Gary Novosielski

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.

1. No 2. No 3. No *. Yes

Perhaps, in this specific case, but the original statement is simply the general phrasing on adoption of a parliamentary authority, but omitting the reference to Special Rules of Order. In this case, since RONR itself says that it yields to both bylaws and special rules of order, I think the omission does not create an obstacle to creating special rules of order. But I agree that it would be wise to amend the statement to use the recommended language.

If it is a third edition of a slimmer volume, it sounds like it might be Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief. ? But if not, and it is a completely different work, I would only say that a textbook on parliamentary procedure is probably not a good candidate for a parliamentary authority. There is a difference between a book that is a parliamentary authority, and a book about a parliamentary authority. If you are looking for the only authorized current edition of Robert's Rules, it is called Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition. Not all books with Robert in the title are created equal.

If it had said "guidebook" instead of "authority" I might agree with you, but it is clearly stated as your parliamentary authority. It might seem like a minefield, but knowing what book to use means the mines are all clearly marked. There's nothing vague about it. The good news is that according to the rules in Robert's, small board meetings have a more relaxed set of rules that do not require the formality of larger meetings, so Robert's Rules is still your friend. If you're unfamiliar with the rules, start by buying a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief, 3rd edition. It's a good introduction to parliamentary procedure without getting overly technical. It contains citations to The (full) Book, Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 12th edition, which is at this point your actual parliamentary authority.

It sounds like you held your meeting, and the meeting is now done. "People saying things" is not a method of invalidating a meeting, if the rules in RONR apply. You might need to call another meeting to initiate disciplinary proceedings against those who refuse to carry out the will of the membership.

Actually, they do present an answer. They say that the term of office is one year. So to achieve a second term would require reëlection.