Gary Novosielski

The answer is sometimes found under the duties of the Treasurer, which in some cases says things like: "Shall pay valid bills, within the spending limits contained in the annual budget."

Well, not so fast. What does "serving" mean in this case? If it is nothing more than showing up for board meetings, then he's clearly not unwilling since he will be showing up as Vice President. 🔧

The Chair apparently needs some lessons on keeping order. One way of doing this is: "The member will suspend. This matter is suitable for discussion only in executive session so further discussion will cease until that time. <then without pausing> The next item of business is...." or "If there is no further business, the meeting is adjourned." or, if it is time for executive session anyway, "The question is, shall the meeting now go into Executive Session? Those in favor...."

Yes, it is part of the duties of any presiding officer to answer Parliamentary Inquiries. A parliamentarian is someone with extensive knowledge of parliamentary procedure who acts as an advisor to the presiding officer, so the two can't reasonably be the same person. The presiding officer is never the judge and jury of any matter, because of the existence of the motion to Appeal from a decision of the chair. Any two members (a mover and seconder) may subject a ruling of the chair to the judgment of the assembly, which may sustain or overrule it. (Note that Parliamentary Inquiries are not considered "rulings".) In my experience, if this is an elected public school board, then the president, as an elected member, has all the rights of any member, including the right to make motions, but as a matter of custom it would be unusual. The president is often involved in the development of the agenda, if one is used, but the items of business there are often moved by committee chairs, or other members. Also, some school boards, by rule or custom, require seconds for motion, and sometimes record the names of seconders in the minutes. I'm not sure if these are local or state adopted rules, or simply a case of "we've always done it that way." To the extent that RONR may be superseded by statues, regulations, and the like, the board attorney should be up to date on those.

RONR provides no rights whatsoever for non-members to attend meetings. Only board members have rights in board meetings. You say that your society allows general members to attend board meetings as observers. Is this by a rule or merely a custom? Is it, for example, provided in the bylaws? If so, then these non-(board)-members have such rights as are spelled out there. If they are given the right to attend as observers, then they have the right to attend and to observe--nothing more. An assembly has the power to allow non-members to speak, when no business is pending, by a majority vote, or to allow them to speak in debate on a motion by a two-thirds vote.

I'm not sure what this written document is. If it is the actual official document of the minutes, as retained by the secretary, then that's the one that should be corrected. If it's just a number of paper copies of what the minutes say, it has no official status and can simply be thrown out and reissued after the corrections that were adopted have been properly made to the real minutes.

Well, there's nothing on dismissal for multiple charges in RONR either. So I guess that's not a thing.

When it's a jar? No, wait, that's doors.

Rescind, Repeal and Annul are all synonyms for the same motion, which is itself half of a pair of twin motions covered in RONR 12th ed. §35, Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted. Are we talking about several motions here, or is this one motion, namely the one that was passed at the end of the last year, and comprises a set of rules that went into effect with the newly reorganized board, and which it is now proposed to Rescind? I'm not sure what you mean by "enacted upon" but it does not appear to be relevant. If this is a set of rules that is still in effect, then it can certainly be rescinded. The motion to Rescind can apply to "...anything (e.g., bylaw, rule, policy, decision, or choice) which has continuing force and effect and which was made or created at any time or times as the result of the adoption of one or more main motions." [35:2] There are some exceptions that are not subject to rescission, such as motions which have been fully accomplished and cannot be undone, for example a motion to demolish the storage shed. But a set of rules that continues in force can be rescinded/annulled/repealed, or for that matter Amended (per §35) The motion requires a second, is debatable (which debate can go into the merits of the original motion, is amendable, and for passage requires: "In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice." [35:2] If these rules are bylaws or special rules of order, the requirement is more stringent.

What might this member discover that would make the effort non-dilatory?

The proper method of handling meetings does not include a vote for approval. After the minutes have been read (or if printed copies of the draft minutes have been distributed) the chair asks, "Are there any corrections to the minutes?" Members may offer corrections (as such amendments are called) and if there is not unanimous consent on the correction, it is treated like any amendment possibly via a secondary amendment, and voted on. Eventually, no one speaks up when the chair asks "Are there any further corrections? <pause> Hearing none, the minutes stand approved." There is no vote on final approval. The only way one can object to the contents of the minutes is to offer a correction. As to your specific question, if the secretary did not properly make the correction to the draft minutes, remind the secretary to do so.

The right does not exist, as far as RONR is concerned. Ballots are counted by a Tellers' committee appointed by the presiding officer. They provide a Tellers' Report as described in RONR 12th ed. 45:37. If the assembly doubts the results (and the ballots have been secured under seal), it can order a recount, but no individual member can demand to inspect ballots.

There is no such thing as quorum "on a motion". If the requisite number of members are present, business can be conducted. If all but four members choose to abstain, then the remaining four can vote, presuming a quorum is present. However, we're still interested in seeing the rule that you believe requires two members not to vote.

Possibly a voice-to text mis-transcription of a mispronounced "anomynous"

They can say whatever non-magic words they like, but any action taken arising out of that non-meeting are not the actions of the society, but are their own personal actions for which they have personal responsibility. (If they exist.) (Or not.)

I don't see why it would dismiss anything, but these rules are in your bylaws, so I can't guess what they might do, automatically or otherwise.

"...and the business conducted at the meeting are null and void, due to the failure to provide notice of the meeting to all members" Yes, I concur with that, but I am additionally persuaded that the meeting was not properly called due to the requirement that 20 members must submit a written request for the meeting. I would seek to know who sent the request, who received it, and whether it was signed by 20 members. Unfortunately the bylaws are hazy about who is to receive the request, but it clearly goes beyond simply sending out meeting calls. Absent a designation, I would assume it would fall under the generic duties of the secretary to receive written requests.

You keep using that word ominous. I do not think it means what you think it means.

I concur with @Josh Martin's reply. But if you "will of course oblige," commands from the chair, then I don't see where it matters much whether she is correct or not.

What procedure was used to get you to the point of having pending charges at all? If it was done according to RONR (Ch. XX.), then continue to follow those procedures. If you have customized discipline procedures in your bylaws, RONR would have no answer to your question.

It not only discourages the practice, it makes no provisions for co-officers at all, so you do not have any, unless your bylaws explicitly permit them. As to how they should be viewed, if your bylaws are silent, they should be viewed as non-existent. If your bylaws contain provisions allowing them, then they should be viewed according to the customized rules in your bylaws. If you in fact have a Chair and a Co-chair, rather that two true Co-chairs, you should amend your bylaws to change the title of Co-chair to Vice-Chair, and your problem will be resolved.

What notice requirement? Do they have any bylaws? Do they have a parliamentary authority? Do they have a membership list? A president? A secretary? If not, they're not a society as understood in RONR. They are as series of mass meetings at best. If the rules in RONR should somehow apply (and I don't see how, at present), then impromptu meetings are not meetings. If they're not regular meetings, and they're not special meetings, then they're just people who happen to be in the same room, and could properly consider no business whatsoever.

Wow, that's some chutzpah. Remind her that the burden of proof is on the one making the assertion, and that while you have no problem with doing your own research, you will do her research for her when pigs fly. Or something.

Sure it is--by whatever method you use to amend your bylaws. But I would not recommend changing the language. I would recommend simply striking it entirely. Then the rule in RONR, as quoted by @Josh Martin, will be in effect. It is rare indeed to find such a provision in the bylaws of any society, for the simple reason that it is stated so well in RONR.

I'm not clear on why there would be such drama about who is on the nominating committee. The use of passive voice obscures how this person wound up appointed to the nominating committee. In a typical society the members of the nominating committee are appointed by the assembly, which would seem to eliminate the opportunity for any jiggery-pokery in the makeup of the committee. If you have some other rule for deciding who gets appointed to the nominating committee, then you would follow that rule, and if this person was duly appointed, that's that. In any case this person has only one vote on the committee, and so could not force any name into the committees report. Also, consider that the nominating committee doesn't actually elect anyone. Once the report of the nominating committee is given, the chair must call for any additional nominations from the floor, so even if this person could railroad the committee into making a given nomination, you can nominate someone else to run against that nominee.