Gary Novosielski

Okay, in the words of the immortal Tom Lehrer, "If anyone disagrees with anything I say, I am quite prepared not only to retract it, but to deny under oath that I ever said it." I had not taken 56:7 into account, and stand corrected. Er, I mean, that's what I meant to say. 😉

Perhaps unsurprisingly, No.

Yes, RONR speaks to such a procedure by prohibiting it, unless otherwise provided in the bylaws. The rules in RONR prohibit conducting business, except at a properly called or regularly scheduled meeting at which a quorum is present, i.e. together physically in the same space.

Please ask new questions by starting a new topic.

How large is this body? Does the chair intend to move this motion at the meeting, or only to have it on the agenda, for someone else to move?

If the small board rules in RONR apply, the chair can participate fully in the proceedings of the board, including making motions. But under those rules, seconds are not required at all.

No, I don't think so. I disagree with Mr. Katz. If the Federation bylaws do not mention proxy voting, but the Federation has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority, then by doing so it has prohibited proxy voting in its bylaws. [See RONR (12th ed.) 45:71] Therefore, the Individual Association may not adopt any conflicting provisions in its own bylaws.

I don't see how either. I assumed the minutes would record who actually made the motion in the meeting, and would not record who requested the change to the agenda prior to the meeting.

RONRIB is not a suitable work to be used as a parliamentary authority. Refer to RONRIB (3rd ed.) Page 7: Because this book is only an introduction and guide to RONR, it is not itself suitable for adoption by any organization as its “parliamentary authority”—the book of rules the group names to govern its meeting procedure. If any organization designates this book as its parliamentary authority, it actually adopts the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised. So, your parliamentary authority is currently RONR 12th edition. You should get a copy, because there are many citations in RONRIB that will refer to to the official rule in RONR. It would be wise to amend your bylaws to use the recommended language: The rules contained in the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised shall govern the Society in all cases to which they are applicable and in which they are not inconsistent with these bylaws and any special rules of order the Society may adopt. (The word Society, which appears twice, can of course be replaced by something more appropriate to how your organization refers to itself.) There's no problem in using other books to better understand Robert's Rules, but it should be understood that the actual rule can reside in only one place. Currently that one place is RONR 12th ed. RONRIB and the Zimmerman book (I have not read the latter) may be useful, but not binding, if push comes to shove. Dagnabbit, Dan beat me by 10 seconds.

Well that changes things substantially, and it's unlikely that RONR's rules regarding elections and vacancies will apply in their default form.

Yes, I agree with your interpretation. The partial-term vacancy only existed until the next election. In some societies it could be filled for the entire unexpired remainder of the original term, but your bylaws require an election at the next opportunity, whichever is sooner. So the board is incorrect, and the appointment was not proper. I believe this constitutes a continuing breach and so a Point of Order would still be timely so long as the improperly appointed person remains in place. Since an election was required but never done, what you have at this point is an "incomplete election", which should be completed at the earliest opportunity. Fortunately, it appears that your bylaws allow this to be done at a special meeting called for this purpose. Be sure adequate prior notice of the election meeting is given in compliance with any prior notice time frame requirements in your bylaws. Stay tuned for other (or concurring) opinions.

No.

It refers to the proposed resolution to insert some clarification into a previously adopted agreement.

Does the language in the bylaws refer to a ballot vote? If so, a ballot vote is mandatory. If not, the assembly may choose another method. If the rules in RONR apply, the nominating committee will, at some point, report its list of nominees to the membership, either at the annual meeting or some prior meeting of the membership. After the report is received, the chair must call for any additional nominations from the floor. But if at that point there are still four nominees for four seats, and if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, the chair simply declares that the four nominees are "elected by acclamation". There is no show of hands or other voting.

I don't know. I don't even know if you are a member. It does sound like a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Items on an agenda typically do not identify who, if anyone, requested their inclusion, but when the meeting occurs, if you are permitted to attend, you can see who moves it or, if you have access to the minutes, you can find the identity of the actual mover there.

RONR 12th edition has no such restriction (nor, to my knowledge, did any prior edition). However it is a common provision of most states' Open Public Meeting ("Sunshine") laws, where members—especially a quorum of members—of a public body, are restricted in one or more ways from "meeting" outside of a meeting. For legal advice, consult your attorney.

Well, I suppose that a policy not to negotiate with terrorists can, strictly speaking, be complied with by total capitulation.

It also depends on how the committee has been charged. In the default case, committees have no power to act independently, and only make recommendations to their parent body. In that case, the allocation of $10,000 to a committee would merely instruct them on the upper limit which the total cost of those recommendations may not exceed. Or perhaps the target amount which they are instructed to treat as a goal. It depends.

Well, if the intent was to give no weight to whether it was right or wrong, then I suppose you're on the right track.

I don't know what sort of "council" this is. It appears that council members are elected, but by whom? Why would the council approve itself, if its members are elected? The fact that there is a "full membership" suggests that they are the ones who would do the electing. So we have a "council" of some sort that has more than four members (?) but has four open seats. There are four volunteers (nominees), and no other nominees? Was there an opportunity for additional nominations? In any case, neither a) nor b) would be proper. What do your bylaws say about electing council members? Is a ballot vote required? If so, is there an exception for uncontested seats? What do the bylaws say about nominations? How did the four volunteers get nominated? Was there a nominating committee? You'll have to provide at least a minimum amount of additional information if you want a credible answer.

It's hard to argue with that, but by a two-thirds vote one could certainly suspend it.

I'm not clear whether elections were required, and if so whether they took place.

That's true, but nothing in that thread implies that you should use an agenda concurrent with either type of order of business, either the recommended one or a customized one (intentionally avoiding the terms standard or special).

Have you in fact adopted Robert's Rules of Order as your parliamentary authority? I ask because that's not the way Committee of the Whole is described there.

I can't find it either.