Weldon Merritt

The fact that the motion was made, and the wording of the motion, needs to be reflected. but the second does not need to be noted.

Or at least have the good sense not to elect one person to so many positions. Yes, I know the likely argument: "No one else was interested in serving." But if that's the case, it may be time to consider abolishing some of the positions and reassigning the duties. Or even to consider dissolving the organization for lack of interest.

I can see where you're coming from, and it's not an unreasonable position. But I'm still not convinced. While the approval of the minutes by a group other than the assembly does not take place within a meeting of the assembly, the process of authorizing another group to do so does. So I still believe that the authorization can be in a special rule of order.

So would I, but I wanted to give Richard a chance to rethink his advice. Or at least to convince me that it would have to be in the bylaws.

Richard, do you think that would have to be in the bylaws? Or would a special rule of order be sufficient?

Seems pretty fishy to me.😀

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, I will just add that even with an odd number of members, it is still possible to have a tie. A member could be absent, or might abstain.

Robertsrulesonline.com is not the official RONR website. I believe it is based on to 4th edition of Robert's Rules, which is the earliest edition that is no longer copyrighted. You need to be referring to the 12th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. And the official website is www.robertsrules.com. Take a look at Official Interpretation 2006-7. I don't think I can add anything of substance to what that opinion says.

Yes. Post your question as a new topic, instead of tacking it onto one that is four months old. (And when you repost, correct they typo in the quote.)

Please post the exact wording of the provision in you bylaws regarding the calling of special meetings.

I agree that the violation would constitute a continuing breech, although I think the more pertinent exception to the timeliness requirement is that it was a violation of a rule protecting absentees. 23:6(e). I am less sure regarding whether the inartfully stated, and unappealed, point of order precludes raising a proper point of order in the future. On the one hand, RONR's statement that "a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breech" doesn't say, "unless a previous point of order was raised." But on the other hand, it seems that there should be some finality to a ruling on point of order.

[I thought I had posted the following several hours ago, but somehow it didn't show up. So I am posting it now.] I don't know how it could be made any more clear that we have already tried to make it. But I'll give it one last shot. First, rules of order are defined as "rules [that]relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to the duties of officers in that connection." 2:14. Second, "Rules clearly identifiable as in the nature of rules of order that are placed within the bylaws can (with the exceptions specified in 25) also be suspended by a two-thirds vote ...." 2:25. Note that the word is "identifiable," not "identified." So the bylaws need not say anything like "this is a rule of order." It is sufficient that the rule clearly "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings [or] to the duties of officers in that connection." Finally, re your request for "support that a bylaw stating previous notice and a 2/3 vote is a rule of order," you won't find any such specific statement in RONR. But clearly, the vote requirement for adopting a motion does "relate to the orderly transaction of business in meetings." So does that mean such a bylaws provision cab be suspended by a 2/3 vote? In this particular instance, no. Why? Because one of the exceptions to the suspendability of a rule of order is that "[r]ules protecting absentees cannot be suspended, ... because the absentees do not consent to such suspension. For example, the rules ... requiring previous notice of a proposed amendment to the bylaws protect absentees, if there are any, and cannot be suspended when any member is absent." 25:10 (italics in original) If you still are not convinced (particularly in light of RONR Senior Author Dan Honemann's statement earlier in this thread that "a] bylaw requirement of previous notice and a bylaw requirement of a two-thirds vote for adoption of a motion are both rules in the nature of rules of order"), I don't know what will do it, and I don't intend to waste any more time in the attempt.

You have been proven wrong, repeatedly. You just refuse to accept the proof.

Except for rules of order contained within the bylaws, which (with a few exceptions) can be suspended, even when they are contained in the bylaws. Your continued refusal to accept that fact in the face of multiple persons (including the senior RONR author) telling you so does not make it any less so.

No. If the terms of any or all of the members expire, any unfinished business, including any motions that are on the table, fall to the ground. The only legitimate way for a matter to be carried over to the next term is if it has been referred to a committee with instructions to report at a later date in the new term.

Since the members' terms expire before the next meeting, the motion will fall to the ground and cannot be taken from the table. But it can simply be made again. Note that this will be true whether or not the two members are reappointed to a new term. It is the expiration of the current term that is relevant, not who might or might not be appointed to the new term. However, if a member is replaced mid-term, because of death, resignation, or removal, that will not cause the motion to fall to the ground, and it could be taken from the table. But based on your information, that does not seem to apply here.

The mover, at least, should have been "credited" in the minutes of the meeting where he or she made the motion. The seconder ordinarily should not be mentioned at all (just the fact that the motion was seconded). But if your organization has a custom of listing the seconder, then he or she also should have been "credited" in the previous meeting's minutes. No need to "credit" them again.

Presumably, the minutes of the meeting where the motion was made will show who made the motion. I think the minutes of the meeting where it was taken from the table would simply indicate that it was taken from the table, and the disposition of it after it was taken from the table. No need to again list who initially made the made motion, nor (IMO) even who moved to take it from the table.

Mr. Brown beat me to the punch with essentially the same thing I was going to say. But, I'll throw in two additional observations gratis. First, don't refer to "a 2/3 majority." A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast. A two-thirds vote is, well, two-thirds of the votes cast. Conflating the terms leads to confusion. Second, "RROO (The Modern Edition)" is not the Right Book. I don't have a copy to refer to, but as near as I can determine based on my Google search, it essentially is the original 1876 work by Henry M. Robert, revised by Darwin Patnode, Ph.D. The current official version or is Robert's Rules is Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th edition). In this particular instance, the answer you got from you your book was correct, but that might not always be the case. I recommend you get the correct current version, and it's companion, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief (3rd edition), which you can view here.

No. The approval of the minutes has no bearing on whether motions (or resolutions, which are just "motions in fancy dress") are valid. A lack of approved minutes means that you have no official record of their adoption, but it certainly doesn't make them "null and void." So the minutes should be approved as soon as possible, and whatever is causing them to be provided late needs to be corrected ASAP.

Assuming each meeting of the council is indeed a separate session, and that there are no other rules affecting the motion, you are correct. Any member may make the motion. But since you are not a council member, your options are limited. It would up to a council member to raise a Point of Order and, if necessary, an Appeal.

What do you mean by "editorializing"? If you mean making comments when no motion is pending, no one (officer or not) should be doing that, except maybe a few introductory remarks leading to the making of a motion. If you are talking about debating a pending motion, the secretary, or any other officer, if a member of the assembly, has the same right to do that as any other member. The requirement to remain neutral applies to the chair, not all officers.

True; but it seems to me that 41:11 makes it clear that even if a motion to approve the minutes is made, a vote on approval is not taken.

I agree with both Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Brown as to the general principle that an officer does not have to resign one position to be nominated for another. But I'm wondering why neither asked why anyone was being nominated for president. If there is a vice president, then that officer automatically and instantly became the president the moment the president's resignation was effective, unless the bylaws specifically say otherwise. (Not just something like, "all vacancies will be filled by election," but something like, "all vacancies including in the office of president.") So absent that specificity in the bylaws, the vacancy to be filled would be in the office of vice president, not president.

Thanks, Josh. That's exactly what I was looking for. I was looking under Point of Order and under Voting, but I didn't think to look under Appeal.