Weldon Merritt

But do your bylaws allow them? A standing rule alone is not sufficient. The authorization must be in the bylaws.

Has the parliamentarian said that he "believes that members should not ne allowed to abstain," or is that an assumption on your part? So far as RONR is concerned, members do have a righty to abstain, but I agree that the char should not call for abstentions.

Sure. Didn't you get the memo? 😁

If, as you say, your bylaws do not require board members to be members of the organization, then you don'ts need to do anything. Kist Just go ahead and install her, and let her resume membership in 2024.

Good points, of course. Of the guest is speaking while a motion is pending, that almost certainly would be debate. Before a motion s pending, I'm not so sure.,

Yes, but if the guest is speaking "to give context" for a resolution, that sounds to me like debate.

The "order of succession" is that the VOP becomes the president and the erstwhile president becomes teh immediate past president. Then the vacant VP position needs to be filled by whatever vacancy-filling provisions exits in the bylaws. And if there are no such provisions, then the body that elected the VOP in the first pace is the bogy that can fill the vacancy.

So do I, except that if the rules in RONR apply, the vacancy he would be ruining for would be in the office of voce president. Once he resigned and the reignition was accepted, the erstwhile VP instantly and automatically became the president. So VP is the office that now needs to be filled.

First of all, parliamentarians are not "licensed." Anyone can call themselves a parliamentarian and serve as such. But there are two major organization, the National Association of Parliamentarians and the American Institute of Parliamentarians, that each administer a credentialling program. Most professional parliamentarians are members of at least one, and often both, of those organizations. If the parliamentarian you are referring to is not a member of at least one of those organizations, then you are out of luck as far as any formal complaint goes. Or at least I know of no mechanism to resolve such a complaint. If the parliamentarian is a member of one of the argentations, you may file a complaint with the appropriate one. For NAP, go to https://www.parliamentarians.org/about/resources, and scroll down t find copies of teh Code of Professional Responsibility, the Professional Responsibility Complaint Rules, and the Complaint Form. For AIP. go tohttps://aipparl.org/governing-documents, where you will find the equivalent rules and forms. Note that the Code of Professional Responsibility is a joint code, so it will be identical for both organizations. The complaint forms and the process for handling complaints differ a bit between the two.

Well that's a bit different from the impression you gave when you said that they just "stopped coming to meetings." Then vote against the amendment and urge others to do so as well. Maybe evens some of teh "snowbirds" could be persuaded to show up if they klnow their rights are about to be affected.

if they're mot coming to the meetings, then they effectivity don'ts have a voice anyway, and they might as well be inactive. Members who don't attend are have no real ground to complain if they don't like what is happening. It may take some work, but the way to region in a rogue board is to9 show up and exercise your rights.

If your confusion relates t0owhat your said here: then aside from the fact that "committee" and "board" are nouns, not pronouns, it seems pretty clear to me that the "committees" are the purported "committees" that were never properly created, and that the board is the one to which the "one or two members" who "established" them belong. Burt I'm nit sure it makes much difference, as it is clear that the "committees" were never properly created by whatever bard or other entity had the authority to do so.

And what would those be? I see few pronouns at all, and the ones I do see are nit in the least ambiguous in their context.

No, they didn't "establish" the committee. They may have thought they did, but in realty, they didn't. Absolutely! The committee does not exist, as it was not properly created. That is up to the assembly. At the very least, they should be told in no uncertain terms that they do not have the power to create a committee without going through the proper procedures.

I understand your caution. Generally, provision in the bylaws cannot be suspended unless they provide for their own suspension. The exception is that rules of order, even in the bylaws, may be suspended. (There are a few exceptions to the exception, but this is not one of them.)

There is no such thing as "a Motion to Renew,." You simply make the same motion again. This is referred to as "renewing the motion," but it's not "a Motion to Renew." The motion certainly can's be rescinded. Since the motion failed, there is nothing to rescind.

I don't think you will find a provision that says, in so many words, that the chair can't rewrite the draft minutes Rather, if the chair (or anyone else) claims that the chair can do it, the burden is on them to show you where RONR (or your organizations' other governing rules) gives them that authority/ They certainly won't find it in RONR. (I obviously don't know whether teh organization's own rules do, but I doubt it.)

Close. I would recommend something more like, "I move that the resolution regarding [subject], adopted [date]. be amended by striking 'Sept. 9, 2023' and inserting 'Aug. 31, 2025.'" If there is any possibility of confusion, you can be even more specific and specify the clause in which the date is to be changed.

Good point. I didn't think of that angle.

If the rules in RONR apply, you need not list the recusal at all, unless you do a roll call vote (and then the members would be listed as abstaining; no need to specify "recused'). But since you are talking about a city council, there may be statues or other rules that supersede the rules in RONR. so you need to check those. Or consult the city attorney. Note that even under RONR, the member may request that his recusal and abstention be recorded, but the council would be under no obligation to grant the request.

Your bylaws should define the board membership, so that's where you need to look. If the only officers listed as board members are the president and teh secretary, then they are the only officers who are on the board. There is no "default" board membership. Ideally, there should be a specific article that defines the board membership in one location; but you need to look at all of the bylaws provisions to see if there is anywhere else that states that the VP and treasurer serve on the board.

I assume from our description od the deliberative body that you are talking about a board. If so, then no, under the small board rules in RONR, seconds acre not necessary. RONR 49:28(2).

I was about to post a resumes saying much the same thing as Mr., Katz said in hos more detailed response. So I will just say that I concur with his response.

Yes, I agree with that. And I apologize if I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that the vote should not be counted. An error I would not have made if I had looked back at your earlier response.

I certainly don't disagree that they said it, nor with what they said. What I disagree with is your interpretation of "at the time the vote is taken." And I am not going to speculate about what they might have said, but didn't.