jstackpo

This is pretty close (from p. 76): >>>> 2) If it is desired to cancel or countermand an entire main motion, resolution, order, or rule that has been adopted and that has continuing force and effect, such action can be proposed by means of the motion to Rescind (or Repeal, or Annul, 35); and by another form of the same parliamentary motion—that is, the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35)—it can be proposed to modify the wording or text previously adopted, or to substitute a different version. Robert, Henry M. III (2011-09-27). Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (Kindle Locations 2471-2475). Perseus Books Group. Kindle Edition. >>>> Clearly the act of scheduling a meeting is something that has been previously adopted (somehow, earlier, else how would you know there was a meeting coming up?). The only way to cancel it would be to then adopt "Amend Something Previously Adopted" -- but that requires the assembly to be in a meeting to do so. Catch 22. To avoid the conundrum, your would need a special rule (previously adopted) giving the president, the board, or someone the authority to cancel a meeting.

There is no call or RONR requirement to "approve" the treasurer's monthly report at all. p. 479 After all, how do the board members know that the report is correct? By "approving" it they are buying a pig in a poke; meanwhile the treasurer might be on his way to South America.... It is the auditor's job to check the reports, particularly the annual report, for accuracy. The auditor's report does get adopted, not "approved".

In the order you asked.... No. Yes. But there are other things to do in an inquorate meeting that might be important to do before you adjourn - see p. 347.

Reference in RONR? I think the answer to this is that almost anything can be a "question of privilege", as defined on p. 224. But whether the "q of p" actually comes to a discussion and vote depends on the ruling of the chair, subject to appeal, pp. 225 & 227 (#7).

If the chair has any sense he will do his best to stay out of an internal cat-fight, and "preclude" himself.

A detail that may have been overlooked... (except that Tim W. just caught it too) The chair should NOT be making the motion himself, unless he steps down from presiding (and the vice president then does the presiding for that one issue). This is to keep up at least the facade of impartiality while the chair is presiding. He should (ahead of time) find one of the other members to actually make the censure motion. But if this is all water over the dam and the vote has taken place, it still stands.

Tricky, because we are getting close (if not already there) to legal questions, but... Having "all the powers" doesn't mean they have EXCLUSIVE use of "all the powers". The board can do what it wants (consistent with bylaws, laws, &c.) but the association can, too. The Board is given all those powers (by the bylaws, which were adopted by the membership) so that it can do stuff for the association between meetings of the association, but when the association meets it has those powers, too. And, per RONR, if the Association and the Board come into conflict in exercising those powers -- the two entities want to do different (mutually exclusive) stuff -- the Association prevails. Whether "entire management" is a grant to the Board of sole or exclusive use of those powers , I can't answer. Ultimately, the association decides the "meaning" of the bylaws, see p. 588 for how that can be done. But, I suppose, in this litigious age, if someone brings a suit over which "stuff" to do, the courts get in there, too.

Also take a look at the "Official Interpretations" #12 & #13, starting here.

Who can fill a vacancy? RONR implies (p. 279) that the "assembly" is called upon to vote to accept a resignation. However, if the assembly meets infrequently, it seems a reasonable (but not spelled out in RONR) fallback position is that the group (or person) authorized in the bylaws to fill a vacancy can "accept" it, and then proceed to fill the vacancy. And, of course, a specific rule in the bylaws would supersede that.

Out of curiosity, mine that is, what have you been reading that offered that suggestion?

Hmm... Suppose a motion is made and not seconded -- the A-Team notes that this information (what was "done" in a sort of negative sense) goes into the minutes. Fine: "Mr. D.H. moved that ... The motion did not come before the assembly for lack of a second." Then later in the meeting the motion is made again, seconded this time, and eventually properly disposed of. This, obviously, goes in the minutes. It is necessary to include both references to the motion in the minutes?

It would seem so to me since there is no (as you say) conflict with the bylaws or other rules.

You, or properly the chairman, can declare the uncontested elections as won by acclamation.

The chairman of the assembly "runs" the election. How did you get to be "responsible"? Once you give your nominating committee report, you are done.

In Good Standing: When RONR uses the term "member in good standing" (RONR, p. 6, l. 20-21, p. 279, l. 34-35, & p. 585, l. 7-8) it is referring to a member whose membership rights are not in suspension, either as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings (Chapter XX) or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws of the organization. Unfortunately, the current edition of the book doesn't actually state this definition (although it was written by a member of the RONR Authorship Team). So if you use the phrase "in good standing" in the bylaws be sure to define exactly what you mean: what causes a member not to be in good standing, what he has to do to get back into the good graces of the association, &c. Also, you should specify which membership rights, duties, privileges, &c. are lost (or retained) by a member as a consequence of his being in "bad standing" because of a suspension, as distinct from his being in good standing or ceasing to be a member at all.

Well, she "can", she did, and she got away with it. Shame on the other board members. What I wondered was whether the Board has the authority to "remove" the Grievance Committee Chair. Who appointed him/her?