Gary Novosielski

RONR does not permit yielding of time during debate. As far as public comment periods, I think it would depend on whether the council will sit still for it. If you just go ahead and try it you might well get away with it.

Does "have the recommendation of" imply that the recommendation must be positive? To me that sounds more ambiguous than "originate". I agree that such a fight could conceivably ensue, and if so, then the more stringent interpretation should definitely apply. A point of order should be raised at the first sign of swords or firearms. Discharging the committee would take a 2/3 vote, which would be enough to suspend the rule anyway, so at that point the fight is over.

And I recall reading somewhere (probably in RONR) that when putting the question on such courtesy resolutions, it is common for the chair to ask for those in favor, but not ask for the negative vote. Ah, I found it in 4:35:

I agree. My intention there was to point out at which meeting the report should must be given.

This sounds like a clearly bad idea. The blessing of a single board member is hardly sufficient. By a majority vote the assembly can direct the Treasurer to use either the society's checkbook or the society's credit card. I fail to see how writing a check can put one at risk of infection, especially if it is delivered by mail. It may be time to write and adopt a full job description for the Treasurer position, including a provision that when a check is written to the Treasurer, it must be signed by another officer. Be sure to establish other signatories with the bank as needed. Some organizations always require two signatures from among those authorized on any check. Basically it's up to the board as part of their duties to ensure that the finances are properly handled. Finances are not a big deal until they are a big deal, and then they are a big ****ing deal.

I think that if the president is authorized to appoint committees, this can be done outside the context of a meeting, at least as far as speaking with the appointees and ensuring they will accept the assignment. The actual appointments should must be announced by the president under Reports of Officers at the next meeting of the body to whom the committee(s) will report. The report can be filed in the same way as committee reports, or, if desired, can be included in the miote. Edited to add: Rereading 50:13(d), it's apparent that if the appointments take place outside the meeting, that the subsequent announcement of the president must be recorded in the minutes.

This is stated clearly in 46:46, and was quoted by Mr. Kapur.

I'll add one more wrinkle. If the misrepresentation became known while the meeting was still in session, someone who voted on the prevailing (winning) side could move to Reconsider¹ the motion, which would open it again for further debate as if it had not yet been voted on. __________ ¹ see: RONR 12th Ed, §37 Reconsider

With the exception that a presiding non-member would not be allowed to vote, even in cases where one vote could affect the outcome.

Apart from knowing that this censure motion was on the agenda, we don't know the outcome. Were you in fact censured on the basis of such flimsy evidence?

As others have noted, a Point of Order now would no longer be timely. If a similar occasion arises, you could raise a Point of Order that the motion is not in order since it did not originate in the range committee, which should be ruled well taken, or if you wanted to be a little less confrontational you could wait for debate and then move that, in compliance with the bylaws, the motion be Referred to the range committee. If that motion failed, you could still raise the Point of Order.

I remember before I was a member of my local school board, one of the then members used to balance her checkbook during meetings. None of the other members had the nerve to say anything, because she could be unpleasant when challenged, but a member of the public stood up one night during public comment and remarked on how unprofessional she looked. She was basically shamed out of that behavior. After I was elected she was introduced (by me) to the rules of debate under RONR, which made it more difficult for her to be quite so unpleasant. This took a lot of the fun out of it for her, and she did not run for reëlection.

<never mind>

Mark, See §59:27:

Special meetings are permitted only if provided for in your bylaws, which should tell you under what conditions and by whom they can be called. A specific description of the business to be conducted at the meeting must be included in the call of the meeting. If your bylaws don't have such a provision you can conduct the election at your next regular meeting. It's worth looking into the question of why nobody at the meeting noticed and raised a point of order. Members share the responsibility to ensure the rules are being followed. It is not the responsibility of the president alone. You may have a problem at this point if the president can call meetings and you don't clearly have a president. What do your bylaws say about the term of the president. Ideally there will be a provision that officers remain in office until the election of their successors. If you have no valid president at the moment, the assembly can appoint one (a president pro-tem) to preside over the next meeting, by a majority vote. There is no law against appointing the outgoing president to do this. If the rules in RONR apply, "slates" are not used in elections, and are not voted on as a single package. While the report of the Nominating Committee is often called a "slate", it should be regarded as merely a list of nominees for the various offices, and after the report is received, the chair must call for additional nominations from the floor if any. If your bylaws require a ballot vote, then this provision may not be suspended. Each office is voted on separately--this may be done on one physical ballot, but it must be possible to vote differently for each office, not merely on a take-it-or-leave-it "slate". Additionally, space must be provided for write-in votes for each office.

I don't think so, but (worst case) a new Standing Committee can be established and the same members can be appointed to it; then the existing Special Committee can be discharged from further consideration of the question referred to it, and that question can be referred to the Standing Committee. It is going to depend primarily on how Standing Committees are established in you organization. If your current Standing Committees are listed in your bylaws, then new ones can only be added (or old ones removed) by means of a bylaws amendment.

I don't see anything in that particular language that suggests there is any appeal process.

Sure thing. Bryce, Following up: I've looked through RONR and a three-fourths vote is not a rule for the passage of any motion. There are, though, two places where a three-fourths vote is mentioned. One is in the sample bylaws, where the fictional example organization requires a three-fourths vote for admission to membership. The other is a recommendation when drafting custom rules for the Resolutions Committee of a Convention. In the rule in RONR, such committees are required to report on any resolution submitted to them, even if they do not recommend its adoption, but they aren't allowed to simply kill a proposed resolution by ignoring it. RONR says that if such a committee is given this power in the Convention's rules, a vote in the committee to do so should have a very high threshold, such as a three-fourths vote.

He was just warmin' up.

Note without commentary: The Supreme Commander of allied military forces uses the words "earned" and "refreshed", while the guy who never was a soldier but played one in the movies uses the words "fought for" and "defended".

“Independence Day: freedom has its life in the hearts, the actions, and the spirit of men and so it must be daily earned and refreshed – else like a flower cut from its life-giving roots, it will wither and die.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower

Are you using the same software? I'm using the download from Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Amazon-Digital-Services-LLC-Download/dp/B00UB76290

Well, a majority vote means more than half. So neither a 2/3 vote nor a 3/4 vote is a "majority". I would argue against a 3/4 vote for anything because this is not, in fact, a "supermajority". It is a superminority; i.e, a mere 25% of the voters can block an action overwhelmingly approved by the majority. I tend to look askance at most attempts to "improve upon" things that are already covered in RONR, for the simple reason that it is a result of well over 100 years of experience and expertise, out of which the bugs have largely been ironed.

Yes, Mr. Honemann was referring to the sample bylaws printed in RONR [56:58 et seq.], which only require three days notice.

Well, it's dangerous to try to draw a conclusion based on a paraphrase, but that sounds like a repetition of a rule already contained in RONR. That rule would normally apply only to rules of order, i.e., those rules that apply to the orderly conduct of business in the context of a meeting, but interpretation of bylaws is ultimately something left to the assembly itself.