Gary Novosielski

When I open the Unread Content page, I see this: But when I try to open it, it tells me I'm not authorized. That's as may be, but then why is it shown to me?

Yes, I think that that's an awful rule that can only cause trouble. "Occasionally?" On what occasions would that rule apply? "Cannot wait?" According to whom? The person who wishes to do something that the committee probably would not approve of? And what is the role of this committee? Typically a committee can only report recommendations to its parent body, so it's hard to imagine a decision to recommend something of such import that the recommendation cannot wait for the committee to actually recommend it. Even then, it would have to wait for the next meeting of the parent body to act on the recommendation. Out of session seems pretty straightforward. I'd say it means at all times except when the committee is actually meeting--i.e., it has been called to order and has not yet adjourned.

I am the very model of contentment.

Then amend the rules to remove the ambiguity.

I'll say this one last time. You can do things however you want, Complaining that RONR doesn't get deeply involved in this area is pointless, because it does not prevent you from doing things your way either. If you like the way Webster's suggests, adopt rules to implement that system. Whenever you feel the urge to complain about the shortcomings of RONR in this area, stop, think about how, in your view, it should be done, and propose rules to implement that process. I'm pretty sure that will be a better use of your time. RONR is fairly clear, means what it says, and is very comprehensive with respect to the conduct of business. It purposely avoids getting involved with the administrative details of the organization, leaving it up to the founders and members to run things as wisdom dictates.

No, you're quite right. I even had it highlighted in my copy, apparently because I couldn't get it through my head on a prior occasion.

i dunno. Ballot vote seems like pretty much of a "how" to me.

For planning purposes, if nothing else. No other document so clearly conveys the priorities, goals, and values of an organization than an approved budget. You are free to have your budget confer as much or as little authority or limitations as your organization decides is appropriate. RONR doesn't care what decisions you reach, it only requires that you reach them in an orderly and democratic manner. The adoption of an unqualified motion to approve a budget may mean that not enough thought has gone into the process.

That depends entirely on the rules your organization has adopted, as I pointed out above. Is your treasurer authorized to write many checks if they are within the budget? If so, then No, if not, then Possibly.

The background info in that Webster's thing is a not unreasonable starting point, but your organization needs to decide how it will develop, approve, and administer its budgets for itself, by including this info in the bylaws or at least by adopting Standing Rules covering the procedures to be followed. If you have a Finance Committee, and want them to develop a draft budget, set a rule for that. If you want them to hold hearings so committees or members can influence the priorities, put that in. Some groups find that hearings can increase the likelihood that the budget, when up for adoption by the membership, won't draw a lot of amendments, since members know what to expect. It will be up to you how detailed the budget gets at the lower line-item level. I wouldn't necessarily add rules requiring that the draft be presented to the membership x-number of days in advance, unless you're sure you can meet that date--but rule or no rule I would recommend doing it, and with enough lead time that members don't feel blindsided. Like any main motion, it will be subject to amendment when it's pending, and the drafters of the budget should be prepared to answer questions and free to debate the merits of particular items. You should adopt rules regarding who can approve items for payment, as your research suggests. You can decide that all bills that comport with the budget and duly approved by a committee chair, or whomever you authorize will be paid by the Treasurer. This should be reflected in the Treasurer's duties. If you like you can limit such payments to a certain ceiling amount, requiring an individual membership vote prior to payment, even when they fall within the budget. Those are some rough outlines. If you don't feel you have a good framework of rules, task your finance committee with drawing up a draft set of rules, or where necessary bylaws amendments, that are appropriate for your organization. You don't want to hogtie yourself with rules that will bite your nether regions later on, but neither do you want to tempt or test the honesty of those entrusted with your funds. And make sure you have provisions for putting together an audit committee (or if you're a large enough outfit, hiring a CPA) to perform an annual audit of the books, including recommendations for procedural changes that may, with hindsight, be necessary. No, RONR is not a big help in this area, but it does provide the means to get these rules in place, once you've determined what your individual organization needs.

That's true for an election of officers, but not, I believe, in general.

Well, yes, but this particular question was about how it is affected by Sunshine Laws.

Yes; normally a vote is unanimous if there are no dissenting votes. So even if some members are present but abstain a vote could still be called unanimous. But it typically it would not make any difference. A vote that reaches the required threshold for passage is not enhanced in some way by being unanimous.

Nope. At a special meeting, the only matters that can be considered are those that were specifically described in the call of the meeting.

I do not think that the entire structure of the rules would crumble, or even vibrate excessively, but neither do I expect to see such a change in RONR12. 📖 There is something to be said for bringing a postponed matter again before the assembly in a state resembling, as closely as possible, the state it was in at the time it was postponed.

There is a certain irony to the bylaws provision that previous notice is required for a meeting that is defined in the bylaws. RONR does not require a "proper" call for such a meeting, so again this is a dilemma of the society's own making. I could probably be persuaded that, of the two violations, failing to meet on the appointed date was the more serious, but faced with the possibility that the meeting would be considered not properly called, I can understand why they acted as they did.

I am not a lawyer, but if I remember correctly, only the motion having the final effect would be made in public. Nearly all items in exec were considered informally, with amendments typically made by general consent, and it would be highly unlikely for a preamble to exist at all for confidential matters.. The reasons for firing someone would not be stated at all in the resolution, even if it had been in all the papers. So the minutes of executive session were usually brief, e.g. "The board discussed a matter of student discipline." Very often there was no motion arising out of the matter (perhaps one brought up by the Superintendent) since, as long as the Board concurred with the way it was being handled, there was no need for action. Often these sessions were primarily to inform the board of matters that were confidential, but for information only. There was an exception in the case of bullying accusations, which by statute required board action on each one, even if the board approved of the existing disposition.. Those were discussed in exec, and placed on the next public meeting's agenda. But they were not informative. It would say something like: "RESOLVED, that the Anytown Board of Education approves of the actions taken by the Superintendent and the information provided to the Parents/Guardian in the matter labeled S-2019-0008, details on file in the office of the Secretary." As always, your mileage may vary.

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.