Gary Novosielski

Actually, if nothing is in the bylaws regarding Special Meetings, then they are prohibited, not left up in the air. If a chair calls a special meeting without authority, then no amount of advance notice will cure the fact that the chair can't call special meetings. If the council has the authority to call special meetings with no specific advance notice, then the notice must be "reasonable". If anyone believes the lead time was unreasonable they may raise a Point of Order and/or Appeal, and see what happens. And only topics specifically described in the call of the meeting may be taken up during that meeting.

I agree that the promotion of all that is Good, Right, and Proper would not be damaged in the slightest if the rules held that previous notice is satisfied whenever members are well aware that the motion will be considered at the next meeting. But the operative word above is "if." And I will stipulate that if things were different they wouldn't be the same. Nevertheless, previous notice, as currently defined, means notice of intent to introduce a motion, not to continue consideration of a motion already introduced.

Previous notice, if given at the meeting, is not required to be in the call either, so the problem (if any) would exist either way.

Yes, I find that persuasive. The motion has been made and the fact of whether or not previous notice was given is now baked into the parliamentary situation. If possible, the best course of action would be to vote the motion down at the current meeting and give notice of intent to renew it at the next meeting. But the time for that seems to have passed. It seems to me that it would comport with the spirit of the rules to require only a majority vote at the next meeting, but that's not what the rules actually say. And it appears impossible to give notice without voting down the motion first, since it will not be in order to renew the motion at the next meeting, should it fail then, and Reconsider won't help either.

The rules in RONR already provide for this. And if nominations have been closed, it takes only a majority vote to reopen them. This can be done at the time of the election and I don't see why it would require notice, as the notice rule appears to apply to the committee report.

There are three levels at work here. RONR says that non-members (of the body in session) have no right to attend meetings but may, with the permission of assembly. And with further permission may address the assembly. The assembly, by the principle that the it has control of its own hall, by majority vote can grant or revoke these permissions, impose limits on time and monitor closely the germaneness of any remarks. RONR also has a rule prohibiting non-members from speaking during debate. But this rule, being in the nature of a rule of order, may be suspended. Suspension of the rules requires a 2/3 vote. And RONR also has a rule prohibiting non-members from voting. This rule may not be suspended, even by a unanimous vote, because doing so would violate a fundamental principle of parliamentary law.

As long as the appropriate notice was given, nothing was done wrong. Presuming prior notice was required, and if the notice did not mention any change in voting threshold, it would not be proper to add something at the meeting that goes beyond the scope of the notice. But if the proposed changes included this change and members just didn't pay attention, that's too bad. If they vote for a change without reading it, they have nobody to blame but themselves. The can work to re-amend the bylaws, and hope people read their proposal this time.

There are no such requirements in RONR, but there are in many Sunshine Laws, which, with some rare exceptions, require all votes to be in public and by the yeas and nays. What was or was not said or considered in "exec" remains confidential, but if a public body is going to decide something that has any effect, the fact of it will presumably be discovered soon enough. And the constituency deserves to know which elected officials voted which way. For example, if a school board is firing an administrator, it can't be kept secret for long, as he or she will presumably stop showing up for work, but the reasons aren't necessary a matter of public information. So I think you're right about where this comes from, and I've run into this misinformation too.

Well, there shouldn't need to be a spot for abstention on the ballot, but if there is, it clearly should be treated as an abstention, i.e., the same as a blank ballot. For that matter, either of those should be treated the same as a ballot that was never handed in, i.e., ignored completely.

That's a good question. I think it should, but I'm not sure it does. Stay tuned...

Are you sure a Special Rule of Order would do it?

Ah, I see the problem in the interpretation of the word reading. In the context of RONR's use of the term, Reading and Approval of Minutes means reading aloud. Reading may be waived if the draft minutes were distributed in advance. How long in advance would be a reasonable time is up to the assembly. But on the demand of a single member the draft minutes must be read (aloud). While the members would presumably familiarize themselves with the contents of the draft minutes, that is not what RONR means by reading.

While it is typically allowed that a ban on holding future office may be imposed by discipline, this was apparently not done if the wording of the discipline included only a suspension for a fixed length of time. So yes, he could stand for election again. If those "certain members" who support him comprise a majority of those present and voting, he's golden.

No. The election of a secretary pro tem would presumably not be a known requirement ahead of time, and there should be no need for a motion to call the roll. The chair simply announces "The Secretary will call the roll" if there is a rule or custom to do so. If there were an Agenda, none of these things would logically to be on it, since any or all of them would need to occur before the Agenda was approved, creating a logic race of sorts.

I agree that it would be correct for a voter to have assistance in filling out the ballot, expressing the wishes of the voter, and preferably in the presence of the voter. It would surely not be correct for a voter to give his blank ballot to someone else to use. I seem to recall that in New Jersey, absentee ballots for public elections had a place for a notation on the intermediate envelope stating the identity of someone other than the voter who had assisted in its preparation, and another on the outer envelope identifying anyone authorized by the voter to hand-carry the ballot to the County Clerk, if that was to be the method used. (These rules apparently vary from the ballot harvesting custom in the North Carolina 9th Congressional District.) 😀

Your interpretation is correct. Abstentions, while they do not count as No votes, nevertheless have the effect of No votes in that they deny passage of the motion. Membership interpretation of the bylaws is limited to ambiguities. It should be clear that no rule that does not contain the word quorum, gives no indication that the rule affects the quorum, nor that it applies notwithstanding the absence of a quorum, can be reasonably interpreted to pertain to the quorum. Rules that do pertain to the quorum invariably say so in no uncertain terms. The chair should rule any point of order to the contrary not well taken, and reject an Appeal as out of order. The language clearly refers to the vote threshold. Since "majority of those present" is a valid type of voting threshold (although rare for amending bylaws), it does not imply anything about how many must be present. Members who attempt to read into the rules things that are not there are not acting in good faith. And if there is one time (and I'm not saying there is) when respect for the quorum is needed most, it is when a vote is to be taken on bylaws amendments, especially when a relatively low majority vote threshold is all that is needed. Arguing that the quorum could be changed at an inquorate meeting is nonsensical. A society that has no respect for its bylaws is no better than one without bylaws. Or as Mark Twain is said to have remarked: "A man who will not read has no advantage over a man who cannot read." While I doubt he had bylaws in mind, the sentiment pertains. Good luck.

Qu'est que ç'est "fax"?

Since he says he has researched it, he should, in theory, have no trouble providing the page and line number for this strange rule. Hint: In fact, his troubles will be substantial, since it's not in there. RONR does have a rule against the mover of a motion speaking against the motion in debate, but it's perfectly allowable to vote against one's own motion. And once any further business has intervened, changing a vote is impermissible, even with unanimous consent.

The election of a secretary pro tem is allowed, since any meeting, even an inquorate one, requires both a presiding and a recording officer. The calling of the roll is not a motion. If a motion on which a vote is being taken is one of those permitted, then a roll-call vote is in order. If you are referring to calling the roll for the purpose of recording attendance, then I'll first point out that RONR does not require this to be done. If by rule or custom your organization does record attendance, then it would certainly pertain to the conduct of the meeting, since it relates directly to whether or not a quorum exists. On the third question you may get multiple opinions, but I don't think [this one] should be allowed. It only relates to the conduct of the meeting if it should later obtain a quorum. Adopting it before that point would be frivolous.

There is nothing there to justify such a crazy interpretation. That language just sets a threshold for the vote at a majority of those present.. An inquorate meeting has a few restricted things that can be done, but passing bylaws amendments is definitely not one of them.

That would be an improper use of a signed ballot as a de facto proxy. Put a bookmark in Chapter XX.

Yes, they are a thing, and signed ballots are not secret. Ballots (unqualified noun) are assumed to be secret.

If you know to whom the ballot is supposed to belong, there's something wrong with your procedures. The point of a ballot is to preserve the secrecy of the vote. Is this an in-person vote or a mail-in vote? There are procedures for either that will ensure the proper level of secrecy, and prevent improper voting.

Of course. It could also specify that the remainder of the board had to put their hats on backward and carry rubber chickens. It could be made as narrowly drafted and overly specific as the society's collective heart could possibly desire. 🙂 I still maintain that it would be best to simply adjust the quorum to something routinely achievable.

A lot of the time, the secretary's correspondence about what took place at a meeting takes this general form: I do hereby certify that the following is a true and correct copy of a <motion/resolution> duly adopted at a regular or properly called meeting of the board of <The Society> at which a quorum was present: text of motion or resolution Certified: ____________________ Secretary In the case of accepting a resignation, for example, the board is free to insert "with regret" in the actual motion, after the word accepts. If it is desired to fancy it up a bit more, phrasing it as a resolution with a Whereas clause or two can make it more classy. But this is all at the option of the board itself. RONR has no rule that acceptance of a resignation requires any letter be sent to the resignor at all, and doesn't authorize the secretary to express the thanks of the board unless the board has actually expressed its thanks.