit) to attend in the first place. And the "may attend" would appear (without reading all of your bylaws) to grant that permission. You point of order that the chair can grant the non-member the opportunity to comment is well taken -- the chair should have asked the permission of the Board (majority or 2/3 required depending on the parliamentary situation, see page 263 footnote) to let him speak.

This is basically a question of bylaws interpretation -- RONR doesn't say anything about your situation -- and bylaw interpretation is up to the association, not us here. Is the budgeted amount, or the entire budget, considered as an expression of hope, or a specific set of allocations that are supposed to be paid? Are the amounts in the budget just upper limits? Commonly pay for an employee, your pastor, is in a contract which is (re)negotiated as needed or when it expires. Presumably (but this is a legal question which we don't attempt to answer here) when the current pastor leaves, that terminates the contract, so you are free to set the pay figure where you wish in the new contract with the new guy (or gal), as long as you don't pay him more than the current pastor got and go over budget. Certainly going over budget would require an amendment to the budget. Check with a lawyer, however, about those (and presumably other) questions.

At meetings in strictly RONR-land, a board has the right to exclude anybody who is not a member of the Board, leaving the president with nobody else to talk to anyway. From what you say CA, has "open meeting" laws so that non-(board)-members have the right to show up and, I presume, watch what is going on. I'm not a CA lawyer (or any other kind) but I'd be willing to bet that the "open meeting" laws do not give the non-members any right to participate in the board's deliberations. (But check with a CA lawyer to be sure.) Since the audience is all non-participants, the only people left for the president, or other board members, to debate with is each other. And addressing the audience sounds like grandstanding -- to no parliamentary effect -- to me.

And, at the next (organizational) meeting, be prepared for a chorus of "But that's not what I said, or meant..." type of remarks when the minutes are up for adoption. Perhaps by that meeting, the bylaws committee will have done its job and the "purpose and structure" debates can, as they should, center on the words of the bylaws.