Weldon Merritt

I omitted nothing. Perhaps you are making reference to some other posting. No, I was referring to you post, in which you said, "If the Board has the authority to re-schedule a meeting as suggested in RONR/12 page 575 line 23, I would suspect that many readers may surmise that that would also include the authority to cancel a meeting." You seem to suggest that RONR itself gives the board the authority to reschedule a meeting. It does not. It says the board (or the society) can reschedule a meeting if the bylaws allow it. P. 575, ll. 21-25 (emphasis added). This is absurd. RONR says nothing of the sort You are correct that RONR does not specifically say that the board cannot cancel a meeting without bylaws authorization, but it certainly dos not say that the board can do so. My point is that it would be absurd to require bylaws authorization to reschedule a meeting, but not to cancel one. Further, RONR says, “A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society's assembly referring individual matters to it.” P. 482, ll. 25-29.

You omitted a critical part of that provision: "If the words "unless otherwise ordered by the Society [or "Executive Board"]" are added [to the byalws section on meetings]...." The counter to your argument is that if the bylaws must allow for rescheduling a meeting, they also must allow for cancelling a meetng. Otherwsie, it can't be done.

If they are not willing to accept the "black letter law," I'm not sure anything we say will be of much help. But unless whoever is doing the "ordering" that you referred to in your oiginal post can show you a rule superior to your bylaws (e.g., an applicable rule of a parent organization) that supports their claim, or unless they have the authority to issue binding orders to your group, I would say ignore them and move on.

I suppose it could. But since the motion to go into executive session would be made before the executive session begins, how do you propose to keep the party a surprise?

Agreeing with Richard, I just want to caution that the operative words are "As far as RONR is concerned." But if it is a governmental body we are talking about, then state open meetings laws may prohibit, or at least severely limit, any such outside communication.

I seriously doubt that state sushine laws apply to a church vestry board.

And if you mean that as soon asthe member moves the previous question, you proceed to immedailey vote on the pending "piece of legislation," then you are not handling the process properly. The proper way to handle a motion for the previous question is: a member (after being recognized by the chair) moves the previos quetion; anotrher member seconds the mnotion; the chair puts the motioin for the previous question to a standing vote; and if at least tw-thirds of those present and voting vote in favor, the previous question is ordered, and then the pendiing legislation is voted on; or if l;ess than two-thirds vote in favor, the motion for the previous question is lost, and consideration of the pending legilation continues.

Maybe something for the 12th edition?

Do they address "leave of absence" at all? If not, there's no such critter. One is either a member or not a member.

Thanks, Hieu. I guess I should have done a search first. That thread confirms my thinking.

RONR says that a Point of Order cannot be reconsidered. P. 249, l. 28 (SDC #8). A decision by the assembly on an Appeal. however, can be reconsidered. P. 258, l. 19 (SDC #8). A Point of Order also is undebatable, except that "f the chair submits the point to a vote of the assembly, the rules governing its debatability are the same as for an Appeal ...." P. 249, ll. 21.23 (SDC #5, emphasis in original). Does that, by implication, mean that a Point of Order that has been submitted to the assembly can be reconsidered, just as an appeal can? Logically, it seems that it should be reconsiderable under such circumstances. (Why should the assembly be able to change its mind in one circumstance but not the other?) But the explicit language of Point of Order SDC #8 does not provide an exception similar to the one in SDC #5. Is this an oversight, or is there some logic that I am missing?

The opinion of two RONR authors certainly is good enough for me.

A special rule of order would not do. Any such provision would have to be in the bylaws.

What about the statement on p. 470, ll. 11-13, that the minutes should inlcude "the complete substance of oral committee reports that are permitted to be given in small assemblies in particular cases"? Although this was an officer's report and not a committee report, wouldn't the same principle apply?

I agree with the previous answers, but I am curious. How did the president "compel" the secretary to revise the minutes? Hold a gun to her head? My point is that while the president's action violoted no rule in RONR, the secretary certainly was under no obligation to comjply with the president's demands. She would have been enirely within her rights to tell the president to mind his own business.

If the bylaws are silent on the methiod of voting, the default requirment is a voice votre or, for issues that require a two-thrids vote, a standing vote. But the assmebly could, by majority vote, order a ballot vote.

To expand on what Josh said, as long as each one receives more votes for his or her respective position than are cast for anyone else for the same position, they win. So if each of the "volunteers" votes for himself or herselfr, and there are no other votes cast for those positions, they win.

If your group thinks it is important to include the rationale behind a deciison, it is free to adopt a Special Rule of Order to require that. But remember that my reasons for a decision may be entirely different from your reasons. As far as I am concerned, what is important is not whether a previously-adopted motion was supported by a good rationale when it was adopted, but whether the motion still makes sense now. If you can't muster good arguments to support the current value of the motion, then maybe it is not worth retaining.

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that RONR advises that when there will be a periodic change in the membership of the assembly (as by an election), the assembly should appoint a minutres approval committee to approve the mintues of the last meeting preceding the change. (I don't have my book handy to provide a cite, but I'm sure someone else will provide it.) That won't help the current situation, but it certainly could alleviate similar concerns in the future.

Well, yes;; there is that possibility. In that event, the meeting should be adjourned. But then the motion would come up as unfinished business at the next meeting (assuming the next meeting is within a quarterly time interval).

Your bylaws should specify some parliamentary authority, and I think it is safe to say that most If not all) of us on this forum would say it should be RONR. RONR is not the only possible choice, but it is by far the most comonly used amd the moct comprehensive. If your bylaws do not specify a parliamentary authority, you can adopt one by a Special Rule of Order, but this should be considered a stopgap until you can amend the bylaws to specify one. If you don't specfy any parliamentary authority, your organization is bound by the common parliamentary law, which bears a remarkable resemblence to the rules in RONR

More accurately, nothing happens automatically just because the maker leaves. As Mr. Mervosh says, consideration of the motion continues, with or without the mover's presence, until the assembly decides on its disposition (adopt, defeat, postpone indefititely, postpone to the next meeting, refer to a committee, or anything else that legitimately can be done with it).

Or better yet, renove the provision so you don't have to worry about these sorts of issues (or any of the many other dilemmas created by having co-presidents).

Maybe. But even so, the proper action would be to raise a Point of Order that " the recess was against the rules," and if necessary, appeal the chair's ruling.

I agree that this is the safer course, and I believe that it is in fact the correct course. But I will point out that if it is desired that the board be able to set thw dues by a majorioty vote instead of the otherwise required higher threshold, the byalws could be ameded to provide for it.