Gary Novosielski

I agree that your organization must ultimately decide what its bylaws mean. But seeing only a paraphrase of the bylaws rather than an actual quote would make it difficult for anyone here to even offer advice on interpretation.

I think the use of the phrase "scope of the notice" tends to confuse the requirement that the business to be transacted at a special meeting must be described in the call with the requirement that certain motions require previous notice of what motions will be moved, and which can sometimes (but not always) create "scope" issues. I agree that a point of order can be raised as you said but I would phrase it as "out of order, as the description in the call of this meeting specified "discussion" of this matter, not voting on it." However, I agree with you and Mr. Martin on the substance, and would likely rule that such a point was not well taken.

A motion to Postpone Indefinitely would be in order, and would test whether the assembly had any stomach to continue. If such a motion failed, soliciting additional suggestions would probably be advisable.

If the citation refers to a single line, [ l. 23 ] If multiple lines, [ ll. 23-27 ] Note the duplicated l, indicating the plural.

Nothing in that language permits the Board to prevent an Annual meeting except by rescheduling it. So there does not appear to be any way that there could now be no meeting date scheduled. If they pass a resolution that does not contain a new date, that is not a valid resolution, and the most recent date that was adopted by the board remains the date of the meeting. The members should meet on that date and, if a quorum is present, hold their elections, whether the president show up or not. If a quorum is not present, those present may set a date for an adjourned meeting at which a quorum may be expected to be achievable.

I would add that even if the chair's actions to end-run around the requirements for a meeting to be properly called are upheld by a ruling and possible appeal, your state may have an Ethics Commission or similar body by another name, with the power to investigate complaints by individual members or even individual private citizens and to issue rulings with the force of law. Your board attorney, who properly represents the board, not the president, should presumably give you correct advice on this matter, but if you feel (perhaps understandably) uncomfortable seeking advice from that source, does your state have a School Boards Association that your board would presumably be a member of? If so they might have an attorney on call who would be knowledgeable on what your options are.

If your bylaws grant the board "full power and authority between meetings of the membership" then that includes the power to fill vacancies, and by extension the power to accept the resignation that would create the vacancy. If the bylaws do not contain that provision, and are otherwise silent on the matter, then the group who elects people to that office is the group who may accept the resignation and elect a replacement for the unexpired remainder of the term--presumably in your case that would be the general membership

And how do we know at this point that you will be the presiding officer. Are you the secretary? If so, see Mr. Brown's post above which lays out the proper procedure if the President and Vice President are both absent. The president cannot designate someone in advance, and absent some provision in your bylaws, neither does RONR. It is worth noting that even if your bylaws did specify a position of 2nd VP, from your question it appears that this person was never elected and simply crowned 2VP by the president. I can't seem to identify anything that you have quoted the president as saying which is actually supported by the rules in RONR.

The term does not appear anywhere in RONR. In my experience it is used to indicate a member that represents the entire general assembly rather than a specific subset of constituents.

But if previous notice was not given, which I think is in doubt from the facts presented, would that not be a continuing breach? (Despite what my location says, I'm currently in the high Andes of Peru¹ and did not pack my Book. Yes, I know that's no excuse.) __________ ¹ seriously

Well, as a former PTSA officer, I'm quite certain the district president is also wrong. But that's beside the point. Even if it were okay to have the board vote electronically, the point is that the board is not empowered to elect anyone, much less themselves. The vote must take place at a properly-called meeting of the general membership at which a quorum is present. And notice of the meeting should state that elections will be held.

The permission to speak other than in debate would break no rule if the assembly approves, which is within its general right to control of the hall. If a majority wishes to hear from a non-member other than in debate, it does not need to suspend any rule to do so. But there is a rule that non-members may not speak in debate, so suspension of the rules by a 2/3 vote would be required in that case. And it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that non-members may not vote, so this rule is not suspendible at all. Edited to add: Since all these principles are contained in the Book, the fact that we can't find explicit language that says "non-members may speak by majority vote" does not mean it's "not in there."

It is a distinction without a (significant) difference. Since there are two offices to be filled, they should be done in the order in which they appear in the bylaws, typically president and then VP. But if VP is filled first, and becomes president immediately there is no longer a vacancy in the presidency, so a second vote for VP would be required. In any case, the first person named will end up being president, and the second will be VP.

Just to be clear, we are saying that the chair does not have the authority to change the time limit on speeches. If your bylaws are silent on this limit, RONR sets it at 10 minutes per speech, and limits the number of speeches a member may make on a given question to two, and the second of those two may only be made after everyone who wishes to has spoken once. The chair does have the authority (and duty) to enforce these limits in order to move the meeting along. Changing the limits would require a vote by the assembly itself.

Certainly not!

This is not a nomination and amounts to an unsupportable stretch of an inapplicable rule. It also is an attempt to limit the membership's ability to make its own decisions which goes against the basic principles of RONR.

No worries.

If the rules in RONR apply, amendments would be in order, as they are on main motions in general. Are you sure you're worried that someone will try to amend the motion, or are you worried that such an effort would succeed? If an effort to amend the motion cannot be turned away by a vote, what confidence do you have that the main motion would pass at all? Is this expected to be a nail-bitingly close vote? I hope before calling a new pastor you have an expectation of strong majority support. And if you have that, why would you worry about hostile amendments? Just debate against them and vote them down, if they occur at all. In general, you are much better off getting what you want through debate, discussion, and persuasion than by finding a parliamentary trick to thwart the will of those who disagree with you. People who are denied the opportunity to offer and debate an amendment, even one with no hope of passing, are much more likely simply to vote No on the main motion, if that's their only opportunity to express their concerns. This is not parliamentary procedure, this is politics.

But perhaps no tricker than instead of amending the motion, simply voting it down.

I think the FAQ predates RONRIB, but yes, many of the questions and answers in that Toastmasters doc are lifted from the RONR FAQ word for word.

Ah yes. I remember now. (Still not a fan.)

Good, but the actual abbreviation, among parliamentarians for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is RONR. Sorry for the repetition. For some reason messages can be edited but not deleted. Ah, the mysteries of the Forum.

And strictly prohibited unless your bylaws explicitly allow it. (And still a bad idea if they do.)

or "Hearest thou"

=deleted=