Weldon Merritt

So far as RONR is concerned. no one has a right to see the draft minutes before they are presented for approval. Before they are approved, they are simply the secretary's notes and have no official status. That said, if your organization has a rule )or an applicable statute) regarding distribution of the draft minutes, that rule would take precedence over RONR. In the absence of such a rule, you may share, opr not share, the draft with anyone you please.

No, the motion is not out of order. 21:3 simply means that the motion is not privileged. I.e., it must be made as an incidental main motion when no other business is immediately pending. As such, it is subject to all of the rules relating to main motions. Also, note that even after a motion to adjourn has been adopted, the chair may make important announcements befo9re actually adjourning the meeting. And there are several more parliamentary steps that would be in order. See 21:10.

I concur with Mr. Novosielski, but just want to add a point regarding the above language. For those inclined to argue that "all" means "all," I like to point out that as long as the organization has a vice president, there can never be a vacancy in the office of present. Why? Because the instant the sitting president resigns, dies, or is removed from office, the VP automatically and instantly become the president. This, no vacancy exists to be filled (except in the office of VP).

Not surprisingly, RONR does not address this specific issue. But I suspect t is one that is going to come up more often as time on, at least for a while. If it indeed is being done deliberately, I think it might well be considered a violation of decorum. But I would be interested to see hat others think.

Obviously I overlooked the emphasized language. Thanks for the clarification. Seems clear enough now.

Yes, 57:5 makes it perfectly clear that when a bylaws revisio9n is penning, the original bylaws are not op0en to amendment. But it is not as clear whether the same is true of ae substitute that is not a revision, as discussed in the footnote to that provision. Or to ASPA when applied to any other exiting rule. Is there anything that I have missed that explicitly says that?

In the discussion of the subsidiary motion to Amen Amend, when the primary amendment is to amend by substitution, RONR says that both the original language and the proposed substitute are open the secondary amendment. I don't see a similar statement regarding they incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. (Maybe it's there and I just missed it.) Would I be correct in assuming that a similar rue applies when the ASPA proposes to substitute a new provision an existing one? Except in that case, the original and the proposed substitute would both be open to perfection by both primary and secondary amendment, since ASPA is a main motion. Assuming my understating is correct, and assuming that while ASPA is pending, someone moves to amend the corresponding portion of the original document, and that amendment is adopted. Then ultimately the motion to substitute is lost. What is the status of the adopted amendment to the original. I assume it is in full force and effect without further action by the assembly, but I want ti see if there is a flaw in my thinning

I concur with that,. and should have clarified that I meant they condo suspend teh quorum (if all were present).

So far as RONR is concerned, "searing in" of officers is purely ceremonial and has no bearing on the validly of their elections or appointment. Whether your bylaws require that the officers be installed before they can assume the office is a matter of bylaws interpretation, which only your own organization can do. If the bylaws actually specify that the quorum is six. then no, it cannot be reduced just because the membership has fallen below that number. (One of the perils of having a fixed number as the quorum.) The only exception to this is that in a body that has the authority to set its own quorum, if all members are present (i.e., there are no absentees to protect), they can proceed to set a lower quorum. But I seriously doubt that this wood apply to your board, unless they have the authority to amend the bylaws on thier own.

As long as the bylaw's contain authorization for dues (as it seems they do in this instance(,I agree that adoption of the new rue is not null and void.. I.e., it is valid.

The verb "should" in 56:19 is referring to where in the bylaws the dues provision should be place, not whether it must be in them. I agree with Mr. Brown that payment of dues is a condition of membership, and therefore must be authorized somewhere in the bylaws, just as any other condition of membership must be. I agree that the specific amount and ither payment details may be in the steading rules.

IMO, once the chair ruled on the Point of Order, the legitimate purpose for which the member was granted there floor was fulfilled. The member could have appealed the ruling of the chair, but I do not believe that making another motion was a "legitimate purpose" at that time. The chair shield have ruled the motion for the PQ not in order. But it's too late to do anything about it now. A Point of Order about that breach wood have to have been made at that time. I can't gi8ve you a citation to back up my opinion, as I don't think the situation is directory addressed by RONR, But to me, it seems common sense. Otherwise , there would be a tremendous loophole, by which a member could claim prioroity for one porpoise, achieve that purpose, and then move the Previous Question (or any other desired motion). That said, if 2.3 voted in favor, I suspect it would not have been long before someone else would have moved PQ.

See this thread.

Correct. But any member who notices (or suspects) that a quorum is not present may raise a Point of Order to that effect.

Agreeing with Mr. Honemann, I will note (for whatever it is worth) that RONR uses it, at least in the several passages I have checked. Personally, I always use it (unless I omit it by accident). My reasoning is that its absence can sometimes lead to confusion, but its presence never does (or at least I can't think of any way that it would).

This certainly is something the voters should consider. But there could be legitimate reasons that he might not want to be elected as president now, but nevertheless would be willing to assume the office if it becomes necessary. One possibility that comes to mid is that he feels that he (and the organization) could benefit from having served as VP, however briefly, before becoming president. I can personally relate to that because many years ago, less than three years after I joined NAP, I was elected president of my state association without having served in any other sate office, and I always felt that it wood have been betters for me to have served in another office first. I had served on the state board by virtue of being a unit president, but that did not really give me as full a picture as I would have had if I had served in in one of the elected offices.

If the incoming officers are not yet board members (which seems to be the case(, the short answer is no. Under no circumstances may non-members be allowed to vote. If they did note and their votes affected, or could have affected, the resets, the vote is null and void. The incoming officers may be allowed to participate as fully as the current members are willing to allow, short of actual voting. But if they are to participate in teh debate on a motion, that requires suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote.

As I understand it, he only wants to be removed from the ballot for the office of president. Presumably, if he is elected to vice president, he would accept that one.

RONR 21:12. "Regardless or the type of motion by which it is voted to adjourn, the meeting is not closed until the chair has declared that the meeting 'is adjourned' (or 'stands adjourned') ....l"

Or when the assembly has previously adopted a specified time to adjourn and that time has been reached. In that instance, however, the assembly may decide not to adjourn by adopting a motion to extend the time of the meeting, by a two-thirds vote.

We all (or at least the regulars here) know that (with rare exception) there should be no discussion without a motion or at least a committee or officer report. But we also know that it happens, especially with less sophisticated groups. So the OP's question is understandable. I agree with that part of your response.

Before we can properly answer you question, we need to know several things: 1. What, if anything, dop your bylaws say about the removal of an officer? 2. What do your bylaws say about the term of office? (Exact language, please, mot a paraphrase. 3. Who elected the treasurer to begin with, the general membership or the board?

None that would resolve the issues you have raised. I was hoping that someone else might be able to offer some pertinent thoughts.

As a past AIP board member, I am embarrassed to say that I completely forgot about that resource.🙁 Thanks for mentioning it.

I suspect that the secretary is putting far more information in the minutes than should be in them. If the minutes stick ti a record of what is done, nit what is said, as RONR specifies, it is highly unlikely that any error's will be "too many to be corrected on the spot." The "proper process" for currenting minutes is that a member who thinks there is an error offers a correction. Most correction can be handled by unanimous consent, but if there is disagreement, a majority vote decides. If there are indeed so many errors that correcting them in the proper manner is impracti8cal, their consideration can be postponed to the next meeting. It is alsos possible to refer them to a committee, either to correct and approve them, or to report back to the next meeting with a corrected copy for approval by the assembly.