Bruce Lages

I can think of one 'extra thing' that the president would still have to do - probably at both board meetings and general membership meetings: he should be expected to give his officer's report on the administrative work he has done under his bylaw-mandated responsibilities to "supervise, direct, and control of all of the business of the association..." Perhaps more so at board meetings since these administrative duties are "subject to the control of the board".

No it is not. Purposely not giving notice to any member would make any business carried out at the meeting null and void.

3 hours ago, KimK said:

The new (Adult) President met with the Adult advisers to say that the process was incorrect.  The teen bylaws do not spell out ANY sort of election process therefore, they are supposed to look to the adult group bylaws which indicate that a nominating committee is voted on by the body then that committee presents the names of candidates.  Does the President have any recourse in stating that the teens did not use a nominating committee as stated in the adult bylaws?

You might want to consider amending your own bylaws to include a process for nominations and elections in order to address such issues in the future. There are sample bylaws in Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition (which should be your parliamentary authority). If you are comfortable with the nomination and election procedures in those sample bylaws you could incorporate those into your own bylaws. You are also free to modify those  procedures to fit your own situation. Even if you don't add nomination and election procedures to your bylaws, RONR spells out in some detail the recommended method for handling nominations and elections in the absence of bylaw-mandated provisions.

I am always somewhat disheartened when I hear of adults taking over youth activities. I've worked with young people in various capacities and am always impressed by their ability to adapt to unfamiliar and/or controversial situations, usually doing much better than just 'muddling through'. I hope your group and the adult group will make every effort to let you run your own meetings, dealing with the inevitable mistakes that will be made and learning from them. Your advisors should consider their role to be a very narrow one, strictly advisory only. If one of them happens to be familiar with RONR, that would be an appropriate application of their advisory - and strictly advisory only - capacity. Look in RONR to see how it defines the role of a parliamentarian, and use that as a guide.

It always helps to know whether you're using 'table' to actually mean the motion to postpone to a certain time or the motion to lay on the table, but in both of those cases the main motion as well as any pending amendments are affected equally, i.e., postponed or laid on the table. In other words, you can't 'table' an amendment and then proceed to deal with the main motion.

41 minutes ago, keefe said:

At our Annual Meeting, in an effort to save time the Chairman asked for a motion to approve all reports.  Whether good or bad, this was done so that all the reports wouldn't have to be read through and take so much time.  .

As noted, RONR does not recommend approving reports - except for the auditors report. But to compound the situation, why would your organization want to approve reports that haven't been read? Have these reports at least been circulated to the membership prior to the meeting so that members can see what's included in them?

49 minutes ago, reelsman said:

A preliminary main motion can be used. However, since the motion, if adopted, would have the effect of suspending the rules, this preliminary main motion would require a two-thirds vote for adoption.

Can you please explain what you mean by a "preliminary main motion"?

You posted these proposals with as-yet-to-be-determined Article numbers - are you sure these will not be bylaw amendments?

Under the rules in RONR most motions are subject to amendment before they are voted on. For bylaw amendments in particular, the ability to amend the original proposal may be limited however, particularly if, as in many cases (and in RONR), prior notice of the amendment is required. If notice of this amendment, including either its exact wording or a specific description of its intent, has been given to the board before the meeting at which it is to be voted on, then any amendments proposed at the meeting must not exceed the scope of this notice - meaning that the effects of the proposal cannot be made greater or lesser than what was stated in the notice and what your bylaws currently provide. As an example, if your bylaws currently set the dues at $100, and the proposal is to raise them to $200, then no amendment is in order that would change the proposal to be less than $100 or more than $200. Anything in between is OK.

But be sure to check the procedure specified in your current bylaws for their amendment - it is possible they may provide for something differing from RONR's prescription.

Even as a special rule of order, it still yields to the rule in your bylaws. Any exception to your 5% quorum requirement calling for a higher quorum number for certain items of business would have to be in your bylaws as well.

Please make that "the official roll of voting members of the convention".

I think you'll find both methods in use here by different respondents. If the words from RONR are quoted directly in the response you'll usually see the inclusive line numbers referenced. In other cases, some of us will use the beginning line number followed by  'ff'  for 'and following lines'.

11 minutes ago, Guest Paul Sims said:

Executive Committee elected without a Quorum at Annual General Meeting , what are the consequences of continuing without ratification.

Guest Paul - Please start a new topic for your question, which is not really related to this thread. See the shaded box labeled "Start New Topic" on the top right of the general discussion page.

I'm not sure that this situation is in any way analogous to nominations by the chair as described in RONR. It seems to me that what you are doing is, in essence, hiring an employee. Since you have decided to appoint a search committee, which certainly is desirable for such an important decision, I think your approach should be to listen to their report and then decide whether to accept their recommendation or not. I don't see any basis in RONR that would prevent your congregation from nominating someone else when the committee offers its recommendation, but it seems very unlikely that you would have the benefit of your search committee's due diligence for any such nomination. Since you gave this committee the responsibility of researching the qualifications of candidates (rightly so in my opinion), it might be better, if there is not strong support for their choice, to vote that choice down and refer the search back to the same committee, or even change some or all of the committee members, and ask them to report back with recommendations for one or more different candidates.

Just to be clear, were you a member of this standing committee when the improper notice of a reorganzational meeting was issued?

9 minutes ago, Guest Home&School said:

Our bylaws state all positions (except treasurer) can be held with another person.

Could you please provide an exact quote of your bylaws language regarding this?

If your bylaws say you need a president, then you cannot just decide to have co-presidents. The use of 'a' clearly specifies one individual and only one.

Yes, a motion to hold a vote by ballot is in order and made be made up until the time that voting actually begins. It doesn't matter what method of voting you have used on previous motions, unless a specific method of voting is specified in your bylaws or by a special rule of order. What is not in order, most likely, is a motion to hold a voice vote, since that is the default method of voting as defined in RONR. If your bylaws specify a particular method of voting (most often that would be by ballot) then a motion to vote by another method would not be in order.

I think that if the assembly voted to hold a voice vote on a particular question - regardless of the validity of such a motion - and that question had not yet be voted on, then a motion to vote by ballot may not be in order unless 1) the motion to hold a voice vote is reconsidered, or 2) the motion to hold a ballot vote is adopted by a 2/3 vote. If a member was not present when the voice vote motion was adopted, he could move to vote by ballot, but it would have to be adopted by a 2/3/ vote.

Edited to add: Under 2) above, the motion could also be adopted by an affirmative vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I see it was asked once before by Mr. Brown but I haven't seen an answer - how many board members are there, and how many are usually in attendance at board meetings?

A defeated motion can be brought up again ('renewed' in RONR language) at the next session, which for most organizations is the next meeting. And at every subsequent meeting if it continues to be voted down. The motion to reconsider can only be made by someone who voted on the prevailing side, as you have been told, but in most cases it must be made at the same meeting at which the motion it references was made. That option, therefore, is no longer available to you.

1 hour ago, AFS1970 said:

Without knowing the start time of the meeting, I may be a bit off base here. A meeting that starts at 12:00 and adjourns at 4:30 is very different than one that starts at 3:30 and adjourns at 4:30. However assuming that sufficient time is generally available for the business at hand, but this meeting is expected to take longer than usual, couldn't the chair simply rule the motion to adjourn at 4:30 as out of order?

No - there is nothing out of order about fixing an adjournment time. The very high ranking of the motions to adjourn and to fix the time to which to adjourn reflects the right of the assembly to end a meeting at whatever time they choose to do so.

If you are holding a special meeting for this topic, then under the rules in RONR this is the only topic that can be considered at the special meeting if that is what the notice of this special meeting stated. No minutes, no other business unless it was listed in the notice of meeting. At a regular meeting, unfinished business would come after officer and committee reports in the standard order of business.

Any information the chair can provide that helps the assembly function effectively is always worthwhile.

4 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

If there is a member speaking on the question should the Chair announce the adjournment at 4:30 on the dot or wait until the member has finished speaking?

Good question - I don't see where RONR addresses this, so I'm hesitant to state an answer. I'm leaning towards the opinion that a set adjournment time might take precedence over a speaker having the floor.

If at this meeting there is a motion made and adopted to adjourn at 4:30, then yes, when 4:30 comes, you will declare that because the time set for adjournment has come, the meeting is adjourned. If you think this will cause a major problem for the assembly, you should discuss beforehand with some willing members setting a later time if possible. Alternatively, if the members really do not want to adjourn as time winds down, a motion made earlier to set a time for adjournment can be amended, using the motion to amend something previously adopted to change the time for adjournment. It will require a 2/3 vote to amend a previously set time for adjournment.

In addition, if it is possible for your organization, an adjourned meeting can be established using the motion to fix the time to which to adjourn. An adjourned meeting will be a continuation of this contentious meeting, set for some agreeable date and time in the near future, and will begin with whatever business was pending when the first meeting was adjourned. This motion takes precedence over any other motion and can be made right up until you actually declare the first meeting adjourned.

But perhaps the first thing to try is, if a motion to adjourn at a specific time is made, you as chair can make sure the assembly understands what that will mean for cutting off any business pending at that time. Maybe they will decide they don't want to set an adjournment time if they understand the consequences.

You said the board approved this second budget to go the membership for a vote. If the membership also approves it, why would it be expected to go back to the board for yet another approval?

If the chair on his own called this special meeting, listing the item or items of business to be considered, then yes, the board is 'forced' to consider only those items of business. In general, whatever party calls for a special meeting must indicate the business to be considered at that meeting, and that is the only business that can be taken up.

It would be very highly unlikely that the standard order of business would ever apply at a special meeting. If an organization needed to do so, I think it would be an indication that they might need to schedule their regular meetings more frequently. See RONR, p.91-93 for detailed information on the whys and hows of a special meeting.