Gary Novosielski

Yes, using the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. [RONR (12th ed.) §35] And while you're at it, refer to §48—especially this: 48:2 Content of the Minutes. In an ordinary society, the minutes should contain mainly a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said by the members. The minutes must never reflect the secretary’s opinion, favorable or otherwise, on anything said or done. In general, except, of course, where a resolution includes the rationale by using Whereas clauses, it is always good practice to limit the minutes to documenting what was done, not what was said. I am not a lawyer, so I can only wonder out loud whether amending the minutes would accomplish a reduction in legal risk. Amending the minutes would not obliterate the original text, so how this might affect the discovery process, should legal action occur, is a question for your lawyer.

Presuming that the rule that you read applies to the sort of assembly you're asking about (A local school board, perhaps?), then yes. Government regulations in the nature of rules of order supersede the rules in RONR. But even if they did not, a small board of no more than a dozen members or so would use small board rules, which permit the Chair to participate fully, just as any other member.

You may wish to consider whether you should be using an agenda at all. Do your bylaws or an adopted Special Rule of Order require it? The Standard Order of Business comprises the following headings: 1) Reading and Approval of Minutes 2) Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees 3) Reports of Special (Select or Ad Hoc) Committees 4) Special Orders 5) Unfinished Business and General Orders 6) New Business In organizations that have adopted RONR as their parliamentary authority, that hold their regular meetings as frequently as quarterly, and have not adopted a special order of business, this series of headings is their prescribed order of business. [see RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 ff.]

Yes, if only the Answers in life were as obvious before we knew them as they were afterward.

Shirley, you can't be serious. 😑 While there is a special form in the case of an election, the announcement of results is required after a vote on a question of any kind. [4:25]

See 45:37-39

That is quite true. But my point was that if a given vote count was less than a majority of the minimum number, it could not then be a majority of any larger number.

No question. And if the bylaws provisions are purposeful and well thought out, hey, that's whole point of being able to supersede the Parliamentary Authority. But for every good local rule—and I've seen a few—there are at least an equal number of pointless restatements of rules already there, and usually restated clumsily or incompletely, causing trouble that could have been easily avoided by doing nothing. It's a bias, I'll admit, but one based on actual evidence, I hope.

There is no rule on this. The order is determined by examining the bylaws and seeing how they are, in fact, listed. How they got that way is of only academic interest. As the saying goes, "There's a lot of truth in what actually happens."

The paraphrase of the voting threshold is not enough to convince me that the threshold is actually a majority of those present, rather than a majority of the ballots cast, but in this example that is not significant, since 6 votes out of at least 46 ballots cast is still nowhere near a majority. I concur that the election is incomplete and those remaining seats must be filled by additional balloting. I do question why there were no extra lines on the ballot, especially since it was obvious that write-ins would be necessary. But they should be there even when there is a full list of candidates nominated.

Okay, I see that now; I didn't look back far enough.

Yes I think it could well make a difference that there are other places in the bylaws that specify a two-thirds vote. It is a good rule to follow that interpretation of bylaws should only be made by considering isolated portions of the language in the context of the bylaws as a whole. And it's also true that only the society itself can interpret its own bylaws. The way to decide definitively is via Point of Order and Appeal. But the very fact that the bylaws require a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules is another example of duplicating rules already present in RONR in the bylaws. As discussed above, this is generally not best practice since, when the copying is flawed, undesirable side effects are often introduced, and if the copying is flawless, it is pointless.

And if they do press the issue by a Point of Order, I would rule it not well taken as violates 31:4. And be sure to note that a motion to close nominations requires a two-thirds vote, while a motion to reopen nominations requires only a majority. It is obvious that these rules were written in this way specifically to thwart those who would seek to use a "rapid fire" closing of nominations to deprive others of their rights.

No, I would not make that statement unless someone objected or raised a point of order that their motion had been ignored. Then the chair could explain that it might not be in order. It would be best if the chair can sneak in the call for final nominations before the motion to close has been seconded.

n/a

The introduction in relevant part says: In an often quoted statement, [Robert] said: “The great lesson for democracies to learn is for the majority to give to the minority a full, free opportunity to present their side of the case, and then for the minority, having failed to win a majority to their views, gracefully to submit and to recognize the action as that of the entire organization, and cheerfully to assist in carrying it out, until they can secure its repeal.”

Why would someone elected to be the secretary resign as a member? Members of an organization that are elected to higher office are still members of the organization

The motion to close nominations is not in order when there are people wishing to make nominations. Here's what RONR says about it. 31:4 Motions to Close or Reopen Nominations. In the average society, a motion to close nominations is not a necessary part of the election procedure and it should not generally be moved. When nominations have been made by a committee or from the floor, the chair inquires whether there are any further nominations; and when there is no response, he declares that nominations are closed. In very large bodies, the formality of a motion to close nominations is sometimes allowed, but this motion is not in order until a reasonable opportunity to make nominations has been given; as noted above, it is out of order if a member is rising, addressing the chair, or otherwise attempting to make a nomination, and it always requires a two-thirds vote. When no one wishes to make a further nomination, the motion serves no useful purpose. I think the chair, upon hearing the motion, could say, "It is moved that nominations be closed—are there any final nominations? <pause> " If anyone offers another nomination, the motion to close can be ignored. And if nobody does offer another nomination, the motion to close can still be ignored, and the chair can simply say, "If not <pause> then nominations are closed." The subsequent paragraph 31:5 deals with the sort of situation where a motion to close nominations would be legitimate.

The all part is not, but the decisions part is. Is a motion for the Previous Question itself a decision, or merely a way to proceed to actually making one?

It's ambiguous, and badly written too. I could argue that "all decisions" means main motions, while a motion to Amend Something Previousy Adopted is a "question of a parliamentary nature." But someone else could argue differently. Fortunately, your organization alone can interpret what your bylaws mean. If I had a magic wand, I would replace that entire paragraph with the language recommended for adopting RONR as the parliamentary authority: Article # Parliamentary Authority The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. Of course most people would replace the word Society in both places with something more appropriate for the specific organization.

Certainly.

If no votes were cast, nor decisions made, then the minutes would presumably have no useful information, apart from the fact that the meeting was held. If it's desired to communicate what matters might have been discussed during the meeting but not acted upon, then the minutes are a poor method of communication. You might wish to publish a newsie-notes or from-the-desk column on what the board is doing, but minutes should only contain what was done, not what was said. And minutes that have not yet been approved should be clearly marked as - D R A F T - minutes, since they are still subject to corrections before being approved.

Yes a motion to adjourn is almost always in order, even if it's at the start of the meeting. If the motion is seconded, and if a majority agree, then they will vote to adjourn. If not, then they won't.

I suppose that's technically true, since the assembly has control of what goes in the minutes, but without a compelling reason to randomize the contents, I'd be voting against doing so. The usual case certainly is to follow the business as conducted, chronologically.

Well, so far we have been told that the president "is not one of the six voting delegates," but then that the president "normally is one of the six voting delegates." So, if the president is one of the six and the vote is 3-3, then the president has voted to create the tie. In that case the president would not get a second vote. Nor would it matter anyway, since voting to break the tie in the affirmative could have been accomplished by not voting in the first place, and voting in the negative would accomplish nothing since the question was already defeated. If the president had not voted (as would be the practice of the US Senate, say) and has the power to break ties, then the fact that the question is on the election of the president does not change this rule.