Weldon Merritt

It's a bit stronger than "should." "But the chair must announce the names of the committee members to the assembly, ... and until such announcement is made the committee cannot act." RONR (12 ed.) 50:13(d) (emphasis added).

Sure you could, and did. By saying you didn't remember saying anything like that. And you also could have said that it wasn't something you would have been likely to say, if in fact it wasn't. Further, if there is a motion to censure, you can defend yourself the same way there. Whether that will be sufficient to avoid censure is for the assembly to decide. Depending on what was said about you, and to whom, you might have non-parliamentary remedies. But those are far beyond the scope of this forum.

It amazes me how many people seem to think that the first amendment gives them the right to say anything they want anywhere they want without consequence.

There is no time limit on renewing a failed motion (except that it cannot be done at the same meeting) nor on a motion to rescind or amend a previously-adopted motion (so long as the motion has not yet been executed).

I concur. The time to have raised a Point of Order would have been at the time the motion was before the assembly for consideration.

Well one of the things that should not happen is changing the quorum, unless proper notice of an amendment to the quorum provision of the bylaws has been given. (Or they have a very unusual amendment provision that would allow it without previous notice.) BTW, I hope their bylaws allow electronic meetings, or they are operating under the terms of a still-effective gubernatorial order allowing it. Otherwise, their meeting likely will be invalid.

If the nomination and acceptance actually occurred, the fact that the action was omitted from the minutes does not invalidate those actions. It simply means that the minutes are in error and should be corrected. If the minutes of the meeting at which the nomination and acceptance occurred have already been approved, they still can be amended by use of the Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR (12th ed.) 35:1-13; 48:15.

Since these Zoom meetings were not "regularly or properly called meetings" (RONR 10:54 [first bullet]), the motions adopted at them cannot be ratified. Any "action taken by officers, committees, delegates, subordinate bodies, or staff in excess of their instructions or authority--including action to carry out decisions made without a valid meeting" can, however, be ratified. (RONR 10:54 [third bullet].) This is a subtle but important distinction. So, for example, if a motion was adopted to authorize the treasurer to pay a specified bill, and the treasurer does so, the motion itself cannot be ratified, but the treasurer's action to pay the bill can be.

I also wonder whether Guest joan malkin is referring to closing the hearing to non-members (i.e., going into executive session).

And for those who might ask, "How can RONR prevail over the 'plain language' of the bylaws," my answer is that if you have a vice president, there never is a vacancy in the presidency. The instant the sitting president is no longer the president (for whatever reason), the vice president instantly and automatically becomes the president (whether or not he or she is aware of it at the time). So there never is an actual vacancy to be filled (except in the position of vice president). "The king is dead; long live the king!"

I agree. It could happen, but it would be highly unusual.

Yes. The sentence following the one Dr. Kapur quoted says, "In such a case, one or more of the several resolutions must receive separate consideration and vote at the request of a single member, and the motion for Division of a Question is not used." (Italics in original.)

That will depend upon the rules of the council. So far as RONR is concerned. you have no rights at all in a meeting of a body of which you are not a member. Whatever rights you have to sepal at the council meeting will be established by applicable statute (if any) or the council rules.

No rule in RONR would prevent it.

I concur with Mr. Brown. My response and, I believe, Mr. Mervosh's were based on your statement that the ED is a member of the Executive Committee. It now appears that this may not be, and likely is not, the case. And if the ED is not a member of the Executive Committee, then he can be excluded.

You either adopt a motion to do into executive session, or the chair may call for unanimous consent to do so. But note that if the Executive Director indeed is a member, as you say, they cannot be excluded from the meeting unless your bylaws say so. The ED may voluntarily leave the meeting, but cannot be forced to do so. The fact that the membership is ex officio is irrelevant.

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will add that so far as RONR is concerned, there is no difference between a charter member and any other member with regard to membership rights and responsibilities. So unless your organization's rules make a distinction, it really doesn't matter.

Oh, no doubt; I would wash my hands. But I suspect there ae some who would not. And if I were the parent, I wouldn't say, "You should wash your hands"; I would say, "Go wash your hands!"

48:5(1): "The name of the maker of a main motion should be entered in the minutes, but the name of the seconder should not be entered unless ordered by the assembly." OK; it says "should,' not "must," so one might argue that it's not actually a requirement. But I think most of us view it as a requirement, so I stand by my advice that if an organization doesn't want to do it, they should adopt a special rule of order saying so.

I don't think it does. Personally, I don't even see a good reason for saying who made the motion. I have heard various arguments about why that information should be included, but none I have heard seem persuasive to me. But RONR requires it, so I think it would require a special rule of order to routinely omit it.

Yes, I suppose sometimes it's easier to take smaller steps to begin with.

I agree.

How about just, "After debate, the motion was adopted"? I see no need to mention the PQ order.

And I agree with you about that rule. Although I think 9.4 is more on point for organizations whose bylaws specify the number of days' notice required.

The only problem with that approach is that if there is a dispute about whether timely notice has been provided, the postmark likely is the best evidence of when the notice was sent (if it was sent by postal mail). Except when the organization uses a specific time in its bylaws as the deadline for notice, as the organization Mr. Brown mentioned does. I was simply pointing out that if the organization really wanted to allow the latest possible time for sending notice on a specified day, 11:59:59 Pacific Time wouldn't do it. But I also said that there was a reasonableness factor, and that I would not actually propose using the westernmost time zone as the determinant.