Weldon Merritt

I think those methods would fall within the definition of a "ballot." See 45:18n3.

That does seem clear enough. I was thinking that the rule appeared in the article on elections. I should have taken the time to look it up.

Any ballot vote? Certainly that is tree for the election of officers, but I'm not so sure that it's true for any other ballot vote that my be specified in a rule. At least I don't recall any such prohibition except for officer elections.

You don't think that turning in a false fire alarm (for example) would be objectively "frivolous or absurd"? I do, and would not hesitate to so rule. If at least two members disagree, they would be free to appeal. This is, of course, an extreme example. I certainly can envision many less extreme example that I might find personally objectionable but that I could not, in good conscience, rule out of order.

No, I don't think so. And I agree with you as a general rule. But not knowing all of the circumstances in this instance, I can't say for sure that what was done was out of order. And even if it was, I don't think it created a continuing breach, so a Point of Order would have had to be raised at the meeting were the announcement was made. Also, note that even if the minutes legitimately were approved by a committee, that does not preclude the assembly correcting them if they contain an error. That would be done by the motion to amend something previously adopted. See RONR 48:15.

It's not entirely clear whether the meeting was the sort of regular meeting for which a minutes approval committee would not be needed, but I agree that if it was, using such a committee would not be necessary. On the other hand, I don't read RONR as prohibiting use of a committee. It just doesn't make much sense to do so, barring some unusual circumstance.

Yes, that's another good possibility.

I agree with Mr. Brown, except to add that the organization may ratify the purchase at the excess cost, if the members feel that there was good justification for spending the extra amount.

"To modify the rules governing what is regularly to be included in the minutes requires a special rule of order, although a majority vote my direct the inclusion of specific additional information in the minutes of a particular meeting." RONR 48:43.

Well, I certainly don't want to disappoints, so here you go, courtesy of the late Dr. John Stackpole:

I still don't see it there. But I have discovered that if I click on the button to the left of the title of each forum, it marks all of the posts in that forum as read. I agree with Mr., Brown that it has sometimes been too easy to accidentally mark a forum as read, which I have done myself a few times. It just makes me be extra careful.

I haven't seen the "Mark Forum as Read" button for the past few days. Has that disappeared for everyone, or is it possibly a glitch with my computer. Sometime (especially if there are lot of unread topics), I would like to mark them all as read without having to click on each one individually.

I certainly concur with that. And I also would say that, depending on the specific motion, it perhaps could be ruled out of order on other grounds. For example, a motion to turn in a false fire alarm to test the fire department's response time might be ruled out of order as frivolous or absurd. RONR 39:3. At least, if I were the chair, I would so rule, and let someone appeal if they thought otherwise.

You think wrong! If the bylaws require an election annually (or biennially and this is the end of the biennium), then an election must be held this year unless they bylaws are first amended to change that requirement. That's not to say that thee same officers cannot be elected to another term. They can, unless there are applicable term limits. But they would still have to be nominated and elected. And other nominations from the floor would have to be allowed unless the bylaws specifically prohibit nominations from the floor.

Why would it be void? It certainly may be ill-advised, but it would not automatically be void. For example, the organization may want to deliberately violate a law to set up a text case to challenge it.

Guest Carl, please post your question as a new topic. This thread is almost four years old!

I agree with Mr. Honemann's disagreement.

Seems pretty explicit to me. And while Dr. Kapur didn't say that Kerr and King is "widely recognized" (just that it is a "parliamentary authority"), I suspect our Canadian friends would disagree with you suggestion that it is not (at least in Canada).

Good point. I missed that.

Yes, if an actual motion is made, it does need a second. But if the chair simply ask for unanimous consent, then neither a formal motion nor a second is needed.

Actually, Richard Nixon was not impeached; he resigned to avoid likely impeachment. The only presidents who have been impeached were Andrew Johnson, Bill Clinton, and Donald Trump (twice), none of whom were subsequently convicted.

OK. So Shmuel, when will it be?

Any clue when?

I concur with Mr. Novosielski and Dr. Kapur. And while your question about "how close" a two-thirds vote needs to be is moot so far as the specific issue you asked about, I will add that a quick way to determine whether a two-thirds vote requirement has been met is to double the negative vote. If the result is equal to or less that the affirmative vote, a two-thirds vote has been achieved.

Wouldn't the president know anyway whether or not he has received a raise?