Gary Novosielski

Well, if the rules in RONR apply, the agenda must be approved if it is to be binding upon the assembly, but having not read your bylaws I can't know whether there is some rule making it binding without that vote, which is the case in some organizations. You don't say who is writing the agenda and who is posting it. But RONR says if it's not approved it's not binding.

Well, that rule is not found in RONR, so this forum won't be familiar with its application. If it is the duty of the chair to declare these vacancies, you could try raising a point of order that the chair has failed to do so, or simply adopt a motion directing the chair to do so. But a lot depends on what your bylaws say, since this process is somewhat at variance with the rules in RONR.

If an agenda is mandated by your bylaws, then that supersedes the use of the standard order of business.

The Standard Order of Business does not contemplate the use of an agenda at all. Business is simply brought up in the specified order. It is likely that the chair will have a memo listing the items of business scheduled for that meeting, but such a memo is not binding and so does not require adoption by the assembly. Yes, if there are hearings of the public or of general members, that could be added as a new item, if the idea is to put it early in the meeting, something akin to a committee report. Or, if it is desirable to put it later in the meeting it could be scheduled during Good of the Order/General Good and Welfare/Open Forum, which is an optional heading at the end of the Standard Order, and would not require any special rule of order to accomplish.

Without a meeting there is no moving, seconding, debating, or voting. So meetings are only required if you want to do something.

If I understand Dan's position, he's drawing a distinction between a minority of a particular size, and one of variable size depending upon the number of positions open, the inclination of the minority to work as a team, the barometric pressure and the phase of the moon. I concur. If I were in the chair I would probably simply require a two-thirds vote to suspend the rules, and note that, if appealed from, the matter would be decided by a majority vote, which protects no minority at all.

If these minutes have not yet been (read and) approved at the subsequent meeting, then when approval becomes pending you can offer a correction (essentially an amendment) to the draft minutes, striking whatever language was included that you believe did not really take place. The minutes should contain the exact text of the resolution as adopted. If there is disagreement on corrections, a majority vote will decide the question. If these minutes were already approved, you can make a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (§35) to correct the minutes. This motion: requires a second; is debatable; is amendable; and for passage requires any one of the following: a two-thirds vote; a majority vote if previous notice is given; or a majority of the entire membership.

Presuming the Secretary is a member, absolutely.

The power to appoint carries with it the power to remove, but I believe the power to appoint subject to approval means that the power to remove is also subject to approval.

No, the question is simply whether everything in RONR is in RONR. It is the gospel truth that it contains everything it contains. Given that, if an organization has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, then with the standard exceptions, it governs and is binding upon the organization in all cases to which it may be applied. The rules must be followed, strong suggestions should be followed, and the remaining words, to the wise, are sufficient. The Chair need do no such thing. The chair only needs to show that the burden, which remains squarely upon the doubter of the quorum, has not been met, and is no longer timely, and therefore the presumption should be that a quorum was present. The assembly should agree, in the absence of "clear and convincing" evidence. Furthermore, that is not the way the question is actually put, but if it were, it would change nothing. The term "clear and convincing evidence" is a fairly objective term, and reasonably well defined as such things go, meaning that the party making the assertion can demonstrate that the assertion is reasonably certain or at least highly probable. It is a more stringent standard than a mere "preponderance of the evidence," but less stringent than "beyond a reasonable doubt." Merely saying that one recalls that a quorum was not present is not sufficient, and does not shift the burden to anyone else.

🙂 Yes we are all familiar with the phenomenon of things falling into the "not hole". 🕳️

This suggests that electronic voting is prohibited.

Again, the information concerning a quorum is not required to be in the minutes and its omission from the minutes is not improper in any way, although it is your opinion that it should be there. I have no objection to your having an opinion and expressing it, as I often do myself. But I do make a conscious effort when answering questions to state what RONR says on a topic and, if I feel the need to stray beyond that, to clearly identify my opinions as my own. In my experience, that is the common practice of the regulars here. I'm not saying I achieve that goal each and every time, but I do try to keep it in mind, as it comports best with the purpose of the forum.

See: 61:13 Although the chair has no authority to impose a penalty or to order the offending member removed from the hall, the assembly has that power. It should be noted in this connection that in any case of an offense against the assembly occurring in a meeting, there is no need for a formal trial provided that any penalty is imposed promptly after the breach (cf. 23:5), since the witnesses are all present and make up the body that is to determine the penalty. I think I am safe in saying that four months later is other than promptly.

Again, RONR disagrees with you. See: 48:6 The use by the secretary of a recording device can be of great benefit in preparing the minutes, but a transcription from it should never be used as the minutes themselves.

I'm curious why you believe the chair should rule the point well taken. What possible justification can there be to overturn a three-year-old election?

Clearly or not, it isn't me you disagree with, it's RONR. See the sample minutes at 48:8 and note that there is no notation of a quorum being present. The only mention of attendance is the fact that the president and secretary are present. Yet the assumption that a quorum is present is perfectly valid. Regarding burden of proof, see 40:12, which says in relevant part: Because of the difficulty likely to be encountered in determining exactly how long the meeting has been without a quorum in such cases, a point of order relating to the absence of a quorum is generally not permitted to affect prior action; but upon clear and convincing proof, such a point of order can be given effect retrospectively by a ruling of the presiding officer, subject to appeal (24). As was explained to me when I was a newbie here, this forum seeks to inform visitors what RONR says, not what we think it should have said.

While a video or audio recording could aid in the preparation of the minutes, the recording is not the minutes, and so does not serve as an official record of how someone voted.

I'm afraid you are pretty far off base. RONR has no requirement that the presence of a quorum must be documented in the minutes. If there was not a quorum, that fact would be noted in the minutes, if only to explain the fact that no business was conducted. And the burden of proof is solely on the party claiming a lack of a quorum, not on the chair or anyone else. Without "clear and convincing proof" that a quorum was not present, any point of order to that effect is not well taken.

I'm not sure you have it quite right yet. There is no need for you to raise a point of order, since you are not alleging that rules were broken. There is apparently a member, not the chair, who is complaining about the election three years ago. Unless this member raises a point of order he has no right to complain how things were handled. If he complains during a meeting his remarks should be ruled out of order. If he does raise a point of order, the chair should rule the point not well taken, as it is stunningly untimely, and no continuing breach exists at this point. In the unlikely event that the chair rules the point well taken, you would then raise an Appeal, which requires a second, is debatable to a limited extent, and to overrule the chair's decision requires a majority in the negative to the question: "Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?"

No, RONR will not have an answer to your question, since it is, at this point a legal matter. Check with your board attorney for advice on how to proceed.

Meh. 🥱

If the rules in RONR apply, individual members may not prefer charges against other members, which can only be done by an investigatory committee. So if you have custom rules on discipline you must follow those, and if you do not, you must follow the ones in RONR Chapter XX, which prohibits this practice. But presuming someone is properly found guilty of some charge, the vote threshold will usually be at least a majority and in some cases a two-third vote, depending on the penalty.

The body that is meeting sets the rules for this sort of thing, by majority vote. RONR neither permits nor prohibits the practice. The board controls its own meetings. But apart from RONR, there are state laws that vary widely from state to state about recording people who have or have not not consented or are or are not not made aware of the recording, which is a legal matter beyond the scope of RONR.

The member will be disappointed to learn that if the rules in RONR apply, even if he were right that the nomination of officers was somehow incorrect, his remedy clock ran out three years ago. First of all, complaining is not a form of objection recognized by RONR. In fact, complaining about rulings is not even allowed except by the raising of a Point of Order or Appeal. And a point of order about nominations three years ago is beyond untimely. It is positively superannuated—and therefore not well taken. Point this person toward RONR 12th ed. 23:5 Timeliness Requirement for a Point of Order. And ignore any subsequent complaints.