jstackpo

And even though Mr. Honemann has retired resigned from The Authorship Team...

Ah, but has his resignation been accepted,as yet?  Check this link.

A "resignation" is a "request to be excused..."  --  p. 289  --  and as such has to be acted upon.  Such action is the result of adopting a motion.  There may have been unanimous consent to adopt the acceptance motion, and hence no actual vote, but it is still an action by the board.  That's not an "acknowledgment"; it is a motion for acceptance.

Since seconds are not required in meetings of (small) boards  --  p. 488  --  "not seconding" makes no difference.  The only way to refuse to accept the resignation is by defeating the properly made motion to accept.

You may not be "formally" adopting motions with votes, but if you collectively decide to "do something" (take a political stand, spend money, have a group pot-luck dinner, fire the Pastor [it happens!], whatever) that amounts to the same thing as adopting a motion saying whatever it is you want to do.  All those "whatevers" should be in your minutes and (when there is a quorum) approved.

See pp. 468ff. for the full details of what minutes should contain.

Yes, the minutes of those meetings should be approved at the next meeting (when you have a quorum).

Those minutes should be very short, saying no more than you called the meeting to order (date, time, place), noted that there was no quorum and you adjourned the meeting (30 seconds later!).  Feel free to document any informal or UNofficial decisions you made when you were gathered together, but that wouldn't be minutes in the proper sense.

How is what "done wrong"?

Sure.  As noted, rescind the motion that established the committee.

"Discharge" means to tell a committee to stop working on some (previously referred) task.  See p. 310.  It does not do away with a committee - what I guess you mean by "disband".

If you want a committee to cease to exist, you would have to go find the motion that established the committee (it might be in the bylaws) and rescind (p. 305) that motion (or amend the bylaws by striking out the establishment provision).

A sort of sneaky way to quasi-disband a committee would be to remove all the people from the committee. The committee would still exist (in a virtual sort of a way) but, clearly, wouldn't be doing anything. Much cleaner to just rescind the establishment.

"Removal" and related disciplinary matters are covered in Chapter 20.

"Rallying the Troops" isn't covered in RONR  --  you are on your own there.  Good luck.  You are not alone.

A personal approach:  As a Valentine gift  (or any other convenient excuse) give your VP a copy of RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will really need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link:

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

Find out if she means to resign from the Chairmanship, or from the Council, or from membership (or all three, or two, or whatever) and immediately make a motion to "Accept her resignation from ...".  If (when) it is adopted, usher her out.

First question:  Technically, you are correct.  But the appropriate procedure is for the chair to assume that motion and just declare the single nominee elected:  p. 443.

Second:  No.

Or perhaps more accurately than "Do nothing", the decision was simply to  NOT DO  whatever the motion proposed to accomplish relative to the time critical issue.

Some other approach to your timely problem might garner a majority.

Does motion=issue to be decided on? We currently have an issue which is extremely time sensitive and we need to make a decision one way or another on this issue. Any suggestions based on there being a tie vote..we cannot just postpone a decision on the issue for a later date. Thanks for your patience with my questions.

Not a problem trying to make things clear:

You HAVE ALREADY made a decision - the motion ("issue" - same thing) was defeated since there was not a majority vote in favor.  It's over.  Kaput. Ended. Finito.  Dead in the Water. (Any more negative cliches needed?)

Next meeting (or at a sooner special meting called for the purpose, provided your bylaws allow for special meetings) anybody can bring up the same motion again (or in a slightly modified form, or whatever) in hopes that there will be a majority in favor.  But for now (no matter how "timely" a problem it is) the decision has been reached:  do nothing.

Hi All,

 

Our Board is comprised of (3) Executive Board Members and (3) Directors

What happens when there is a tie vote?

 

In addition to what has been said, if the tie vote is in the election of an officer (two candidates tied) your only option is to try again, and keep trying, until the office position is filled.

In a serious deadlock, it may be necessary to nominate a third (or other candidates) that at least a majority of the voters can agree to as a suitable "second choice".

Sounds homicidal, but you will have to look in your bylaws for the details about
"life membership" to see if there is any non-lethal way to do what you want.

Well, the fact that the resignations were offered and a motion (or motions) was adopted accepting them both go in the minutes.  See p. 291 - the president can assume those acceptance motions.   No need to go into any of the reasons  --  that would be "what was said", which doesn't belong in minutes, only "what was done" belongs there.

The "replacement announcement" can come immediately after that.

"Placing their keys", &c., sounds very melodramatic.

And once that resignation has been withdrawn, there will be nothing to vote on, anyway.

So the exact (if a tad misleading answer) to the original question is "No."    Because nobody gets to vote on the question.

No "violation" of RONR at all.

RONR was (for a brief shining moment) available on Kindle, but was withdrawn.  (Don't know who did the withdrawing, but I suspect it was the publishers.)

No other machine readable, or app, version available, far as I know.

There is a CD which works only on Windows.  (I have neither.)

Mixed messages from Gereral_Jeff:

We have a Board meeting tonight and I need to find this asap!!!!.....Thanks.

In this case, it was done by someone other than the prevailing party.

Can't tell at what meeting (or when) the motion to reconsider was made, or is anticipated to be made.

To respond, our by-laws have been revised to state that a motion for reconsideration can be made either immediately at the same Board meeting OR at the next Board meeting...So it can be done.....In this case, it was done by someone other than the prevailing party.

If your "revision" of the bylaws extending the time limits to reconsider did NOT also change the "prevailing side" rule, then that rule is still in place and it was improper for the abstainer to move reconsideration.

However, done is done - it's too late to raise a point of order now - p. 250.

Apparently Guest_Gary's organization didn't follow RONR's disciplinary procedure in arriving at a "guilty" decision. If it had then the "defendant" would have had an opportunity to defend himself.

I guess the distinction implied by the p. 643 footnote is that once a "guilty" decision has been reached via formal disciplinary procedures, it is then a separate question as to the penalty - p. 667. Anything from Expulsion down to Censure is possible.

But if the association in effect agrees at the start of considering the question of the validity of complaints &c. that a "Censure" is going to be the severest penalty it will impose, then it is fair game to go directly to a motion to censure without going through the "formal disciplinary procedures" to determine guilt.

Whether Guest_Gary's board made the initial assumption that "censure" is the only penalty to be imposed is up to Gary to tell us. If it did, the Board's action may be proper.

But maybe not: If we take the position that ONLY the general membership can impose penalties (p. 643 seems to say that, as does the material on p. 668-669) then the Board's action was not proper.

(As ever, if Gary's association bylaws give the Board "full" disciplinary authority, then those bylaws supersede what RONR says and my conclusions should be defenestrated.)

Is a "punishment" censure more severe than a "main motion" censure?

Good question. "Censure" wasn't included as one of the "punishments" in the previous 10th Edition (even as a "heading" whatever that may mean), and under those (old) rules there was no distinction between in-meeting and extra-meeting activities that might be censured (which was no more than a slap on the wrist, previously).

It looks as though there are (now) two different types of "censure".

I await, as do we all, an authoritative clarification.

Better to avoid the word altogether. Just ask the nominating committee to come up with and/or recommend ("nominate") qualified candidate(s) for each position.

Quite so -- I was thinking of the Board as "the assembly" in question.