Gary Novosielski

Oh, It wouldn't be the only place in RONR where the reason for a given rule is explained; that happens in many places. But that's not to be taken as license to ignore the rule simply because you don't, or do, understand the consequences. It's the chair's job to keep that from happening. And if the assembly acts inadvisably, and finds themselves in a pickle, I certainly wish them the best of luck.

Did you or anyone object at the time? If nobody objects to a member reading letters or other papers, then it's presumed everyone consents to the practice. However, there is no reason the minutes would include the contents of the letter. When the minutes are up for approval next meeting, and if the draft minutes include it, you may certainly offer a correction to strike the contents of the letter from the minutes. The minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said, and certainly not what was read. I believe the fact that the letter was anonymous supports the view that it shouldn't have been read in the first place, but that's me; I'm not aware of any specific rule on that in RONR. In any case, that ship has sailed.

RONR prohibits proxies to the greatest extent permissible under the law. Your bylaws are free to set rules for the use of proxies, but I'm concerned by the phrase "we allow them". If that's done under an explicit bylaws provision or regulatory mandate, then fine. If the President sent out these notices on behalf of the board, presumably the board approved the action. Since RONR has no rules allowing proxies, any questions on their use would have to be found in your bylaws. It is up to your organization to interpret the rules in the bylaws.

As has been pointed out, board members are considered officers. Do your bylaws say they aren't? RONR does have rules about conduct that would be injurious to the good name of the organization. But the rules in RONR are superseded by the rules in your bylaws. While you're checking your bylaws, make sure you know the procedures for a removal of an officer from their office, and the possibly different rules for expelling a member completely. There might be different requirements. If your bylaws were silent on either of those, you could use the rules in RONR Chapter XX, but I don't think you will find them to be any less cumbersome.

Well, you'll probably need to research how it happened, since that will undoubtedly figure heavily in what the appropriate remedy will be.

The number of abstentions is not a factor. But the motion can be renewed (moved again) at the next meeting. It would be done under New Business. Since it was fully disposed of at the previous meeting, it was not in any sense Unfinished Business. It would certainly not be done before Reading and Approval of Minutes, which is typically the first item of business.

No, the ship will have sailed on that option by the next meeting. But the motion can simply be renewed (by anyone).

There are methods available to delay the consideration of a motion if the assembly feels more information is needed. One way is to Postpone the motion to the next meeting; another is to Refer it to a committee. Or it can simply be voted down, and presented again when more supporting information is available. If the assembly chose not to use them, then I don't see any violation of the rules here. Unfortunately, the rules in RONR do not prohibit members from deciding to do inadvisable things.

Oh, absolutely. Any indication that I believe the situation to be other-than-murky, was unintentional.

I think p. 221, l. 5 (item 3.) applies, considered in the light of p. 219, ll.17-20. It is not completely clear to me that a scheduled adjournment is in fact an Order of the Day. We learn on p. 222, l. 22 that an Order of the Day, when proceeded to, is "invariably" a main motion that becomes pending. Yet when the hour of adjournment arrives, a motion to Adjourn does not become the pending question; adjournment is simply announced by the chair. Still, if the assembly wishes then to extend the meeting, it does so by Setting Aside the Orders of the Day. So, is an adjournment with a fixed time an Order of the Day, or not? Is it in the nature of a Special Order? A General Order that has been set for a particular hour? Something else? I welcome opinions. If it is an Order of the Day, then I submit that it should interrupt a member who has the floor, whether as a result of a Call for the Orders of the Day, or simply a result of a diligent chair, as described ibid. p. 219, upon noting that the hour has arrived.

Well, it sure ain't considered "agreeing to vote." I think the confusion may have resulted from your earlier statement that you apologized and asked to remain on the board. The president could be excused for assuming that it was within his power, or that of the board, to grant that request. And so he raised the question of whether you should be allowed to remain on the board---essentially on whether to accept your resignation. It would have been better if instead of asking to be allowed on the board, you had simply stated that, as your resignation had not yet been accepted, you were withdrawing it. If your request can properly be considered a withdrawal, then you are still a member. If it is not, then the president has already placed your resignation before the board, and even though that was not resolved at the time, it would be too late to withdraw it. Your best bet at this point is to take the position that the letter of apology was effectively a withdrawal of your resignation because you expressed in it your intention to remain on the board, which you had the right to do at the time. In that case, there is no action required by the board, and no action required by the president to "accept" your withdrawal. Prior to acceptance, a resignation can be withdrawn unilaterally without permission.

Other than agreeing with Mr. Martin regarding what's in order, I'd say yes, that's the general idea. But in my view, I think when 4:30 arrives, and someone is speaking, this would properly interrupt the speaker. I would say something like: "The time for adjournment has arrived. Accordingly, <pause> if there is no motion to extend the meeting, <long pause> the meeting <hover gavel> is adjourned. <Gavel>" And be prepared for a barely-under-the-wire allowable-at-adjournment motion. Should the motion to extend be made and adopted, (and if someone was interrupted): "The motion is adopted, and the meeting is extended until time. (Mr S. has the floor.)"

I believe that the special rule of order, if it does not specifically apply to appeals, would supersede only the general rule in RONR that limits speeches to two in number and ten minutes in duration. It seems to me that the rule applying to appeals is a specific rule which should take precedence over a general rule, especially since it is more restrictive than the special rule, which itself is more restrictive than the rule in RONR. I doubt that the intent of the special rule was to tighten restrictions in some cases and relax them in others. But I agree that ultimately, your organization is responsible for interpreting the special rule, and for amending it if it is ambiguous.

What do the bylaws say about filling vacancies in the office of president in particular? General vacancy-filling rules do not apply in this situation. So, unless the bylaws specifically set out the procedure you've described, that's not how it would work.. If the rules in RONR apply, the VP becomes president the instant the office of president becomes vacant, which creates a vacancy in the office of vice president, and it is that vacancy that gets filled in the normal way. The new president serves out the unexpired remainder of the presidential term.

No. RONR requires only one second at most. RONR does permit more than one second if it is desired to have an excuse for several people to make a seconding speech after nominating some candidate at, say, a political convention. But in the normal course of business, nominations are among the class of items that require no second at all.

A resolution is nothing but a motion, but presented as a more formal written document, often containing the reasoning for its proposal in a series of Whereas clauses, followed by the word RESOLVED, and then some wording that could just as well have been preceded by the words "I move..." There is no effective difference, unless the aim is to read the resolution at some ceremony or to frame it, or both. From a parliamentary point of view, the two are equivalent.

I think the language is already quite clear that such a motion is not in order, and for that exact reason--that if it were allowed confusion might occur. Therefore, to avoid confusion, it is not allowed. Edited to add; I could be wrong but I can't think of an instance where RONR specifies a two-part rule that prohibits something in part A, and then specifies in part B what to do if part A is ignored. If a society were disposed toward breaching part A, why would we expect them to observe part B?

I can tell you that in my experience with a variety of groups using a variety of rules, guidelines, customs, and fits of caprice, I have made myself a solemn promise never to join another group that was not committed to the use of Robert's Rules. I don't have that kind of time to waste.

If I'm reading the question correctly, the second budget was drafted by the board, and sent to and approved by the membership. I don't see a need for any further steps.

But I'd like to reiterate that it would, in my view and, I suspect, that of others, be a Bad Idea absent a very good reason (an example of which I have been unable to imagine).

Are we discussing a real situation in which a motion to reaffirm was actually moved and seconded, and not ruled out of order? Because i would hope in real life the chair would rule the motion out of order. I believe that if the motion failed it would not create an ambiguity, since a failed motion upholds the status quo, while a passed motion "reaffirms". Thus the motion accomplishes nothing in either case. Which is precisely why it should be ruled out of order at the outset.

Yes. "Questioning" is a slightly more polite way of saying that you know someone's motions. But not polite enough to be acceptable.

Calling a member to order is a kind of point of order.

If nobody raises a point of order, or if a majority lets them get away with it, then they stand a good chance of doing so.

Then what are we to make of the footnote on p. 643?: Or the exception to decorum on p.344, ll. 1-5: (emphasis added) Note well the use of the word "or" in the above citation, confirming the idea that a motion to censure and a motion related to discipline are not necessarily the same thing. I don't disagree that "it stands to reason" but I've used that phrase in my attempts to interpret the rules, and have been bitten more than once.