Weldon Merritt

RONR 21:12. "Regardless or the type of motion by which it is voted to adjourn, the meeting is not closed until the chair has declared that the meeting 'is adjourned' (or 'stands adjourned') ....l"

Or when the assembly has previously adopted a specified time to adjourn and that time has been reached. In that instance, however, the assembly may decide not to adjourn by adopting a motion to extend the time of the meeting, by a two-thirds vote.

We all (or at least the regulars here) know that (with rare exception) there should be no discussion without a motion or at least a committee or officer report. But we also know that it happens, especially with less sophisticated groups. So the OP's question is understandable. I agree with that part of your response.

Before we can properly answer you question, we need to know several things: 1. What, if anything, dop your bylaws say about the removal of an officer? 2. What do your bylaws say about the term of office? (Exact language, please, mot a paraphrase. 3. Who elected the treasurer to begin with, the general membership or the board?

None that would resolve the issues you have raised. I was hoping that someone else might be able to offer some pertinent thoughts.

As a past AIP board member, I am embarrassed to say that I completely forgot about that resource.🙁 Thanks for mentioning it.

I suspect that the secretary is putting far more information in the minutes than should be in them. If the minutes stick ti a record of what is done, nit what is said, as RONR specifies, it is highly unlikely that any error's will be "too many to be corrected on the spot." The "proper process" for currenting minutes is that a member who thinks there is an error offers a correction. Most correction can be handled by unanimous consent, but if there is disagreement, a majority vote decides. If there are indeed so many errors that correcting them in the proper manner is impracti8cal, their consideration can be postponed to the next meeting. It is alsos possible to refer them to a committee, either to correct and approve them, or to report back to the next meeting with a corrected copy for approval by the assembly.

First of all, unless you have some very peculiar rules, a point of order cannot be raised by a letter, it must be made at a meeting. So the chair should ignore it until it is properly made. Second, as long as a quorum was present and the motion was not one requiring previous notice, it was validly adopted. So even if a point of order is later raised at a meeting, the chair should rule it not well taken. Members who leave a meeting before it is adjourned assume the risk that they may miss important business. Third, the proper way to proceed now, for those who do not favor the motion, is to move to rescind or amend it. The motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted is covered in RONR Sec. 35. It can be adopted by an ordinary majority vote if previous notice is given. Otherwise it requires either a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I know of no such forum, either. But since this is a forum for RONR, what we have to say may not be at all applicable to Bourinot's. If Bourinot's is silent on a particular matter, what RONR has to say about the matter may be persuasive. But it certainly is not binding.

I didn't think of that, but now that you mention it I believe you are correct Do you (or does anyone) have a thought on whether an opening ceremony is a standing rule or a special rule of order?

Says who? Unless your bylaws specifically require that a nominee to be in attendance, they don't have to be. If they actually are elected, and have not agreed in advance to serve if elected, their election will nt be final until they are notified and then don't decline. But that does not affect their elegibilityy to be nominated. Asked nicely or demanded, it is you duty to conduct the nominations and elections as specified your bylaws and in RONR. That could be a sign that your organization is moribund and should be dissolved. Sometimes the threat of dissolution is enough to motivate members to step up.

Suppose a motion is pending to adopt a particular ritual as part of opening ceremonies. During consideration, a motion is adopted to refer the pending motion to the board of directors with power to act. First, is there any reason that referral of a motion to adopt what amounts to either a standing rule or a special rule of order (I'm not sure which and I'm not sure it matters), as opposed to, for example, a motion to paint the meeting room wall or to buy new carpeting, would not be in order? I see nothing in RONR that suggest it would not be in order, but I want to see if I might have missed something. If such a referral is in order, and the board adopts the ritual, either as proposed or with an amendment, and reports it to the assembly. Suppose a member does not like the motion as adopted by the board and wants to either get rid of it or change it in some way. Do the rules for Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, including the vote requirement, apply just as if the motion had been adopted by the assembly in the first place? It seems to me that the answer is yes, but again I want to see if there is a nuance I might have missed.

"Because of the difficulty likely to be encountered in determining exactly how long the meeting has been without a quorum ..., a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action, but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retroactively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal ...." RONR 40:12. What constitutes "clear and convincing proof"? Whatever is sufficient to convince the chair or, in the event of an appeal, a majority of the assembly.

Although the bylaws may, and \often do, specify that he is to attend board meetings as an advisor. But that still does not make him a member.

If the women meet the current criteria for becoming members, why the want to do so is irrelevant, no matter how "inappropriate" it may seem to you.

That would be my advice.

Yes, I do. I should have looked up the name instead of relying on my memory. But at least I git the rest of it right.

Either way, you would use a form of the motion to Amend or Rescind Something Previously Adopted. If you want to get rid of the motion entirely you would move to rescind the previous motion. If you just want to change the motion is some way, you would move to amend it in the specified way. Either form of the motion can be adopted with a majority vote if previous notice was given. Otherwise, it requires either a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

Yes, and I already said that the motion being made by a non-member was irrelevant now. I only brought up the issue of a non-member's bite because Mr. Katz seemed to assume that one or more non-members may have voted.

True. But I don't think you actually need to know how the non0member voted on a counted vote. I think it's enough to know that a non0member did vote and that the non-members vote could have made a difference.

To expand a bit on Mr. Katz's response, the fact that the motion was made by a non-member is irrelevant now. A Point of Order would have to have been made at the time. But on one or more non-members were allowed to vote, and there were enough of them to have potentially changed the outcome, then the vote was invalid and the motion will need io be made and voted again. That's assuming that the vote was counted and the count recorded. If it was a voice vote, it probably would be impossible to determine whether the vote(s) of non-member(s) could have affected the result. In that event, IMOP, the vote stands, just as it would of the chair called the vote incorrectly and no one raised Point of Order.

Yet another good reason to not give the IPP an automatic position. Yet some organizations persist in doing it. I'll have to say that the ones I've had direct experience with have worked well. But it is still fraught with potential problems.

So you'll have to figure it our on your won. So far as RONR is concerned, a person either is or is not the president. In the absence of the president from a meeting, the VP (or, in your case, apparently the CoO, whatever that is) presides. But none of the president's administrative duties devolve to the VP. Your rules seem to go beyond that, so your organization will need to interpret them.

The answer to your question will have to be found in your own rules. Generally speaking, all payments need to be authorized. But whether they need to be voited on individually or if the treasurer has the authority to pay some based on the ad0pted budget is a matter that should be covered by your rules.

I'm no sure you need to go that far in every instance. Just be sure that what you do quote cannot be misconstrued.