Weldon Merritt

The chair may adjourn a meeting without a motions under three circumstances: 1. "If an hour for adjourning a meeting within a convention or other session of more than one meeting has been scheduled—either in an agenda or program or by the adoption of a motion setting a time—no motion to adjourn is necessary when that hour arrives. The chair simply announces the fact and declares the meeting adjourned ...." RONR 21:14. 2. "When it appears that there is no further business in a meeting of an ordinary local society that normally goes through a complete order of business ... at each regular meeting .., the chair, instead of waiting or calling for a motion to adjourn, can ask, 'Is there any further business?' If there is no response, the chair can then say, 'Since there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned.'" RONR 21:15. 3. "In the event of fire, riot, or other extreme emergency, if the chair believes taking time for a vote on adjourning would be dangerous to those present, he should declare the meeting adjourned—to a suitable time and place for an adjourned meeting (if he is able), or to meet at the call of the chair." RONR 8:10. In any of those circumstances, the chair should do it from the podium. But I would be hard pressed to say it is invalid if done for some other location (e.., as he chair is heading for the door). At the very least, someone would need to raise a Point of Order. And the only circumstance where that might be warranted would be the first one. there, if there is still business that the assembly wants to conduct, the assembly would have to adopt a motion to set aside the orders of the day.

So far as RONR is concerned, "swearing in" (or the absence thereof) has no bearing on an officer's eligibility to serve. It is purely symbolic.

Ideally, the secretary who took the minutes should sign them as the secretary (which she was at the time they were taken), and you should offer your corrections at the meeting where they are up for approval. Then once they are approved (as submitted or as corrected), you should date and initial them as the current secretary. But if the previoud secretary did not sign them, and either cannot or will not sign them now, I suggest you do as Mr. Brown recommended.

Yes, that's correct. Only if that occurred before the chair moved on to new business. If the chair announced that the motion failed, and no one raised an immediate Point of Order, the char's declaration stands.

Yes, unless your own rules preclude it. Certainly, nothing in RONR would. Of course, if they declined the nomination, they very well might decline the election, too. If so, you have an incomplete election and have to vote again.

Based on those bylaws, and assuming thee is noting on any other section of the bylaws that would change the answer, then I agree with Ms. Percell that write ins are allowed. It would take an explicit prohibition to disallow them.

I agree that you are probably right, but I don't think you can say that for certain in this instance. I have seen bylaws with nominations methods similar to the one described that also take the further step of prohibiting write-in votes. That's why I said that a definitive answer is impossible without reviewing the bylaws.

Impossible to say for sure without reviewing your bylaws. The general rule is that both floor nominations and write ins area allowed unless specifically prohibited by your bylaws. But if the alternate nomination procedure you describe is mandated by your bylaws (is it, or is itt just custom)?, I'm not sure how that would affect the general rule. Thus, the need to see the bylaws.

So would I. That may seem inconsistent with my earlier statement that "I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members," but it really isn't. I would not make the motion due to my personal feeling, nor would I encourage someone to make it. But if I were presiding and someone made it, I would not rule it out of order. I agree that nothing in the RONR text suggests that it is so limited, and in any event, whether something is "strongly undesirable" is very subjective.

Yes, that's true, and I thought about including that as part of my advice. Although I realize it could be used for any main motion, I personally feel that it should be used only in rare instances where there is something objectionable about the motion, other than just not being favored by a lot of members. But that's just my opinion, and I suppose I should have included that option.

Yes, that obviously would preclude its being made again. I assume, however, that you oppose the motion and would like to prevent it from even being made. The short answer is that there are very few options for doing that. Under RONR, a failed motion can be made again (renewed) at any future session, no matter how many times it has been made and defeated before. I suppose that if you can muster enough support, you could adopt a special rule of order specifying that a failed motion cannot be made again until some specified number of meetings has intervened. But be careful what you wish for, as this could backfire. There could very well be a failed motion that you really want to be considered again later. And while to rules could be suspended to allow it notwithstanding the special rule, that would take a two-thirds vote. A better approach, in my opinion, would be for someone who opposes the motion to gain the floor as soon as possible after the motion is made and move the Previous Questions. This requires a second, and a two-thirds vote. But if adopted, then the assembly will vote on the motion with no further debate. If, as you imply, most members oppose the motion, it could be defeated pretty quickly

So far as RONR is concerned, the answer is no, and item does not have to be on the agenda for a motion to be made concerning the item. But it is quite possible that the organizations own rules require it. And if you are talking about some sort of governmental body, there very likely are statutes controlling what matters may be considered by the board

Nor am I. As a practical matter, of course, it is doubtful than anyone would later complain; but still, it's probably better to wait for the official time.

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. But IMO, if the bylaws " are silent about ex officio members on the subcommittees," then they are not on the subcommittees.

What do your bylaws say about ex-officio members of a committee?

Good question. I suppose it is possible that the president would not have access to email. But given the widespread availability of internet cafes and such, that seems unlikely.

Or, if it's in an election, you vote again, as often as necessary, until one candidate gets a majority.

It doesn't necessarily follow that "if there is no agreement on the number, there is no agreement on the consolidation." It is quite possible that the two posts agree that they should consolidate, but neither wants to relinquish their number.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh. Even if the chair didn't say something like, "The meeting will come to order," there must have been some indication that a meeting was occurring. Otherwise, why would you have been voting? So out of curiosity, what did happen?

Yes, definitely. So far as RONR is concerned, only members present in person at the meeting may legitimately participate. For those participating electronically to be able to fully participate, including voting, it would have to be authorized in the bylaws. And there also should be some adopted special rules of order to govern the meetings.

I agree with Mr. Lages, and was about to say essentially the same thing until he beat me to it.

It appears that Mr. Brown agrees with me (and the others) on everything except whether the board my legitimately reschedule the meeting and give less than ten days' notice of the reschedule meeting. I think doing so is more that "problematic." I think it makes the rescheduled meeting an improperly called meeting. What would be the limitation? Could they do it five days before; or one day? Or. as Rews asks, "If a board can do that, then what's wrong with cancelling or revising the date 5 min before the meeting?" There has to be a cutoff, and the bylaws set it at ten days. If the need to reschedule the meeting is discovered less than ten days before the meeting, in my opinion, the only legitimate way to do it (absent some "emergency" provision in the bylaws) is to convene the meeting at the originally scheduled time and then set an adjourned meeting.

That is stated nowhere in RONR. If any such rule exists, it would be in your organization's own bylaws or other governing documents.

I think Mr. Lages and I are basically in agreement. And I concur with his advice that even if the board can validly reschedule the meeting after notice has been issued, it generally would be better to convene it at the originally scheduled time and set an adjourned meeting for the new time.

Assuming that you have accurately conveyed what the bylaws require and that there are no other applicable provisions that might change the answer, then: No. It might be possible for the board to issue a new notice, but the new notice would have to fall within the same 60 to 10-day window as the original notice. I'm not 100% sure that I understand your question, but in the absence of a bylaws or statutory provision allowing the board to make a decision outside a regular or properly called special meeting, any decision made outside such a meting would be null and void. But note that some statutes do allow a board to make a decision outside a meeting, if all board members agree (usually in writing). I have no idea whether that would be applicable in this instance. That's a bit more complicated. First, if the meeting in convened in September, an adjourned meeting (a continuation of the same meeting) could be scheduled for a date in a later month. This could be done even if there is no quorum at the original meeting. Second, if the meeting is not held in September, that would not necessarily invalidate the actions taken at meeting held in a later month. If an action is required, it usually is better to do it late than not at all. Others on this forum may disagree with some of my answers, so stand by for further responses.