Gary Novosielski

On 11/10/2021 at 4:00 AM, Richard Brown said:

Seventh, Has this organization adopted RONR as it’s probably a military authority? as its parliamentary authority?   (voice to text dictation screwup!)

Not a terrible screwup though.  The General might well approve.  After all, he did not get all this General Order and Special Order stuff by licking it off the rocks.

On 11/11/2021 at 9:24 AM, Guest Kathie Morandi said:

What is the correct protocol to "poll" members of a committee? In order to ascertain individual's opinions on a proposal. 

That would be through the process known as "voting".

On 11/11/2021 at 9:58 AM, Angie N said:

Help please! 

Can a bylaw amendment be updated that doesn't change the meaning by calling a special meeting and adopting a resolution that the secretary be authorized to make such corrections or does notice and vote have to occur in a regular meeting? 

 

Thank you! 

There is no rule in RONR against amending bylaws at a special meeting, unless the bylaws say it must be at a regular meeting.  Sometimes they do. Sometimes they even say it must be an an annual general meeting.

But regardless of what sort of meeting it is, all the other necessary steps must be complied with, such as previous notice, vote threshold, and whatever other requirements you have for bylaws amendments.  An amendment is an amendment, even if it's just a semicolon that's being changed.

On 11/10/2021 at 4:51 PM, Guest Chris said:

Is the chair of a committee typically considered to be a member of the committee?

Typically, yes.  I suppose you could arrange things so that this was not the case, but if you have no reason to believe otherwise then it's a safe bet that the chairman is a member.

Indeed.

Section of what?

On 11/1/2021 at 10:09 PM, Guest Jan said:

Has anyone developed guidelines for using chat during meetings?  I can see where it would be helpful for items associated with the meeting--clarification on a motion, an email address for a speaker, etc., but I find in some meetings people are chatting back and forth on a personal basis and it is disruptive. 

It's up to the assembly to set its rules.  The usual method is motion, second, debate, vote.  

On 11/1/2021 at 5:26 PM, Guest Dan Evans said:

At a recent board meeting of our HOA, after much controversial discussion,  a motion to change an existing policy did not receive a second.  What is the status of this motion/proposed change?  Is it tabled until the next meeting?  Is it a dead issue?  

Once discussion on a motion has occurred, the lack of a second becomes moot.  The motion should have been put to a vote.

On 11/1/2021 at 3:00 PM, J. Moore said:

Thank you all for your replies.  I was looking for how the actual mechanics of breaking off and taking up special orders are done.  I have read and re-read all the relevant sections (and others, besides!); of course, I do know that the secretary does not transcribe minutes verbatim so that was poor writing on my part.  You have helped to make the process much clearer.

Glad to help.  As @Rob Elsman correctly points out, it may be necessary to return to the question that was pending and was then interrupted, under Unfinished Business at the next meeting, so the Secretary should be sure that the minutes reflect what was pending at the time that the Special Order was taken up.  That way, if the assembly can't get back to it in the same meeting, they'll know where they left off. 

But in that event, I believe it won't matter who had the floor or how much time remained, since the restrictions on speeches and their length and number are reset on that new day.

On 11/1/2021 at 10:01 AM, Atul Kapur said:

I'm curious why you prefer this option, as it increases the possibility of repeated ballots being required (if a person is elected to multiple positions). Even more curious when I read the new language of 46:34, which clarifies the procedure to be followed if all positions are placed on the same section and would seem to make that option even more efficient.

I've been involved in situations using both methods, and I prefer the more streamlined approach of assigning those with the highest votes to the longest terms.  If we assume that those with more votes (assuming always a majority is achieved) can be said to have the biggest vote of confidence, it makes sense to grant them the longer terms.  Drawbacks can be found, but not as many, in my experience, as using separate sections.

In an election in my former town, three terms of three years were open, plus one to fill a one-year vacancy.  An incumbent, instead of running for reëlection to his three-year term, decided to run for the one-year term, thinking that there would be less competition there. (It was not allowed to run for both) He guessed wrong and lost his seat completely.  It makes sense for someone to run for the office, and be happy with whatever term length he can get, and so to run for for all available seats if allowed but, as you point out, that could be a fifth ballot waiting to happen.

On 10/31/2021 at 8:22 AM, Aldo said:

Committee is functioning and actions are appropriate.  They have an agenda and are following it. Our president is now interfering with committee members and attempting to interfering with committee, possibly for his own agenda or gain.

Question is, can president self appoint himself to committee,  and direct himself and committee chair to meet with an organization,  and not allow the whole committee to function? 

It depends.  If the president is granted (in the bylaws) the power to appoint all committees (or this committee in particular) then presumably yes, he could presumably appoint himself to the committee.

Also, if your bylaws say that the president is, ex officio, a member of all committees (or some committees) then the president may certainly attend meetings of those committees.  But not with any superpowers beyond those of any other member.

In any case the president has no right to "interfere" with a committee, or even to attend, if not a member, unless invited by (a majority vote in) the committee.  Attempts to interfere with business can be met with a Point of Order (§23).  Attempts to interfere with business outside of the context of a committee meeting can simply be ignored.

On 10/31/2021 at 10:16 AM, J. Moore said:

When a special order or a general order is made for a particular time and that time arrives, RRO states the chair simply announces it. So, if the society is in the midst of debating some other matter, how is the other matter put aside?  Must there be a motion of some kind?  Does the secretary simply note what the last point made in the debate was so that it may be returned to after disposal of the special/general order?  And after the special/general order has been disposed of, does the chair just say something to the effect of, discussion now resumes on the matter that was interrupted?

Pretty much, at least for Special Orders.  Read the sections @Dan Honemann cited, for details. 

But on your point regarding the secretary: The secretary should not be noting in the minutes any points made in debate, then or any other time.  If a question is interrupted by a Special Order, or for some other proper purpose, all that needs to be noted is who had the floor, and how much time remained at that point.  And that could simply be recorded on a slip of paper.  It would not go in the minutes.

On 10/29/2021 at 11:47 PM, Guest So many questions said:

Can a member run for re-election or election of a higher rank, if they are currently not fit for duty and not able to meet responsibilities of current role of term coming to an end on 12-31?

Yes, they probably can.   But if what you say is true, nobody will vote for them.

On 10/30/2021 at 12:50 PM, Joshua Katz said:

Good point. I'm not sure what a good secondary amendment is in this instance, other than the boring one of again changing the color.

Move to insert the word sky before blue.

On 10/30/2021 at 7:21 PM, Guest Koe Sq said:

Excellent suggestion, thank you. It will require an update to our bylaws but will be well worth it. 

I won't require a bylaws amendment to have nominations the day of the election, unless they're expressly prohibited in your current bylaws.  RONR already has a rule allowing it, so just go ahead and do it.

On 10/28/2021 at 10:41 PM, Guest Nad said:

Hi, Can a committee member, after being absent the prior meeting, make nations or second? Thank you.

Within a committee, seconds are typically not required at all.  And nation building is frowned upon. 🙂

But an absence does not abridge a member's rights.

On 10/29/2021 at 10:12 AM, Guest Ryan said:

Gary,

they were handed down but it’s up to each board to approve them. Most changes are replacing shall with must, but there are a couple other changes. One has to do with the board being able to set compensation for itself and the other has to do with gender. I believe those specifically need to be discussed individually. 

Then you are free to demand a division of the question.  That's why the rule exists.

On 10/27/2021 at 11:37 AM, Dan Honemann said:

Trouble is, it's been around for well over 100 years, and has been given the blessing of the Supreme Court of the United States in U.S. v Ballin, 144 U.S. 1 (1892). It's going to be rather tough to get rid of it now. 🙂

One lives in hope.

On 10/28/2021 at 1:38 AM, Guest Ryan said:

At school board meeting, the board was introduced to the first reading of policy changes handed down from state department of education. The president put all the policy’s under one new business item and pushed them through to second reading without discussion of individual policy changes. Shouldn’t each policy change have its own new business item for discussion and voting on each policy change?

Well, assuming these were "handed down" by a higher authority, it may be that the board had no options but to adopt them as their own policies.  If that's the case, it could be argued that there would be no point in lengthy discussion.

On 10/28/2021 at 8:52 AM, Guest Bev said:

Our church voted on a change to our constitution/bylaws. The vote must be at least 75% to pass. The total was 74.471% so it didn't pass. However, a member demanded a revote (not recount) which was done. Is this legal according to Robert's Rules?

No, a member cannot demand a revote.  But a member who voted with the prevailing side (i.e., who voted No) could, at the same meeting, move to Reconsider the vote, which requires a second, is debatable, and needs a majority vote for passage.  If Reconsider passes, the motion in question is opened again in the same condition it was, just before the vote.  It could be debated further, and another vote taken, but the 75% threshold on that vote would remain the same.

The above is true because the motion was defeated. A bylaws amendment that wins approval cannot be reconsidered.

See RONR 12th ed. §37.

If it was not the same as the responses you received here, I would view it with some suspicion.  

On 10/28/2021 at 2:57 PM, Guest ray said:

When there is an even number in the committee and a tie vote occurs what is the procedure to redo?

There is no "redo" procedure.   A tie vote, since it less than a majority, is treated like any other motion that receives less than a majority.  It is defeated.

There is nothing particularly special about a tie vote.

On 10/28/2021 at 3:45 PM, Guest Jamie H. said:

Is it true if say, a school board leaves their seats without adjourning or calling a break, that the floor can call a motion to fill those abandoned positions? I am asking as a quote given to me by someone else.

No, that's some nonsense akin to sovereign citizen gibberish.

Okay, those bylaws appear to prevent nominations except at that one meeting, which supersedes the rule in RONR.

Also, I'm not certain that saying no one can be a candidate unless nominated would prevent write-in votes (which are votes for a non-candidate) but I think an argument could be made that this was the intent.

On 10/18/2021 at 11:15 AM, PAPS said:

Sorry for the late reply...Our bylaws only allow for nominations from the floor at our September meetings.

Thank you,

Amy

 

That really doesn't answer @Weldon Merritt's question.  Can you quote the exact language that prohibits nominations at any other meeting?