Weldon Merritt

I certainly agree with that!

"Them" could be a reference to the proposed revised bylaws as a whole. But I agree that clarification would be helpful.

Well, that's your biggest problem. In an election, it is not proper to have votes for and against a specific candidate. The only proper way to vote against one candidate is to vote for another one. If you have only one nominee, and the bylaws don't require a ballot vote in that circumstance, the chair simply declares the sole nominee elected. If you don't want that to happen, nominate a more acceptable candidate. If the bylaws do require a ballot vote, and don't make an exception when there is only one nominee, then a ballot vote must be held, There also must be an opportunity for write-in votes, so conceivably, someone could win as a write-in.

It violates no rule in RONR. However, if he has not consented in advance, the election is not final until he has been notified and accepts the election. If he does not accept, the election is incomplete and will have to be completed later.

I see that Mr. Martin and I differ on whether the question at issue properly is a Parliamentary Inquiry or a Request for Information. Bit I believe we are in agreement that the chair needn't "sweat too much over this distinction."

The first question is whether the person making the request is a member of the board. If not, they have no right at all to examine the board's minutes, unless the organization's own rules or applicable state law provides that right. If the person is a member of the board, they do have the right to examine the minutes. But the key is that it must not be "to the annoyance of the secretary." Whether a specific request falls into the "annoyance" category is, I think, a determination to be made initially by the secretary. If the member disagrees with the secretary's determination, the member can introduce a motion that the secretary be required to comply.

I think that question technically would fall under a Request for Information rather than a Parliamentary Inquiry. But ultimately, it matters little (if at all) which label it has. Either way, it's an appropriate question and should be answered.

I will add that in small boards (fewer than about a dozen members, which I suspect describe the council in question) seconds aren't required in the first place, so far as RONR is concerned. Of course, the council rules may require one, and if so, that rule would prevail.

I have heard several stories about why and how AIP was formed, but I'm not sure how accurate any of them are. Rather than to risk repeating inaccurate information, I will leave it to others who may be more knowledgeable on that issue. I understand, and am pretty sure it is correct, that from its inception AIP emphasized the study of multiple parliamentary authorities, while still maintaining RONR as its adopted PA. However, after publication of the American Institute of Parliamentarians Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure in 2012, AIP amended its bylaws to adopt AIPSC as its PA. That amendment occurred at the AIP Annual Meeting in Fort Worth, Texas, in July 2012. I was the chair of the AIP Bylaws and Standing Orders Committee when we proposed the amendment. (We also proposed an amendment to require all AIP chapters to adopt AIPSC, but that one failed. So I suspect there are chapters that still use RONR, or possibly some other PA.)

Abd there is no need for two separate executive session. Both topics may be discussed in the same session.

An adjourned meeting is, by definition, part of the same session as the meeting that established the adjourned meeting. As such, it is "the next succeeding day within the session on which a business meeting is held.” (Emphasis added.) The fact that other (non-business meeting) days intervene is irrelevant.

Me, too. But I agree that it could be.

That is my understanding, although I thought that the expiration date would be later. If the provision indeed expires on September 5, and the convention begins on September 8, it seems that will present a problem. Aside from that, the problem some of us ae having is that if the convention is conducted in webinar mode, with delegates being promoted to panelist upon being recognized, and then demoted again when they finish speaking, it is unclear how anyone will be able to make a timely interrupting motion. We were assured that the Convention Standing Rules will address this, so I suppose we will have to wait and see.

Richard, I read the question the same way Atul did. I agree that it could be read the way you did, but I think it is a bit unusual for most ordinary organizations to make recommendations to outside bodies.

The recommendation might be from a committee to the assembly. But still, for anything to happen as a result of the recommendation, a motion must be adopted to implement it. The motion should be made by the committee member making the report, but if that doesn't happen, any other assembly member may make the motion, or the chair may assume it.

It always matters when a board does something that is beyond its authority. At the very least, it encourages them to think that they can continue doing it without consequence. That depends on your bylaws, and how much authority they give the board.

Anyone could write a resolution. The important issue is who can move its adoption? A voting representative clearly can do so. Even a non-voting representative might be able to do so, but that would be a matter of bylaw interpretation.

And how about South Africa, which has eleven official languages? Although for most everyday purposes, only English and Afrikaans are widely used.

I'm not sure it's reasonable to expect the publishers to produce a separate version for virtual meetings. That gets into the realm of special rules of order that should be adopted by organizations that want to do virtual meetings.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. All we know from what the OP told us is that the treasurer has been paying the organization's bill with her personal credit card and reimbursing herself from the organization's treasury, and that she has been "asked" not to do it. I agree that this is a serious issue that needs to be addressed, and that some sort of discipline is appropriate. But I don't think we have enough facts to say that it amounts to embezzlement or that it warrants expulsion.

Whether or not what she did amounts to "embezzlement" is a legal judgement. But it certainly does not seem proper, and the assembly should do whatever it takes to put a stop to it.

True; and that would be fine (if authorized by the group). But that's not what the treasurer did. She paid with her personal credit card.

"A motion made by direction of a board or duly appointed committee of the assembly requires no second from the floor (provided the subordinate group is composed of more than one person) ...." RONR (12th ed.) 4:11.

Vote again.

I have re-read the entire paragraph, and I don't read it that way. I still think the requirement applies to all committee appointments. But I would be interested in others' opinions on the issue.