Gary Novosielski

The consequence would have been raising of a Point of Order that adjournment was not in order followed by a ruling by the chair, which, if unfavorable would be subject (with a second) to Appeal and a majority vote.

At this late date, a point of order would no longer be timely.  You could introduce a motion to censure (reprimand) the chair for violating the rights of a member, but it would have no other effect than to express displeasure, and you'd need majority support to pass it. 

Edited to add:

See the third descriptive characteristic of Adjourn:  [RONR 11th ed. page 228, line 9.]    "3.  Is out of order when another has the floor."

I think it's safe to assume that it could be used for either.

On 11/25/2016 at 1:46 PM, Shmuel Gerber said:

The subsequent editions do indeed refer to both types of proposal. You just have to know how to properly read those dots in "to suspend the rules and agree to [that is, to adopt without debate or amendment] the resolution . . ."

 If not, that rule could easily be suspended with the motion to Suspend the Rules that interfere with Suspending the Rules and agreeing to the the resolution _________, and to suspend those rules, and to agree to the resolution.

The motion to Adjourn is out of order when another has the floor.   [RONR 11th ed. page 228, line 9.]

Unless your time had expired, the chair acted improperly.   In fact, even if your time had expired, the chair acted improperly, since he should first have told you that your time had expired, and then recognized the person seeking to move to adjourn, which it sounds like he did not do.

The rule that a motion is out of order if it conflicts with the bylaws does not apply to motions in the nature of bylaws amendments.  

It's not just "doing harm" that's the criterion.  It's doing harm to the organization.  Even though an insurance company may be paying, a claim can raise the premium, causing financial "harm" to the organization.  I'd say that the organization has the right to protect itself from revealing information about the case beyond what is required.  If the plaintiff or claimant was a member of the board, and the situation was complicated, I'd have a problem with that state of affairs.

If the claimant was a member of the general membership, and the board conducted it's its deliberations in executive session, and the situation was straightforward, there would be substantially less of a problem.  

Clearly a plaintiff has a pecuniary interest not common (in fact, in opposition) to other members, and should not vote.

Depending on the facts, I can foresee some cases where doing nothing would be appropriate, and others where removal from membership, or suspension from membership until final disposition of the case, would be within the rights of the society to consider.

Edited to add:

 Perhaps my views are colored by my experience on a publicly elected school board, where among the statutory qualifications for membership were that the candidate or member shall not be a party to any lawsuit against or contract with the board.  It seems a good rule to me and I think the self-preservation language in RONR is flexible enough to allow for enforcing something like that when the facts appear to require it.

I know you know that, and you know I know that, but I wanted to be sure the OP had given it some thought.  

Many people come in with the idea that the Board can do whatever it wants, including sticking its nose into membership decisions at will, vetoing or reversing them, and similar shenanigans.  They're surprised to find the the Board has no powers beyond what the bylaws provide.  

In RONR there is no such thing as a tie-breaker   Since no one got a majority, no one was elected, the election is incomplete, and the chair would announce the results of the previous ballot and conduct a second (or subsequent) ballot for that office, not dropping any candidates unless some withdraw.  

You keep voting until someone receives a majority, i.e. more votes than all other candidates combined.

On 11/22/2016 at 0:27 PM, Sherry said:

So doing NOTHING is also appropriate ??

 

Doing nothing is, by definition, abstaining from everything.

But there is no rule in RONR that requires a member to abstain from voting on a motion when he was not present during debate, nor is there a rule that prevents a member from offering or voting on corrections to the minutes of a meeting at which he was not present.  There is not even any strong suggestion that he should refrain from doing so.

9 hours ago, jstackpo said:

Which can put someone in a logical bind:  If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote.  If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue.

The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order.  Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

Actually, he motion would be along the lines of:  to Suspend the Rules and Pass a motion to paint the clubhouse taupe.    ...which is not debatable, not divisible, and requires a 2/3 vote to pass the motion.  If the vote fails, the motion is defeated.

Maybe it can't, but the rules about that would be in your bylaws.  Are the standing committees established in your bylaws, or were they established by ordinary main motions?  By whom?  The board?  The general membership/

2 hours ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

What if J is making offensive personal references when speaking at the meeting (see RONR 11th ed., p. 647)?

Ah, what are the odds?

On 11/17/2016 at 3:50 PM, Guest Steven Hogue said:

How many times can you bring back a motion to change the ByLaws of an Association once its been defeated (by a narrow margin) the first time.  For instance, can it be brought back at the next Board meeting without any substantive change to the motion's text?

Yes, it can be renewed (made again) presuming that the rules for amendment (such as previous notice, if applicable) are complied with.  

I'm not sure I understand why the Board would be involved with amending the bylaws, but perhaps you have some custom rule on that?

On 11/17/2016 at 4:56 PM, Guest Ritakenny said:

J

No rule in RONR prohibits it.

5 hours ago, Guest Harper said:

Thank you Mr. Honemann and Mr. Huynh. So in practical terms, what does raising a 'point of order' about the new motion mean? Does it mean, for instance, that the previous motion must be addressed (amended, rescinded, whatever) first, before action can be taken on the new motion? And the chair, of course, makes this determination? Thank you.

The chair could simply rule the motion out of order (subject to Appeal), and then move on to the next item of business.

But a more helpful chair might help the mover to craft a proper motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.  If not, there is nothing stopping the mover from figuring out how to properly phrase the motion, and doing so.

4 hours ago, Guest W. Watson said:

My organization has no Article on Discipline in its bylaws but has adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority via its Bylaws. Our bylaws do, however, create a disciplinary committee call the Infraction Committee and gives it standing authority to perform confidential investigations/hearing on members/affiliate units who have been alleged to have violated rules. Our organization has adopted a standing rule requiring the Infractions Committee to perform all confidential investigations/hearing within 30 days of a request. Recently, an affiliate Unit violated a standing rule that has been approved in one of our manual. The violation was referred by a member to our Infraction committee for a confidential investigation.  Six months have already passed and the Infraction Committee has not presented its report to the assembly. What should the assembly do now? Can it discharge the standing committee from a function that the bylaws specifically give to that standing committee and take up the matter itself? What are its options?  

Yes it can, and if the committee has missed a deadline for reporting (as seems to be the case here), the motion to discharge requires only a majority vote, not the usual 2/3.

Since the committee is a standing committee and may have more than one matter under consideration, the motion should identify which matter the commmittee is to be discharged from further considering.

4 hours ago, Guest Toby said:

The resignation was not accepted due to sympathetic votes to have the board member stay. So if the resignation is not accepted, the board member remains on board correspondence etc until their term is up or until a new motion to accept the resignation is accepted? The position the board member is resigning from is the treasurer and the club needs a treasurer. Thanks.

If a majority of members are willing to put sympathy above the fact that the club needs a functioning treasurer, it might be worth renewing the motion (making it again) at the next meeting and pointing out the facts in debate.

3 hours ago, Dottie said:

So it has been passed that we go non-smoking on December 31st. We think smokers (who lost 55 to 15) will bring it up again this month to go non-smoking just during mealtime. This has been on the agenda in various forms since August . The chair is asking me how we move forward since the 2/3 majority has decided to go non-smoking on the 31st. Thus my question can a member move that we set the conversation aside for some period of time?

A motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted requires for passage (a) a 2/3 vote, (b) a majority vote if previous notice was given at the prior meeting or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a majority vote of the entire membership, any of which will suffice.

If the smokers lost 55 to 15, there seems little chance that such a motion would carry.  If it is moved, a motion for the Previous Question i.e, cutting off debate, which requires a 2/3 vote, should easily pass, bringing the motion to an immediate vote and presumably immediate defeat.

In other words, it's usually much easier to simply and swifty defeat an unpopular motion than it is to invent complicated ways of preventing it from being brought up.

See §35.

The motion requires (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice.

And if there is no Secretary (present) any member can call the meeting to order and preside over the election of a chairman pro-tem.

On 11/14/2016 at 0:12 PM, JerryRig said:

We have a standing committee of 4 members.  Two of the members are not present.  Because a committee requires a majority, is 2 out of 4 an acceptable quorum?

No. A majority means more than half.

My hope that GuestXIV was more interesting in learning the facts than in arguing about them is fading.

Also find out what he thinks the effect of Censure would be.  According to RONR, censure can only be done by a majority vote of the body imposing censure, and the effect of censure is to let the person being censured know that the body doesn't like what he did.  There is no other discipline imposed.

Censure is essentially a slap on the wrist, if you ignore the fact that they can't actually slap your wrist.

On 11/14/2016 at 7:19 PM, Guest Alan said:

Should a CLerk record minutes and present them to all the membership at the next meeting for additions and corrections or approval?

Our church has quarterly meetings. The bylaws say that the Executive Board, who are three members of the assembly, reviews the Clerk's minutes at their meeting a few days later and thus get activities under way. The Clerk allows the board to edit in addition to review and only presents the minutes that the board has approved and does not identify any board members' changes when she reads minutes ninety days later. Is such editing consistent with Robert Rules?

One alternative process would be for the Clerk to create draft minutes for all the members including the board to reference. If the board elects to work from altered minutes, then it could propose changes in language at the next meeting of the assembly.

It's impossible to tell, based on a paraphrase of a fraction of the bylaws, what is going on.  Whatever rules are actually in the bylaws will supersede any rules in RONR that conflict with them.  If they say the board approves the minutes, then there's no need to get approval from the membership at all.  if they say the board reviews the minutes, I'm not sure what that means.  Your organization has to interpret its own bylaws.  If they board isn't empowered to approve the minutes, then the secretary will present them for approval at the next meeting.

In general under the rules in RONR the secretary is not prevented from seeking or getting advice from anyone before finalizing the draft minutes, and is under no obligation to follow that advice.  Perhaps your bylaws have some rule that allows the board to advise the secretary, but I can't tell from here whether the secretary has to accept these suggestions.

If the minutes are presented for approval at the next meeting, you may not know what changes the board has or hasn't been involved in, but you presumably would know if the minutes are correct, and if for whatever reason they are not, you can offer corrections.

On 11/14/2016 at 9:20 PM, Guest Lauren said:

When sending out the notice for an AGM, you send out a copy of last year's minutes. Are you required to send copies of reports that were presented at the previous year's AGM?

No   And for that matter, you're not required to send out a copy of last year's minutes.   You can if you like.   

If you're sending out last years minutes so they can be approved at this year's meeting, that's a practice frowned upon by RONR.  Better to appoint and empower a committee (or the board if you have one)  to read, correct, and approve the minutes of the annual meeting as soon as they're available. Waiting an entire year is just a bad idea.

22 hours ago, janita said:

Is it appropriate for the President of an Association to also be the Chair or Co-Chair of one of the Standing Committees of the Association.   In our Association, the Committees report to the Board and make recommendations to the Board.   There is nothing in our by-laws on this subject.  

And to be clear, you do not have co-chairs (or co-anythings) unless they are explicitly authorized in your bylaws.  You can have a vice-chair.