Gary Novosielski

Yes, it can be renewed at the next meeting.

The term action item does not appear anywhere in RONR. Neither does the term discussion item. The term action appears 310 times, and what's clear is that actions are the result of motions. Making a decision is an action. Decisions are made by adopting (or rejecting) motions. And all those are recorded in the minutes. If the rules in RONR apply, any decision is the result of a motion. There are shortcuts such as Unanimous Consent, but if a decision was reached, it was done by some variant of a motion, and belongs in the minutes. But in your example, if a motion is made to adopt a slogan, once the question is pending, the normal rules for Amendment of a motion apply, which would allow you to consider other choices than the ones anticipated in the agenda, unless you have some special rules restricting the scope of agenda items in ways not anticipated by RONR.

Well, you cannot schedule a Regular Meeting prior to the next regular meeting. You ask whether the board can decide to hold it. But how can the board decide to do anything if not at a meeting? It cannot decide to hold this meeting unless it is already in a meeting. Your bylaws may permit the Chair to call such a meeting independent of the board, but that's moot in this case, since he won't do so. So that's why @Joshua Katz asked what your bylaws say about a Special Meeting. Perhaps there is a method listed there that allows the board members, or a certain number of board members to call a Special Meeting. By definition, a Special Meeting is not a "full" meeting if I understand what you mean by that term. The only business that may be considered in a special meeting is what has been clearly described in the call of the meeting. There is no restriction on what can be included, but nothing else may be considered. Special meetings typically do not approve minutes, and do not follow the standard order of business--in particular, there is no New Business. So if that's what you mean by "full" it is not full. But it can certainly consider whatever this important matter is--assuming there is a way to call special meetings at all, and that would have to be in your bylaws.

If nobody wants the group to stay intact enough to volunteer to be president, maybe they don't want it as much as you think. In any case, there is no way around the terms of office as set down in your bylaws, except by amending your bylaws. But check the exact language for the terms of your officers. Does it say a fixed time of n years, or is that followed by "and until their successors are elected". Similarly, check to see when elections must be held. If nobody will accept leadership positions, it may be time to pull up stakes and fold up the tent.

Well, if the Parliamentarian is intent on giving you a hard time about "no confidence" votes, and since RONR does not mention them, what you definitely can do is to move a "sense of the Senate" resolution, which is really the same thing but doesn't have the baggage of a "confidence" vote. You could simply move that it is the sense of the Senate that the workplace safety policies are deficient in the following ways..... And if you want to get fancy, you can dress it up as a Resolution, with a preamble such as Whereas this is bad; and, Whereas that is bad; and, Whereas people could die, Therefore, be it Resolved by the Academic Senate that what ought to be done is..... See RONR 12th ed. 10:13 et. seq.

Do you mean apply an amendment? If so: A motion that has been recommended by a committee is reported back to the committee's parent body for possible action. At that point, the parent body may amend the motion however it wishes, may adopt the motion in as recommended by the committee, or as amended, or may reject the motion entirely. It could also take other actions, such as postponing action, or even referring it to a different committee if appropriate. In other words, committees report recommendations to the group that referred the matter to the committee. The parent body is free to accept, reject, ignore, or amend the recommendation.

The Council can certainly vote to Rescind (also known as Repeal or Annul ) the ordinance. It's not necessary to establish that there was incorrect testimony, it's simply that a legislative body that passes an ordinance has the right to rescind it. See §35 for the rules on this motion, presuming the rules in RONR apply. The motion usually requires either a 2/3 vote, or a majority vote if previous notice of the intent to make this motion was given, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership of the council, any one of which will suffice. In a meeting where the entire Council is present, the third form will often be the easiest to satisfy. It should be noted that rescinding the Ordinance will not mean that the ordinance never existed. It will have existed from the time it was passed until the time it was rescinded.

I think that if you organization is responsible for putting such policies in place, then a vote of no confidence does not really accomplish anything. In particular it does not change any policies. It seems to me that it would be more productive to move the adoption of a policy that you believe should be in place, or to move the creation of a committee to study the policies in which you have little confidence, with instructions to report back improvements to current policies or establishment of new ones, that would improve workplace safety. Here is a relevant FAQ from this web site's FAQ page:

Answering "Present" is essentially the same as abstaining. It does not count as either a Aye or Nay; in fact it is not considered a vote cast at all. If the rules in RONR apply, any member has the right to abstain on a vote.

Well, that is why elections are held. Those who are not fit to serve would, presumably, receive fewer than a majority of the votes cast, which is the number necessary to elect.

No, someone can't just say that debate is limited. And a Parliamentarian worthy of the title should know that. Do you have any rules in place that say your debate is normally limited? If not, RONR provides a ten-minute limit per speech, and a maximum of two speeches on a single question--the second only after everyone has spoken once who wishes to. A change to the rule would be done by a motion to Limit or Extend Limits of Debate [RONR §15] which requires a two-thirds vote.

But then if you refer to Robert's Rules, it says that if there is a conflict, the bylaws supersede Robert's Rules, so I suspect an endless loop would be created, and smoke would pour out of somewhere. 🙂

The term "upon a proper motion" has no meaning at all. Anything a board decides must be by a "proper" motion. Seconds are not required for nominations. Once the election is completed the "newly elected board" is referred to as "The board". The old board is a group of individuals who are former members of the board. So I would interpret the joint meeting requirement as a meeting of The board, to which the members of the former board are invited as guests. If there are any motions to be made or votes to be held, only members of The board should be moving things or voting on them.

Oh jeez.

That makes no sense to me at all. Anyone?

I've seen plenty of PTA bylaws, and I think you've got that supersede thing backwards.

I think that's what I said in the first reply. But it was so long ago.

There is no rule stating that you can breathe during meetings. Still, it is a commonly accepted practice.

The motion would be "to conduct an induction of new members this program year." And recommend a No vote on the motion.

It is annoyingly common. If you simply avoid putting in any rule on this subject, the rules in RONR will apply, which say that the president normally does not exercise the right to vote except when: The vote is by ballot, or The single vote of the president could affect the outcome of the vote (which could just as easily be to create a tie, defeating the motion, as to break a tie, adopting it, or The group is meeting under Small Board Rules, intended for use in committees and boards of no more than about a dozen members. See FAQ #1

I would recommend not specifying a particular platform by name in the bylaws, but rather use more generic terms, and specify the characteristics required for a platform that can be used for electronic meetings. (Which Zoom would presumably meet.) If for some reason Zoom is sold off or becomes unavailable, you are locked in to a situation that you cannot easily change.

Well, you won't know for certain that there are no opposing candidates until you call for further nominations from the floor at the November meeting.

That is not how it appeared to me when I looked. But it could have been the hard cider talking. In any case, it is apparent that we agreed, so file it under: No Harm No Foul. 🥴

RONR has no provisions for "challenging the chair", except under the chapter (XX) on discipline. If you have rules in your bylaws that allow this procedure, then follow those rules. Otherwise follow the rules in Chapter XX, specifically §62. REMOVAL FROM OFFICE AND OTHER REMEDIES FOR DERELICTION OF DUTY IN OFFICE OR MISCONDUCT. And in nearly all cases, the removal of a president would not cause an election, but rather the filling of the vacancy in the office of vice president, which would result from the former vice president's automatic and immediate succession to the office of president. It would be highly unusual for a letter from a single member to create such drama, and it would be similarly unusual for the board, rather than the membership, to be authorized to remove the president. Which group, the board or the membership, elects the president in the first place?

Almost. You would approve the backlogged minutes in chronological order beginning with the oldest and ending with the current draft minutes. You could then move to authorize the board or a committee to approve the minutes of the current meeting.