Gary Novosielski

I'm sure that's not a quote, although you've put it in quotation marks. That's your interpretation of the rule which in my opinion is not a correct one. It's clear that any rule that says so-and-so always presides is in the nature of a rule of order and can be suspended. Once the presiding officer is replaced, why would that affect the motion to disaffiliate? It is the language of the rule that matters, not someone's "plain English" paraphrase of it.

Mr. Martin raises a good point. If the president is resigning in the face of potential discipline, or other situation where there is a plausible chance that there will be opposition to the acceptance of the resignation, that changes things, and the president should probably leave the chair.

Yes, and it doesn't look like we're going to get any.

I think an argument could be made that this makes the meeting improperly called. If someone was running late and then turned around and went home because of a mistaken believe that they would not be permitted to vote anyway, that's a problem.

It's strange to see these committees referred to as Governing bodies, since they are all presumed to be subordinate to the general membership.

No. Notice requirements are not rules of order, since they do not apply to the conduct of business within a meeting. But apparently that requirement could be suspended in a case of emergency.

Don't be too sure: You can still do it but it would take a 2/3 vote. Such a provision is clearly in the nature of a rule of order, and can be suspended by a 2/3 vote. See 62:12n5

"I have seen the Loch Ness Monster, and it was just a log." - Homer Simpson

Well, outside of a meeting quorum is not a well-defined concept.

I tend to think that it's not required. The fact that the chair is making motions suggests that you're using Small Board Rules, where the rules of formality and impartiality of the chair are relaxed. Also, while this is unquestionably a motion that affects the chair and no one else, I don't see the need to turn over the gavel unless there is an expectation of some debate or amendment, which is unusual. In accepting a resignation, the most common amendment is to add, after the word "accepts", the words "with regret", which seldom gives rise to debate. Just as it is proper for a chair to preside over his own (re)election, I think it's okay to put the question on his own resignation. Stay tuned for other opinions.

I read this question differently. It sounded like a mass mailing of ballots was conducted to all members, but that mailing was not carried out in the appropriate time frame. (The purpose of this time restriction is not made clear.) The question lacks many pertinent details, but the general advice on elections is that the Membership (not, say, an executive board) answers all questions that arise in the course of an election, if the rules in RONR apply. This is done by the normal method of making motions, debating them, and voting. Further, the general rule says that you obey your bylaws, and repair your mistakes in the fairest way possible.

The concept of quorum has nothing to do with how (or if) members vote. Members who are physically present count toward quorum. Quorum is required for business to be moved, debated, or disposed of in any of various ways other than voting. Yes votes, No votes, abstentions--none of those "count" toward quorum. Showing up counts. Edited to add: It strikes me as odd that you tacked this question on the end of a seven-month-old topic, apparently without reading it, since there were a number of relevant answers already there, all of them correct.

On most breaches of the rules, if you wait for the next meeting you could be out of luck. It's important to raise a Point of Order as soon as a breach is noticed, right then. But if meetings are not properly held, it could invalidate everything that was done at that meeting. Still it may be better to start slow. Do you have a designated union rep you would normally approach with a problem, who can take your concern to the next level, presumably that board? Are you the only one who has noticed this probem or are other members also concerned? There's a saying known as Hanlon's razor: "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." Is it possible that these new people are not aware that the rules in the bylaws are not optional? Are you sure there is no exception allowed in the bylaws? Are you properly distinguishing between an executive board meeting and a membership meeting? (I.e., do you have a vote at these monthly meetings?) Your answers may suggest how to proceed.

Right, and then if it is amended on first or second reading, was that amendment substantial enough that it requires two more readings. When these questions come up, everyone has an opinion, and RONR has little to say. In the typical case, not even the legislators who wrote the rules appear to know what they meant.

Well, you don't really get to specify a time with Lay on the Table. It stays there until the more urgent matter that interrupted it is finished, then someone--anyone--moves to Take From the Table. To postpone a motion to a certain time in the future, the proper motion is, not surprisingly, Postpone to a Certain Time, which can't be beyond the next regular meeting. Motions thus postponed come up automatically at the appropriate time, and are simply stated by the chair without the need for a new motion. If it were simply postponed "to the next meeting" without naming an actual time, it would be a General Order and come up under the heading Unfinished Business and General Orders.

It's not in there. Multiple readings (usually only two) are used in some state and local legislative bodies, but there's no such rule in RONR. As Mr. Martin points out, in the normal course of business the full text of a motion will be stated before debate, and again before the vote, but these are rarely called "readings" and in any case typically take place at the same meeting, not spaced out as multiple reading rules often are. In these days of instant communications, three readings, or even two, seems excessive. You might want to consider whether your bylaws need refreshing.

RONR has little to say on the operation of proxies, beyond prohibiting them to the fullest extent allowed by law. So any rules regarding their use must either be your own, or those established in whatever corporate code or other regulations apply to organizations like yours.

I don't think you are, since you are largely agreeing with what I have posted in this thread:

Sure, but unless you are seeking to operate in that zone between possibility and propriety, the two are, for practical purposes, the same, i.e., in either case: no bueno.

I mean cannot properly do so. We say that one cannot go around slapping strangers with a mackerel, although it is physically possible for one to do so, at least in the short tem.

If the rules in RONR are all that apply, then there is no audience at board meetings. Any rules that allow non-members (of the board) to attend must be your local rules, so you are pretty much free to regulate that attendance however you wish. However, I don't see any way to compel the board to answer any and all questions that the audience may pose, without authorizing waterboarding or other augmented interrogation. 😇

Well it is this scenario if the board can amend the bylaws, which I certainly did not learn in this thread. In any case, bylaws cannot violate RONR, and boards cannot violate bylaws, even if they may amend them. I would suggest that if board (except one without a society) has the power to amend the bylaws, the title board is no longer appropriate, and it should be called something else to avoid confusion since the basic premise of how organizations work would not apply. Maybe something like the Regent Council.

I must have missed something. Where do we see that this board is authorized to amend the bylaws? And even if they are, they are still not allowed to violate the bylaws, without first amending them.

Probably not. The board has no power to overturn any decision made by the general membership. Presuming these rules and regulations were adopted by the membership, the Board can't change them.

Nobody is saying that. No bylaw and, likewise, no special rule of order can ever violate RONR, because RONR yields to any bylaws provision or any special rule of order that conflicts with it. So these rules may conflict with RONR, but when they do, they win and RONR loses, and the conflict goes away.