Gary Novosielski

4 hours ago, Guest Nik said:

What if a member moves to close all nominations from the floor? Is that motion in order? Debatable? Requires 2/3 vote?

Yes, in order if no one is seeking to make additional nominations, not debatable, and requires a 2/3 vote.

But if closed, reopening nominations requires only a majority vote.

On 5/21/2021 at 12:56 PM, Guest lkrokes@hotmail.com said:

If not specified, can a governing board be designated as a proxie at general business meetings?

If the rules in RONR apply (which they presumably would if nothing else is specified) then proxy voting is prohibited to the greatest extent allowed by law.

Also the "governing" board has no special influence in general business meetings.  The board is subordinate to the general membership.

13 hours ago, Guest cmc said:

With that, I researched and came across Robert's Rules indicating that, "If a member has not been dropped from the rolls and is not under disciplinary action, the member still has the full rights of membership, including the right to vote, unless the bylaws specifically address this situation." 

The elected officials are saying that past practice/custom/tradition supersedes the bylaws and Constitution. Could that be correct?

No, definitely not.   Past practice/custom is the lowest level of all, and yields to all ordinary motions, standing rules, special rules of order, the bylaws, the constitution, and applicable statutes.  You should raise a Point of Order (§23) and be prepared to Appeal (§24) an unfavorable ruling.

This is not the method used in RONR, so it's not possible to answer the question as posed. When someone is finished speaking the chair recognizes one of the members seeking recognition at that time.   (In some cases two lines are formed at two microphones, one for those in support and one for those opposed to the motion, so that pro and con views will alternate.)  Alternating sides is is something RONR favors in general, so if the chair knows who is for or against the motion, they should be recognized alternately if possible.

In general, speeches are limited to two per member and the second one only after no one who has yet to make their first speech is is seeking recognition.  The count would be reset for an amendment, as you have described, and the previous count restored when returning to discussion of the main motion.

But these things are primarily accomplished on the fly, not by setting up a queue at the start.  That would require a bylaws provision or special rule of order adopted by your membership.  I can see some advantages for doing it that way, but there are also drawbacks.  It may be that one of the early speakers raises an important point that others wish to follow up on, but now with the queue preset, they will never get the opportunity.  If someone wishes to propose an amendment, they may never get the chance.  Some who have a place in line will find that by the time their turn comes up the remarks they had planned to make are no longer relevant.  It's not an easy subject to work out.  Especially virtually.

Speaking of which, unless your bylaws allow for "virtual" or electronic meetings, where people are not gathered in the same physical location, then such meetings are prohibited.

The powers of the board must be spelled out in the bylaws, and the board has no powers beyond those.

Some boards are given general authority over the affairs of the club in the interval between membership meetings, but can be overruled by the membership.  It would be unusual for a board to have the power to expel members.  If they don't have that power, then the membership does.  So check your bylaws and see what the board is really allowed to do.

The membership, at a membership meeting can, by a 2/3 vote, demand that the board produce and read any of its minutes.  Let us know what your bylaws say about your board, and we might be able to put you on the right track.

7 hours ago, Guest Loretta said:

If the current President runs for office for another term, do they give up the position of IPP.  Our bylaws indicate we elect a replacement for IPP if the person sits in office for a second/third term.  I am curious as to what should be the protocol if they decide to run and loose?  I would think they likewise forfeit their Past President position as well.

If they run and lose, they are clearly the immediate past president.  Why would you think they would forfeit anything?

32 minutes ago, Guest Mark said:

Can a member of the board make a motion or second a motion to hire or appoint a family member to an open position 

If the rules in RONR apply, then Yes.

If there are any anti-nepotism rules they would have to be in your bylaws.  RONR doesn't have any.

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.