Gary Novosielski

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.

The default threshold in RONR for adopting a motion is a majority vote, which is defined as approval by more than half of those present and voting. In that case, a 10-9 vote would qualify. But it appears from your rule that what is required is a majority of those members present, whether voting or not (i.e., abstaining). In that case, 10 out of 27 present is not a majority, and the motion would fail. Abstentions have nothing to do with quorum. To satisfy the quorum, all that is necessary is that the requisite number of members are physically present, whether they vote or not. Abstentions are not votes, and do not count as votes, so they do not affect the results of a normal majority vote. But if the vote threshold is a majority of members present, then abstentions, although they still do not count as votes, have the same effect as a No vote when calculating whether a motion is adopted or not.

No. A majority vote, the default threshold in RONR, means more than half of those present and voting, i.e., a majority of the votes actually cast on any given motion. Abstentions do not affect the result, absentees do not affect the result (so long as a quorum is present), and the number of seats don't count unless they have living breathing members in them. Some of them may be absent, as long as the positions are not vacant. Quorum for a seven-member board (with no vacancies) is four, but quorum does not affect the voting threshold. It is only required that four members are present, so that business can be conducted. As long as four members remain present, quorum is satisfied, whether they vote or not. A majority vote is satisfied, as long as the number of Yes votes is greater than the number of No votes. So if all four members vote, a 3-1 vote would carry a motion, a 2-2 vote or less would not. But other passing vote counts would be 4-0 3-0 2-1, 2-0, or 1-0.

Well if the "individual" mentioned above, who says that is a rule in RONR, does not know where in RONR that might be found, I would certainly not spend my time looking for that particular wild goose. When someone claims something is in RONR, hand them the book and say "show me." In fact, there is no rule that it must be considered seriatim, it's just that it happens to be the best way, and RONR strongly recommends it. @Josh Martinhas told you where that can be found. What possible reason could there be to prefer to use a chaotic method of considering amendments? Also I think it's worth noting that the votes on any changes prior to final adoption can be accomplished by majority votes. When all the language has been agreed upon, the final adoption probably requires a two-thirds vote, if your bylaws are typical.

Please ask a new question as a new topic, as requested in Important Read This First FAQ. When doing so, please use full sentences with verbs, and fewer abbreviations like ES, RON.

I did post that without fear of contradiction.

Only ones I know are "Uniform Commercial Code" and "United Church of Christ", which I think is also called Congregationalist. I suspect in this case it is neither.

What edition of "Robert's Rules" are you referring to? In the current (12th) edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, citations are not given by page number but by section (and paragraph). The motion to Amend is found in §12. I don't think you will find language that says anyone (well, any member) can make an amendment to the main motion, because that's the rule for every motion everywhere, except when specifically noted otherwise. Making motions is a fundamental right of membership in a society. All the rules regarding amendments, for example, apply to all members equally. Is someone in your group trying to make the claim that certain members are not authorized to offer amendments? Ask them what page that's on.

Giving out information is not something that would be included in the minutes anyway. And even if it were, you would not go back and make it seem as if he gave out the correct information when in fact he did not. So what "record" are you trying to correct? When the next minutes come up for approval, if there's anything there that doesn't belong there, offer a correction, to have it removed before approval. In any case, when minutes are up for approval, You don't ask the chair to change things--you offer a correction, providing the exact language that should be in the minutes, or simply to strike some language that's there. It's not up to the chair to decide what goes in, it's up to the assembly. Minutes should be a record of what was done at the meeting, not what was said. It should include no debate or other commentary . Just who moved what, and whether it was adopted, rejected, postponed, referred to a committee, or whatever. For more information, refer to RONR 12th ed. §48.

Nice catch.

These rules do not specify the quorum for board meetings, so I'd assume it is a majority of the number of current members of the board. The quorum requirement for general membership meetings is absurd. It is specified as a majority of the members present. It is impossible for the number of members present to be less than a majority of the members present, whether by proxy or in person. The rules provide that board meetings are to be held monthly. The board has the power to call "other" meetings, presumably special meetings, but does not say whether these are board meetings, general membership meetings, or both. It also fails to specify how many days of previous notice are required for these meetings. RONR only says that a "reasonable" amount of time is required. Nobody, at least in these quoted portions, is authorized to cancel monthly board meetings, and there is nothing there authorizing the holding of meetings or votes via Facebook. Presumably proxies are authorized somewhere else in the bylaws because they are mentioned here without specific authorization, and RONR does not allow them. Ultimately, it will be up to your organization to interpret your bylaws, which must be done in context, but a naïve reading of these sections reveals no authorization for the president to take extraordinary actions such as these for no apparent reason. If the rules in RONR apply, the absence of the president is no reason to cancel a required meeting. That's presumably why there is a vice-president.

Good point. I was taking Guest NonnyVon's word for it that the president had resigned. If that process is as yet incomplete, then there will be a delay before the aforementioned succession takes place.

Just by way of illustration, what would happen if I were to show up at one of your meetings, and handed out a paper saying that everyone there had to pay me fifty bucks? I'm going to guess that someone (at least) would point out to me that in the first place, I was not authorized even to be there, much less hand out papers, and in the second place, just because it said something on it doesn't make it true. Its fine if someone passes out a draft agenda that claims it can't be amended, but unless and until the assembly votes to approve the agenda, it doesn't matter what it says. And by eliminating the vote to approve the agenda, all they have done is ensure that the draft agenda remains irrelevant for the entire meeting. The previous answers have provided you with citations, but bear in mind that the burden of proof is not on you. The individuals who are claiming the power to change the rules in this way are the people who have to show you the rule that gives them this magical new authority.

No, according to RONR, the former VP, i.e., the new president, had the rules exactly right. You need to fill the vacancy in the office of VP.

That's true only if there were no illegal votes cast. If there were, it is possible for neither of the two leading candidates to achieve a majority, even though not tied.

Well, sure under certain circumstances it would be perfectly proper. Under others it would not be in order. How and by whom is this limitation being imposed?

It sure sounds like it. That's a badly ambiguous provision in the bylaws. I do not know how to interpret "oversee all activities" but it seems to me that setting the order of meetings goes well beyond oversight, and intrudes on the powers of the Board to set its own meetings. Activities to me does not include inventing new rules of order. It means things more along the line of card parties and weenie roasts. But ultimately it is up to each society how to interpret ambiguities in the bylaws. Are there any other portions of the bylaws that outline the powers of the president, or the way in which meeting times are set? Before you try to raise the issue you should familiarize yourself with 12th ed RONR §§ 23 and 24, Point of Order and Appeal. That will inform you on what support you will need to gather among like-minded board members so that these motions will be effective. Also consider a motion of censure to express the board's disapproval of the chair's actions.

The SDC1 for Suspend the Rules says it yields to incidental motions arising out of itself. So it looks like it would be in order.

I agree with @Richard Brown that, as currently written, this rule is clearly suspendible. While the intent of the rules would not bear directly on that question, it presumably would be important to those voting on the motion to suspend. Unfortunately, except for a brief explanation, the motion to Suspend the Rules is not debatable. I'm pondering the advisability of further suspending the rules to allow debate on this question. I wonder if this motion yields to a second invocation of itself, such as "Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this question be open to debate."