Gary Novosielski

Well, since the rule (which I think should be a Special Rule of Order rather than a Standing Rule) provides that any of these bodies can go into closed session at its discretion, there is no apparent breach of any duration, other than a failure to observe custom. If the society wants to place this custom on firm ground, it will need to amend the rule.

No, it may be nothing more organized than who seeks recognition first. If there's an opportunity to prearrange the order of some items, there may be logical reasons to put some things before others, as with considering several bylaws amendments which could depend on each other in some way. Do what makes sense.

I've run into another variation of despotism in the absence of Robert's Rules, and that is consensus decision-making. The supposed "wisdom" was that requiring a supermajority would cause a greater buy-in on decisions Of course the opposite was true. The term supermajority is a fiction. What it created was minority rule, where a small minority could block any action and would use that power as a club. (I know, you're thinking "Ripped from the Headlines" but this was long ago.) Since then I have a personal standing rule not to join an organization that did not use RONR as its parliamentary authority. That has allowed me to dodge a bullet or two. (Metaphorically--I also dodged one or two literal ones, but that was due to being drafted into an organization that also did not use Robert's Rules. The exception proves the rule.)

But in this case we are told that the city attorney, citing the red text of the municipal code, opines that the agenda presented by the mayor in advance of the meeting is binding, though additional items may be added by a vote of the council. If that's true, we would not expect a motion to adopt the agenda. This is consistent with sunshine laws I've worked under, where the presiding officer or his designee prepared an agenda which was published in advance, and was deemed to be binding without formal approval, though a majority vote could modify it. The agenda prep was covered by regulations. I believe the majority vote was as a result of case law, as a court had decided (wrongly in my view) that elected boards could not be held to a vote requirement beyond a majority with a few exceptions. In particular, suspending rules or amending something previously adopted, did not require a two-thirds vote.

The Oxford comma is purely a matter of style, and writers can be divided into two camps: Those that endorse its use, and those that deprecate it. For clarity, these camps can be referred to as Right and Wrong, respectively. 😀 I'm in @Weldon Merritt's camp, i.e., Right. I never intentionally omit an Oxford comma--if for no other reason than to avoid the need to examine the language to see if it's clear. Just put it in and be done with it. That way you never accidentally end up with nonsense sentences such as: I love my parents, Lady Gaga and Humpty Dumpty.

I concur with @Rob Elsman that the rules on your agendas are probably regulated by open meeting (so-called Sunshine) laws.

Lack of a quorum does not mean the meeting did not occur. It occurred but was, as the term of art refers to it, inquorate. Without a quorum no business may be transacted except the motions listed in RONR (12th ed.) 40:7. Receiving reports from committees, for example, would not be permitted, even if these reports contained no actionable recommendations. I would be hard pressed to say that any harm was done by giving information to those present at the meeting, but officially, formally, as a matter of record, the presentation did not count. It was essentially equivalent to adjourning the meeting, and then having casual conversations afterward. If it was information that was, by rule, required to be announced at a meeting, it will have to be repeated at a future, quorate, meeting.

"The trouble ain't that there is too many fools, but that the lightning ain't distributed right." ~ Mark Twain "Wise men don't need advice. Fools won't take it." ~Benjamin Franklin

It's not clear to me whether we're speaking of board meetings, membership meetings, or some combination of the two. Since RONR does not require an agenda at all, in fact recommending against it for most societies, anything regarding who prepares or approves the agenda would be found in your own rules, or perhaps just customs.

Understood. I did not mean to imply that you were the guilty party. 🙂

Apparently the bylaws do not state that a check of forty dollars must be filed. Rather, they specify a check of twenty-five dollars. Where did the odd notion that forty dollars is required come from?

The member should realize that perhaps the most essential duty of a Vice President is to automatically succeed to the office of President if the incumbent becomes the ex-incumbent. If he truly would not be willing to assume the office of President it would not be proper, in my view, to run for Vice President. This may seem obvious but regulars here will recognize that this has a way of becoming a problem in real life.

The best choice for a searchable version would be the Kindle edition from Amazon, which can be viewed (with search capability) on a PC with the Kindle app.

They do, but the good news is, there are rarely any substantial corrections offered.

Votes for ineligible candidates are considered "illegal votes". They are counted as votes cast, but are not credited to any candidate. Therefore, they can deny a majority as you have observed in your case. Ballots left blank are not votes cast, so they would not prevent a majority. RONR does not have "run-offs". You would have a second ballot, but it would not be limited to the top candidates. In fact it would even be in order to reopen nominations, if desired.

And neither does RONR say that a Mayor may set the agenda items at will. RONR getting a bad rap today.

But in this scenario the committee was instructed that it may not allow guests at its meetings, no?

It's fine for someone to send a memo to other members, but it definitely does not belong in the minutes. If it was not reached in the last meeting it should come up under Unfinished Business and General Orders at the next meeting.

Howzat?

Yes. Well, except that it's RONR, not RRON. 🙂

"29:5 fn. 7 refers to the rule regarding [rules] being suspended to permit a non member to enter into debate, which obviously implies attendance. " --J.J. It does, but not in the sense of tacitly authorizing attendance, especially if attendance is explicitly prohibited. The question of whether someone can speak in debate is moot if the person in question cannot attend.

There is no rule in RONR such as you mention, where the number of candidates require a mail-in vote. A ballot vote could certainly be done at a meeting. This rule must be in your own bylaws, which I assume is what you meant by "It says" in your last paragraph. You say that the nominating committee with nominate 3 candidates. Since your bylaws do not permit this, how will it be allowed to happen? When the report is delivered at a meeting, I would expect a flurry of Points of Order to be raised that the committee may nominate only one. Of course three more can easily be nominated from the floor, but that's no reason not to insist that the committee follow the rules. But mail ballots should not be received by one side or the other. They should be handled in accordance with 45:57-61, which provides in part: "The person designated as addressee for the returned ballots holds them in the outer envelopes for delivery, unopened, at the meeting of the tellers where the votes are to be counted." If you study the additional advice in that section, there should be no question of trust in the fairness of the election process. Regarding the tellers committee: "The tellers should be chosen for accuracy and dependability, should have the confidence of the membership, and should not have a direct personal involvement in the question or in the result of the vote to an extent that they should refrain from voting under the principle stated in 45:4. Often their position with regard to the issue involved is well known, however, and they are frequently chosen to protect the interests of each opposing side." [45:26]

Is this a new organization adopting bylaws for the first time, or an existing association adopting a full-scale revision to its old bylaws? Brand new bylaws which bring a new society into existence require only a majority vote to adopt. Subsequent changes, including a general revision, should be governed by rules included in the bylaws. If the bylaws somehow neglected to include this, amendments require previous notice and a two-thirds vote, or alternatively a vote of a majority of the entire membership. For additional rules, consult RONR (12th ed.) §57.

Well, what they did is not allowed under the rules in RONR. And what they did amounts to a recount, which only the assembly can initiate. Even if the recount had been in order, they would report only the revised vote counts, equivalent to a Tellers Report [see 45:37]. They do not announce the results, which is only done by the chair.

What sort of a motion was this? Who is "they" in the second sentence?