Weldon Merritt

I concur with Mr. Brown's response, which is more complete than mine. But if the election is held and there still is no one elected who is willing to serve, I stand by my response that it may be time to dissolve the organization for lack of interest. (Sometime, just the threat of having the organization dissolved is enough to persuade someone to serve.)

Well, you can't force someone to serve if they don't want to. I suppose you could keep going for a while by electing a chair pro tem for each meeting. But that person would only preside at the meeting, and would not have any of the president's administrative duties or powers. If there really is no one who will take the positions, then it seems to me that you are better off dissolving the organization. Clearly, the members aren't interested enough in the organization to keep it going. (And if you say that you are interested in keeping it going, my question would be why do you not run for president?)

I think there is a way to disable chat except for going to a specific person, but I an not sure how to do it.

There is no such general rule in RONR. There are a few things for which previous notice is required (most notably, bylaws amendments), and a few for which previous notice will lower the vote requirement (such as amending or rescinding something previously adopted). But aside from those few items, or anything else for which your bylaws may require previous notice, motions may be made and adopted without previous notice, no matter how important or controversial they may be.

No. So far as RONR is concerned, a member is a member is a member, with all of the rights of membership (unless the member is under disciplinary suspension, but this does not seem to be the case in your example). If there is any validity at all to the member's not being allowed to second a motion, the rule would have to be found in the select board's governing documents, including any applicable statutes. I would be surprised to find that there is any such rule, but I suppose it can't be ruled out.

Well it might be pretty hard for anyone to "make nations." 😁 But if you mean "make motions," then yes, or course (assuming they're still a member). That's a basic right of membership. Why on earth would you think otherwise.

And I would be surprised if it were allowed by any applicable statute, either. But I suppose it's possible that some statute somewhere might. I have seen some statutes over the years.

No, Richard; I knew what you were getting at. But my point is that no matter what RONR says about it, if an organization insists on putting the language in their bylaws, nothing RONR says will matter. And experience shows that organizations put all sorts of unwise things in their bylaws, so matter how strongly RONR recommends against it.

I understand, and agree. I just don't know any practical way it can be "banned." The only effective remedy that I see is better education.

I concur. But of course, as we all know, the bylaws trump RONR. So if an organization chooses to put it into their bylaws, what RONR says about it is irrelevant.

Only if there is sufficient time to send an amended meeting notice before the notice deadline.

That's certainly one option. The assembly also could discharge the committee from further consideration, and handle the issue directly.

Then why did you even bother to ask the question?

A resignation is a voluntary action, so IMO the board can either accept it as offered or, if the board has a good enough reason (and the necessary authority), take action to remove the president immediately. But resignation and removal are two entirely different actions.

I have no idea who gave you the "different view." But I think you would be wise to pay attention to the view expressed by Mr. Honemann, one of the RONR authors.

There are several possibilities. What would you like to be done?

More specifically, that would be an incidental main motion, which means that Objection to Consideration of the Question could not be used. Has the member complied with the applicable notice requirements before making the motion? If not, the chair should rule the motion not in order. If the notice requirements have been satisfied, I think the best move is for another member to gain the floor as soon as possible, and move the Previous Question. If the PQ motion gets the required two-thirds vote, then it seems likely that the motion to amend will easily be defeated.

The chair can't just decide that the next meeting will be an adjourned meeting instead of a separate session. The assembly would have to agree to set an adjourned meeting. And any such adjourned meeting would have to occur before the next regular meeting, so trying to call the next regular meeting an adjourned meetings won't work. RONR does not contain any specific guidance on this. While and adjourned meeting often is set because the assembly was unable to complete its agenda, that does not seem to be a specific requirement. If the intent is to somehow convert the next regular meeting into an adjourned meeting, no. As noted, an adjourned meeting must occur before the next regular meeting. There are better ways to deal with and dispose of the motion without spending a lot of time on it.

Thanks, Atul. I should have included that quotation in my response, but I was in too big a hurry, so didn't look it up.

Apparently you didn't read very carefully, because your understanding is incorrect. The president acted correctly.

If you mean that the recording secretary refuses to make corrections that have been suggested by members before the meeting at which the minutes are supposed to be approved, that is entirely within the recording secretary's purview. If you mean that the recording secretary refuses to make corrections that have been approved by the members when the minutes actually are up for approval at the meeting, that's another matter entirely, and would be a dereliction of duty. In that event, the recording secretary could (and IMO should) be subject to disciplinary action, including possible removal from office.

Since you say it is a municipality, you need too check the applicable statutes for any residency requirements they may have. And it would be prudent to ask the municipal attorney as well.

Nothing in RONR would require that they step down. If there is any such requirement, it would have to be because of something on your bylaws. Otherwise, it seems to me that the only relevant question is whether they can continue to serve effectively after they move. If so, I see no need for them to resign. Of course, if they don't want to continue after moving, that's a different story.

Seems like your problem stems in large part from your "loose adherence of Robert's Rules," whatever that means.

Surprising things can happen in election, especially when it is by ballot. I recall an instance when a board I was a member of was voting to elect a board member to the executive committee, with two nominated candidates. The vote was still tied after several rounds of voting, so I considered changing my vote. Then I thought that if someone else also changed their vote, we the vote would be tied again, so I abstained instead. That should have resulted in election of the candidate for whom I had not been voting, assuming no one else changed their vote. But to my surprise, the candidate I supported was elected. Obviously, someone else did change their vote.