Gary Novosielski

I don't know of any rules regarding seat assignment specifically, but the general rule [61:6] in RONR is that an assembly has control over its meeting hall, which suggests to me that seating assignments would fall under this umbrella. In other words, a board chair would be unlikely to have such a power without some duly adopted rule. It would be within the power of the board, by majority vote, to direct a seating arrangement, or to empower the chair to do so, but it's not something the chair could take upon himself. And the chair may not order a member to be removed, except in the case of disruption, and then only with the consent of the assembly.

I don't disagree. Thanks for the reminder.

I see. Well, I know of several cases involving public bodies and corporations where the right was guaranteed by state regulations; when a member dissented from adoption of a question, he could demand that his No vote be reflected in the minutes and thereby avoid liability for the action of the majority. This right is harder for me to locate in the text of RONR, but I think a request [33:22] would certainly be in order, and if I were a member, I'd be disinclined to object and, if it came to that, would vote Yes on such a motion, unless the practice became dilatory. I'm on the no-harm-no-foul side of the issue.

And in case the OP hasn't yet acquired a copy of the 12th edition, the relevant paragraph goes like this: 50:21 Committee Meetings. When a committee has been appointed, its chairman (or first-named member temporarily acting—see 13:18) should call it together.⁶ If some members of the committee believe that the chairman has failed to call this initial meeting or any subsequent meeting when necessary, a meeting of the committee may be called by any two of its members, unless (such as for very large committees) the assembly’s rules or instructions prescribe, or empower the committee itself to require, a larger number. It is the responsibility of the person or persons calling a committee meeting to ensure that reasonable notice of its time and place is sent to every committee member. The quorum in a committee is a majority of its membership unless the assembly has prescribed a different quorum (40).

Excellent advice. The sections on Point of Order and Appeal are the method whereby an assembly can take a chair's ruling of "No, sorry" and flipping it back with a "Sorry, Yes!" attached. Also keep in mind two other important principles: A board is established by an organization by putting it in the bylaws, and is therefore a subordinate body to the organization (membership) as a whole. (With certain exceptions for commercial corporations.) A board, except when carrying out specific tasks delegated to it by the membership, has only such powers as are provided in the bylaws. Boards that have been in place a long time can sometimes start assuming powers to themselves that they do not have. And once begun this practice will inevitably continue unless and until the membership puts a stop to it, often by replacing the members of the board. If it goes far enough, the board will begin to claim that it cannot be easily replaced. Sound familiar?

I don't think you necessarily disagree with each other. I agree with Mr. Elsman that in the example as the OP phrased it, this amounts to a motion during voting, which is prohibited. And I agree with Mr. Brown in that there are good reasons, sometimes legal ones, that a single member should, when appropriate, be allowed to have his dissent recorded in the minutes. It seems to me that they way to handle this which violates no rule, is for the member to simply vote or abstain without further comment. If it should turn out that the member is actually in the minority, only then does the recording of his vote become relevant. And it is at that point that he can request (or in some cases demand) that the minutes reflect his No vote.

I agree. I understand that on some platforms the signatures are not displayed. If that's the case here, let me reëmphasize: 👉 Unless otherwise indicated, responses are based upon the current edition of RONR as of the date of posting. The rules in your bylaws supersede those in RONR. Corporations and elected public bodies may also be governed by rules in applicable statute, administrative code, or case law.

No, the board's interpretation is self-serving and illogical. Elections are not a matter for the board to be much involved in, if it can be avoided. Your bylaws may say that they set the date, or do other tasks, but it is not up to the board, a subordinate body, to tell the general membership that it cannot have an election. The general membership, the superior body, can and should, in my view, direct the board to set an election date without delay--assuming that is a power the board has in the first place. It makes no sense to say that since the proper month was missed, holding it late would violate the bylaws. In technical parliamentary terms, that's call a lame excuse. In fact, it seems to me that the way to look at this is: If the proper month for the election is missed, then from that point on, each passing day compounds the bylaws violation, up until the election is finally held. Holding the election as soon as possible is a lesser violation than putting it off for an entire year. Discipline might also be considered, but that is another matter.

Please post new questions as a new topic rather than tail-ending on a year-old one. Thanks.

Yes. A motion that is defeated does not cause any action. A permit was not issued, which is the same situation as before the motion was made--no permit. There is nothing to rescind because nothing happened. And if she's the only one in favor of issuing the permit, nothing is likely to happen.

Got it.

<deleted>

The minutes are the official record of what was decided on at the meeting, which is why they are read (or distributed), corrected, and approved. They need no support. Once a motion is adopted, the exact wording of the motion as stated by the chair, adopted by vote, and recorded in the minutes, is what happened. Any "supporting" document that disagrees is incorrect, and any that agrees is redundant. The minutes should not even hint at the nature of the debate.

You appear to be using a version of Robert's Rules that is more than a century out of date. The current editions are Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. and Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, In Brief, 3rd edition.

Well it goes a good deal deeper than that. RONR does have a lot to say about voting procedures, which are very much a part of the orderly conduct of business. But RONR is not merely agnostic about proxies, it is openly against their use. In RONR (12th ed.) 45:70, it says: If the rules in RONR apply, proxy voting is prohibited outright, to the fullest extent allowable under relevant law. Unless some rule (such as HOA regulations) mandate that proxies must be allowed, and forbid the bylaws from prohibiting them, proxies may not be used for any voting.

The mover of a motion is noted in the minutes, so No. And knowing who moved it might affect the readiness of people to second it. But the practice of submitting motions in writing is an excellent one.

If, instead of properly parking your car, you just step out and let it roll down the hill, your ride has still come to an end, in more ways than one. So it is with meetings. If the chair does not properly adjourn the meeting, then the chair has made an error. But under the principle that there's a lot of truth in what actually happens, the meeting ended when the members left.

That doesn't seem to be outside of government.

Agenda business items normally are General Orders, and so would be best included under the heading Unfinished Business and General Orders, which you don't don't seem to have. So your agenda may be somewhat nonstandard. However, some organizations list specific items under New Business which are expected to be moved, although it's not required by any rule. RONR does not make any mention of item numbers, but if you are repealing a particular decision that had an item number, it would make sense to refer to it by number in the motion to repeal.

Then a motion to Repeal (§35) the action should be adopted. But the minutes of the prior meeting where the motion was adopted should reflect the fact that it was adopted. There is no wiggle room on this. Minutes must record what actually occurred, not what should have occured, or what we wish had occurred.

If the rules in RONR apply, attendance at a meeting of the membership is a right of membership, unless suspended as a result of disciplinary action. RONR (12th ed.) 56:19 says, in part: So--if your bylaws provide that attendance at the AGM requires payment of a fee, then it is allowed. Otherwise, it is an improper assessment.

The motion is to Postpone to a Certain Time, and is covered in RONR §14, which says, in part: The expression “to defer” should be avoided, since it is often subject to vague usage. The motion requires a second Is debatable (not on the merits of the motion being postponed, but on the advisability of postponing it) Requires a majority vote. If the motion to postpone fails to reach a majority, then the original question considered at that time, debated, voted upon, or otherwise handled. So if you don't want it postponed again, vote No. And if they try to "defer" it without a motion, raise a Point of Order.

The only "normal" presidential power is presiding over meetings, as far as RONR is concerned. Anything else must be in the bylaws. I've run across this phrase in some ancient bylaws. Apparently it was the expression du jour back in the day. As far as I'm concerned it is far too vague to have any meaning at all.

Does this have anything to do with Cindy McGeever's question?

That's right. The assembly has the right to include extraneous material in its minutes. The Executive Director does not.