Gary Novosielski

18 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

It would appear rather straightforward that changes here require a vote of the tenured and TT faculty who are present at the meeting....

Not merely present, but present and voting.

8 hours ago, Guest Danny Pyeatt said:

Is it legal according to Robert's Rules for a Board President of a school board, to enter into discussion then leave before the vote is taken on the agenda item?  Also we have a nine (9) member school board, it it proper and what Robert's Rules calls for the President to always vote last in a roll call vote, when all the other members rotate during each roll call vote?

It violates no rule in RONR.  If the president departs, the vice president would assume the chair.  Presumably in that event the vice president's name would be called last in the roll call.

1 hour ago, Atul Kapur said:

Mr. Honemann has said that there is no rule in RONR that would prevent this. 

Are you asking for the section and paragraph reference for a rule that does not exist?

Maybe we need a §0:0, which says "All rules that do not exist anywhere are incorporated in this section by reference as if fully set forth herein--somehow."

7 hours ago, Guest JoeP said:

Is there anything with Roberts Rules or Parliamentary Procedure that says it is has to be?  The reason I ask is that our club does not have a written set of rules, we just have bylaws.  And the BOD is attempting to say it would be a "rules" change.

The BOD is incorrect.  It would be a bylaws change.  And the bylaws are rules--usually the highest level rules of an organization.

On 5/11/2021 at 1:42 PM, Rusty said:

7 member board but only 6 are present for meeting which meets are 4 person requirement for a quorum. how are 3-3 tie votes handled?

Since a majority is more than half, ties are handled the same as any other vote that is less than a majority.

On 5/12/2021 at 9:30 AM, Guest bwacker84@comcast.net said:

Is an Election committee required if only one person is running per office?

I'm not sure what the charge of your election committee is.  RONR doesn't ever require one.  RONR suggests using a Nominating Committee to solicit candidates and report them to the assembly, but after that, the assembly itself conducts the election.  And if candidates are running unopposed (and the bylaws do not require a ballot vote) the chair may declare them elected by acclamation.

On 5/12/2021 at 1:12 PM, Guest Trish@ironpigsmoke.com said:

Good Afternoon,

I am hoping someone can help answer a question I have. At a recent city council meeting ( in a small little town not to be named) it was discussed and passed that the city was waiving  application fees for an ordinance that is not in existence yet.  The Ordinance has been tabled but they already waived the fees.... ?

Would that have been in violation of Roberts Rules  of Order ?  should we not first have said ordinance then discuss the waiving of fee's?

Any words of wisdom will be appreciated on this matter.

It is a little weird, but I don't think it can cause much trouble in practice.  Now if they had tried to collect fees for an ordinance that didn't exist, that's definitely a problem.

20 minutes ago, Weldon Merritt said:

No. It would prevent the member from speaking in debate and concluding with a motion for the Previous Question. But it would not prevent the members from moving the Previous Question immediately on being recognized.  

I know that was the intent, but I think it could be argued that it would constitute "a part of his speech", i.e., the first part.

I've seen thinner arguments than that eat up a half hour of a meeting. 😜

On 5/13/2021 at 2:58 PM, Guest Floyd M said:

The Chairman is unable make it to the Meeting and the Vice Chairman fills in for them. I understand the Chairman usually only votes in the event of a tie. Can the Vice Chairman vote as the Vice Chairman and then, if a tie vote happens, vote again as the acting Chairman?

It is incorrect that the chair only votes in the event of a tie.  Don't confuse the rules in RONR with the rules in the US Senate.

On a ballot vote, the chair votes along with everyone else.

On any other type of vote, the chair would not vote unless that one vote would affect the outcome:

It could be to break a tie and pass the motion, or to create a tie and defeat the motion.  It could be to achieve a 2/3 vote or to deny a 2/3 vote.  And in any other case where one vote would matter, the chair may vote freely. So effectively even though the chair normally does not vote, it's only when one vote would not have changed the outcome anyway.

On 5/14/2021 at 5:03 AM, Richard Brown said:

Agreeing with Alicia Percell, it is really quite simple. Here is an example: “special rule of order # 4: Each speech in debate shall be limited to three minutes” Or, “ A member Who speaks in debate is not permitted to move the previous question as part of his speech or at the conclusion of his speech“.

There is no need to get fancy.

Wouldn't that second example make it impossible ever to move the Previous Question?

On 5/14/2021 at 6:43 AM, Guest Brenda Wright said:

Our NY Teachers' Association constitution allows for any member to observe our executive board meetings. Following Robert's Rules is in our constitution. A member has recently requested executive board minutes. Do we need to give the member our minutes? Do the minutes need to be redacted if a confidential matter is dealt with? We are in NY, so I do not know if New York state law would influence this in any way.

Thank you,

Brenda

The right to attend a meeting does not automatically grant the right to a copy of the minutes. 

11 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

I agree, but I would also add that, to be clear, adopting a motion for an "illegal activity" is generally not out of order, unless the procedure used to adopt it violates applicable procedural law. 

Yes, that's why I suggested it might not be well-taken.  If the illegality were other than procedural it would not be, but at least it would still get in the minutes without needing a second or a majority agreement.

I concur with Mr. Kapur, and if all efforts fail, a Point of Order can be raised, either that the dissent must be recorded, or that the main motion violates the bylaws, or violates the law.  Even if the point is ruled not well taken, and even if that ruling sustained on Appeal, the Point of Order would be recorded in the minutes and provide evidence of your dissent.

23 hours ago, Scott Fischer said:

The Executive Session minutes were kept and approved separately. The objection voiced was on the appropriateness of including the oral report of the officer in them at all.

In which case a majority vote should settle the question.  RONR would be fine with it either way.

On 5/12/2021 at 10:59 AM, rbk said:

Any member noticing the lack of a quorum can make a point of order to that effect, just as with the rules of the U.S. Senate.

Well, the Senate rules regarding quorum are more "creative" than RONR.  The most common use of a quorum call there is simply to waste time.  A member suggests the absence of a quorum and the clerk calls the roll at a pace that makes a snail look positively fleet of foot.  And when enough time has been wasted someone can effectively say "never mind" and the count stops.  Apparently the concept of a recess has not yet reached west of the rotunda.

Under RONR if a point of order is raised that there appears to be less than a quorum present, the determination would be done as if the answer mattered, and would not be halted because the person raising the point no longer cares.

On 5/10/2021 at 5:36 PM, Guest Tim Prince, Esq. said:

Gary, you are correct in the context of parliamentary procedure....

Good.  That's what I was going for.

On 5/10/2021 at 10:12 PM, Guest Sue Barnes said:

A recent board had a motion and a second to donate to a local church.  before the vote was taken a board member made a motion to amend the motion to say donation to be used in youth programs.

The board voted to approve the amendment and then went back and approve the original motion.   Is this the correct way to handle this amendment.

Assuming that you mean they went back and approved the original motion as amended, then yes.

2 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

So you're citing RONR as persuasive to make your case of why some other authority should be cited as persuasive?

Thank you. For a moment there I was dealing with cognitive dissonance.

4 hours ago, Deb Parm said:

A member of our board is saying that a motion, second and vote is required for our minutes to list the names of those voting for, against or abstaining. Is this vote necessary to record the names?

The minutes would record the votes of members by name if a Roll Call vote is used.

Roll call votes are typically used when the voting members are responsible to a constituency.

If roll call votes are not the usual method of voting, then to use that method would require adopting a motion.  A majority vote is required to order a roll call unless the bylaws specify some lower threshold.

Further reading: RONR (12th ed.) §45:45-54

On 5/10/2021 at 8:07 AM, rbk said:

someone familiar with parliamentary procedure (probably a lawyer)

LOL that's cute.

32 minutes ago, Guest Greg P said:

We are using Zoom to hold an AGM and cloud recordings are available to us following the meeting.  They will prove useful in creating the minutes of the meeting.  If an attendee wants access to the recordings, are they entitled to receive them?  How long must we keep cloud recordings?  Which is the official record of the meeting - the minutes, or the recording?  As far as I can tell, Roberts Rules of Order is silent on these matters.  Advice?

If the rules in RONR apply:

• The recording would be considered as part of the Secretary's notes and members would not automatically have a right to them.  However there is no rule preventing making the recording available to members.
• Retaining the recordings is optional and up to your organization to decide.
• The minutes (once approved) are the official record.

RONR is not silent on this point.  See §48:6

Quote

48:6      The use by the secretary of a recording device can be of great benefit in preparing the minutes, but a transcription from it should never be used as the minutes themselves.

16 minutes ago, Guest Puzzling said:

Under RONR the minutes are the official record. RONR says nothing about the recordings at all. 

Well, except for §48:6.

2 hours ago, Linda Preston said:

When your bylaws specify a 2/3 majority to approve, how are abstentions counted? There are 8 people voting. 5 have approved and 3 are abstaining.

Abstentions are not called for, not counted, and are not votes.

3 hours ago, Weldon Merritt said:

A belief in which I wholeheartedly concur. I haven't dealt with many groups that have co-officers or co-chairmen, so I can't speak from extensive experience; but I suspect that in most instances, one of the co-whatevers assumes the primary role and the other acts more live a vice whatever. So it is much better to set it up that way in the first place.

Yes, and then when things go wrong, the finger pointing starts.  Responsibility shared is responsibility diluted.

13 hours ago, Guest Maureen J said:

Hello - If a Co-Officer (such a Co-Treasurer or Co-President) resigns mid-term, can the remaining officer continue on as the sole officer or does the Board need to hold an election?  Our Bylaws allow for Co-positions, however we haven't stated what would happen if one resigned.  This situation hasn't actually happened for us.  Could we add an amendment to our Bylaws to state the remaining officer could remain in position solo?  Thank you

My strongly held belief is that you would be far better off deleting all reference to Co-<anything> in your bylaws.  It is nothing but trouble, as you're beginning to find out.