Gary Novosielski

No, it's not, unless you have some very strange rules allowing it. The call should describe the business that those making the request have stated. It'd not strictly necessary to use the exact words, but the business should be described specifically. Also it's quite odd to be submitting the petition to the Board. Are you sure that's what your bylaws say?

A minority of one is still a minority, although having two people sign the recommendation should eliminate the need for a second. I think a recommendation to reject the committee's report would also be in order. But the way I read that language, there are three ways to introduce an amendment: The report of the bylaws committee, A minority report of the committee, A formal notice signed by any two members (not necessarily members of the committee)

The bylaws would have to be revised if the desired standing rule would be a violation of some provision in the bylaws. Permitting petitions violates no rule. It would violate a rule if the petition, rather than simply being a position statement on an issue, was capable of overriding the powers of the board, as set forth in the bylaws. Normally, to direct the board to perform some action, the membership, in a proper meeting, would have to adopt a motion instructing them. If a petition can do the same, then a standing rule could not override that. In the case of a special rule of order, that would automatically supersede the bylaws, so no amendment is required in order to pass it. But if the bylaws contain some statement that would appear to directly contradict what the special rule says, it might avoid confusion to remove it.

No. 49:12 As a general principle, a board cannot delegate its authority —that is, it cannot empower a subordinate group to act independently in its name—except as may be authorized by the bylaws (of the society) or other instrument under which the board is constituted; but any board can appoint committees to work under its supervision or according to its specific instructions. Such committees of the board always report to the board.

Once the discussion and vote took place, it was a little late to be objecting to who moved it. RONR says that a person should not vote on a question in which he has "direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization". It sounds like that was properly followed. In fact, I'm not sure that a spouse benefiting qualifies as "direct". So redoing the motion was not proper but, no harm, no foul.

Unless you have rules to the contrary, the newly elected chair takes over immediately. If the term of the previous chair has expired before the meeting starts, then someone else, perhaps the secretary, would call the meeting to order and preside over the election of the new chair. If the term of the old chair, as listed in the bylaws, continues "until a successor is elected" then the current chair would open the meeting and hold the election.

There's no need for the bylaws to direct anyone to special rules or policies. Presumably the article on parliamentary authority notes that there may exist bylaws and special rules. Sometimes the bylaws simply refer to "such rules as the assembly may from time to time adopt" but even that may be overkill, depending on the context.

The resolution was properly adopted, as far as I can tell from your description.

The words may not be synonyms, but when RONR refers to appointed officers, it is in the context of those offices which are usually filled by appointment rather than election, such as an Executive Director or a Parliamentarian. In the case of offices typically elected, RONR draws no distinction on how one came to be in office, whether elected at a general or special election, elected by the board to fill a vacancy, or appointed by the president to do so. Once in office, the path taken is not relevant. Some societies do draw a distinction in powers or duties based on how one came to office. In my view such rules are rarely a good idea and encourage just this sort of hair splitting without discernable benefit.

There is no rule in RONR against it, although the most common combination of offices is Secretary/Treasurer. If there are any prohibitions on a person holding multiple offices, they would have to be in your bylaws, corporate charter, applicable state regulations, and the like. And it goes without saying that holding two offices does NOT give one two votes, or count twice toward a quorum. No matter how many hats one wears, one has only one head.

At an Annual General Meeting of the membership newly elected board members, presuming they are already members of the society, have the same voting rights as all members, whether they win, lose, or do not run for the board at all. Newly elected board members would have to wait for a board meeting in order to cast a vote on the board. Unless your bylaws or other election rules say otherwise, people are in office as soon as their election is complete and the results announced by the chair.

Presuming you mean Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition, see the citations given by @J. J. above. But it's "always" been the case.

@Caryn Ann Harlos: I'm confused as to why a special rule of order would be required. If the platform committee reports a series of amendments, a motion to accept the recommendations would be in order, which would, if passed, adopt them all. Are you trying to prevent an attempt to divide one or more of the amendments?

It seems to me that the bylaws provision is attempting to get around the rule in RONR that for the purposes of assessing term limits, anything more than a half term counts as one term. The provision in the Articles of Incorporation intends to impose term limits. But this intent seems unartfully phrased, to the point that the bylaws provision may succeed in its attempt.

The properly asserted demand of a single member that a question be divided unquestionably results in the division of the question. It is not, however, a motion for the Division of a Question, since it shares virtually none of the standard descriptive characteristics of the latter, except perhaps that it is not debatable, and cannot be reconsidered.

That was not actually filling blanks, although it was treated as/like filling blanks. 😀

Since a tie is less than a majority, there is nothing special about it that requires "breaking". It is simply a rejection of the motion, just as surely as if everyone voted No. In the case of an election, a tie vote less than a majority elects no one. Second and subsequent ballots are typically necessary.

Moving the recommendations of a committee does not require a second. Presuming the committee itself comprised more than one person, the requirement that more than one person wishes to consider it has already been met, since it was approved by a majority of the committee. The fact that the board failed to complete appointments to the committee is not fatal to the process, especially since it seems no Point of Order was raised at the time.

Really. That's typically one of the main functions of a convention (with notable exceptions).

Well, you'll need to check your bylaws carefully to see if there is really some rule there that supports the idea of voting for an entire slate of candidates at once. Such a rule would supersede the ones in RONR concerning nominations and elections, as set forth in RONR 12th ed. §46. That section covers the different methods of nomination and election. But if the rules in RONR apply, nomination process, by whatever method, proposes the names of one or more individuals as candidates for office. So yes, voting Yes or No on an entire slate of candidates is technically wrong. (The word "slate" does not appear in RONR at all.) A better answer would require knowing how your nomination process (and to an extent, how your election) is currently carried out. One common way that organizations slip into the habit of voting for a slate occurs when nominations are proposed by a Nominating Committee. If the committee is reasonably good at selecting qualified candidates, people begin to accept the committees report as a done deal, and refer to its report as a "slate". They may begin to ignore the rule in RONR that says that after the Nominating Committee report is read, and--if that occurs before the election meeting--again at the actual election meeting, the chair must open the floor for additional nominations for any office. (See 46:18) And if the bylaws require a ballot vote, then voters are entitled to write in the names of unnominated candidates. An objection would be in the form of a Point of Order (§23) at the point when a rule is being broken, but exactly what that looks like would depend on your bylaws, on what your current customs are, and how close (or far) they are from the applicable rules. If you don't have a copy of The Book, this would be the perfect time to do a little shopping. You're looking for: Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition; and optionally, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief, 3rd edition. The latter is a good starting point if you're new to parliamentary procedure. Stay in touch.

Excellent idea. (I know that because I also thought of it. 😊) Just make sure that the page breaks, if any, are in the right places, or you will need both scissors and tape.

Apparently that is now the case. 😇

The rules in RONR are perfectly clear, so you do have rules to refer to: So you are already president. Get a copy of RONR 12th ed. in a hurry. It sounds like you have some loose artillery pieces in your organization. The fact that it was done that way last year might have some weight if there were no rule on it at all, but custom gives way to written rules as soon as the discrepancy is noted.

That may have been the origin of the term, but I think it's fair to say that it now refers to electing an unopposed candidate by declaration of the chair as provided in 46:40.

Then the desired effect has been achieved. 😇