Gary Novosielski

RONR doesn't address this specific case, but presumably the ratification of the tentative agreement (T.A.) would be moved as a main motion at a meeting of the general membership, typically by the reporting member of the negotiating committee. It would probably be wise for the committee to entertain questions (Request for Information) from the membership, after providing written copies of the the contents of the T.A. Voting on approval would take place at the meeting, or at polling places and times set by rule or custom. If the motion fails, the assembly would probably recommit the matter to the committee with or without instructions. In general, there is nothing particularly unusual from a parliamentary point of view about this motion, as compared to any other. However, while it would technically be in order to amend the motion to ratify the T.A., it would not be in order to amend the T.A. itself, as it is the product of the negotiations process, having been agreed to by both sides. If, during debate, the assembly wishes to communicate desired changes, it could do so informally or move to specifically instruct the committee to return to the bargaining table to seek particular changes. Your bylaws may have specifics rules that supersede those in RONR.

I'm still looking for "Item 18". My §48 only lists 11 items that go in the minutes. Could it be that the OP is not working from the right book?

I found this passage there to be of particular interest:

That's a good question. RONR has no answer because it warns against having rules that permit mixing together of in-person and absentee voting. Yes, you're correct that the problem is in your bylaws.

Duplicate post.

We are.

RONR has no prohibition against one person holding multiple positions, but common sense should probably be allowed to prevail. For instance, having one person serve as president and vice president is probably a bad idea for reasons that should be obvious. However, some organizations explicitly provide for a position of Secretary-Treasurer, which is filled by one person. Others have been known to elect a single person to be both Secretary and Treasurer, from time to time or as a matter of custom. That is probably the most commonly seen combination. Before you try it, check your bylaws to make sure multiple offices are not forbidden. Bear in mind that someone who holds multiple offices is still just one person and has just one vote. He or she is also just one person when counting for a quorum, so check for undesired side effects with respect to the quorum language in your bylaws.

You have to amend the bylaws, using the procedure for amendment probably listed near the end of the bylaws. Motions that conflict with the bylaws are not in order, and even if passed would be null and void..

What does it say about the nominating committee in your bylaws?

Oh, yeah.

The full council is not the committee, so it makes no sense to move at the full council meeting something that could only be moved in a committee meeting. Therefore, the point of order was well taken, and the chair ruled properly. However, it would have been proper for someone to move to Discharge the committee from further consideration of <the ordinance>, and take the matter up in the full council. The motion to Discharge a Committee is covered in detail in RONR (§36).

Well, if it can't be reconsidered at all, then the rules on what happens when a motion to Reconsider is adopted would not apply. But when such a motion is adopted, it does bring the question again before the assembly.

There is no rule in RONR that prohibits committee membership by outside individuals. The question of whether committee member appointmenet falls within the powers of the president must be answered by consulting your bylaws.

It sounds like a badly written bylaw, but since that's apparently not a verbatim quote, it's hard to tell. Did nobody ever consider that there might be valid reasons for absence? DId nobody consider inserting a qualifier such as "unexcused" in the rule? In any case, until you amend it, you have to obey it.

No it's not. Adopting a motion to Reconsider brings the question of the amendment back before the assembly. It's not nullified unless, after further debate if any, it is voted down.

Okay, it's perfectly logical. But it's still wrong.

Inattention, I suppose.

One point that should be understood, however, is that a Parliamentary Inquiry addressed to the chair, while it may be informative, is merely the chair's opinion on an as-yet hypothetical situation. It is not a ruling, and therefore cannot be appealed. If members of the assembly disagree with the chair's response to a Parliamentary Inquiry, they need to wait until the chair puts that opinion into practice by a ruling (perhaps as the result of a Point of Order), and at that point raise an Appeal to what they consider an adverse ruling by the chair.

I think you meant to say an "otherwise qualified" candidate, since one who has never served on the BoD is, by definition, not qualified. This rule cannot be suspended unless something in that "..." section that was omitted allowed for suspension of the rule. If the society believes that this rule does not serve the society well, their course of action is to amend the bylaws, according to the procedure set forth in the bylaws for their own amendment.

Agreed, but the question could just as easily be rephrased as: "Is board action required to place someone in the role of Director Exempt?" Based on the language you quoted, and not having read the bylaws in their entirety, it seems to me that the only relevant factor is whether the eligible person wishes to become a D.E., or does not. There is no language suggesting that the board has the power deny such a proper request. If voting No is not an option, then voting is pointless and therefore dilatory.

RONR tells us that nominations are debatable, but doesn't give much advice about exactly how to manage this debate. But we do know that during debate, a member who has the floor may ask (through the chair) whether someone else would agree to answer a question. Note that the person is under no obligation to answer the question, but if I'm running for office I suspect I would agree to answer pretty much any reasonable question that a member might have.

It doesn't sound like the motion was validly phrased, based on your question. Motions should be drafted so as to propose a yes/no question. What was the exact language of the motion in this case? When the vote on the motion is a tie, the result is the same as if everyone voted No. But it sounds like No wasn't one of the choices; hence, the problem.

Please enter your new question as a New Topic.

In this particular case, adding it to the bylaws would be vastly preferable, since neither appointing committees nor authorizing the board are actions that are allowed without a quorum.

According to RONR, neither debate nor voting are allowed by e-mail. So if either or both are allowed in your organization, that would have to be in your bylaws.