Gary Novosielski

Another possibility is that Special Rules of Order were included in the Policy and Procedures manual in error, and belong in a different volume.

It's vanishingly rare for officers not to be members of the board. Check your bylaws carefully.

Before you do anything, make sure you have carefully studied the definition of Quarterly Interval in RONR. A quarterly interval can be almost four full months. Depending on the exact dates of your meetings, it's possible that at least some of your meetings may qualify. 9:7 Important rules relating to the continuance of a question from one session to the next depend on whether no more than a quarterly time interval intervenes between the two sessions. In this book, it is understood that no more than a quarterly time interval intervenes between two sessions if the second session begins at any time during or before the third calendar month after the calendar month in which the first session ends. For example, with reference to a session held in January, no more than a quarterly time interval has elapsed since the previous session if that session ended on or after October 1st of the preceding calendar year; and no more than a quarterly time interval will elapse before the next session if that session will begin on or before April 30th of the current year.

Yes.

Unless e-mail voting is provided for in your bylaws, you can't send out either one.

No, actually it is: 31 votes cast 21 Yes 10 No two-thirds ✅

I don't agree that this is necessarily a problem. The meeting can simply be treated as a polling place. If the procedures in RONR are followed, it should take care of itself.

Are you just saying that for eponymous reasons?

What dismissal? How did the president get to be president in the first place; i.e., whose votes elected the president? Under what authority did the board "dismiss" the president? Quote the rule. That would be an unusual power for a board to have. Do you have something in your bylaws that would allow it? If not, the President was not dismissed, and there's nothing to appeal. Edited to add: In the usual case, the board may not take any action that conflicts with a decision of the membership. If the membership elected the President, the board can't reverse that decision.

A problem with going beyond the meeting date, is that the meeting of the membership is where the vote is reported and the result stated by the chair. Until that happens, you just have a tellers' committee with a report in their pocket. But you also need a meeting of the membership before the vote, to authorize polling places and decide the when and where. The board does not run membership elections.

That's nonsense. The president is speaking to those in attendance, so "everyone" refers to everyone present. People not there could not possibly hear him. Blank ballots "left over" mean nothing. There is no requirement that ballots even be printed, and could simply be blank sheets of paper. In either case counting them tells you nothing. It could be that members who wished to abstain simply didn't take a ballot. The only meaningful count of ballots is how many are actually cast. This person with the opinions is apparently guilty of "motivated reasoning," where the reasons he gives are dependent upon the results he wants. Just follow the date given in the bylaws, that's the requirement approved by the membership, and the board has no power to overturn it anyway.

<nul>

An incomplete election occurs when an election is held, but for some reason not all offices to be filled were successfully filled. It could be because no majority was achieved, and repeated balloting was deadlocked, and needed to be continued at the next meeting. It could be because nobody would run for, or accept election to, a given office. It could be other reasons. But there is no option to simply decide that the election will not be held for some nebulous reasons. And even if an election was supposed to occur at a given time, but did not, it should be held as soon as possible. The door does not close because the scheduled date was missed. It's still something that must be done. If the bylaws do not mention this, RONR does. The number of people who attend the election meeting must meet the Quorum requirements, which may be less than a majority of the membership. As long as a quorum is met, the election is in order, and should be conducted. The member who claims there is some additional rule about a majority of the membership should be invited to cite their source. If there is some valid reason that the election cannot be held when it should, such as the absence of a quorum, or if it was only partially completed, it can be postponed to the next regular meeting of that body or, if that's far off, to an adjournment (continuation) of the current meeting, or to a special meeting called for that purpose.

Not necessarily: 49:5 A society has no executive board, nor can its officers act as a board, except as the bylaws may provide; and when so established, the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society’s assembly referring individual matters to it. And if there is no such body, the the question of quorum has no meaning. The quorum of a duly established board is a majority of its members, or other number as provided in the bylasws, but only if it actually exists.

That's fine as long as it is supported by some rule in your bylaws allowing for automatic termination. Otherwise, it's not. And you might save postage by using Certified Mail rather than Registered, if there is nothing of intrinsic value inside the mailpiece.

I did not mean to imply that I had. That's why I stressed that unsupported claims should be viewed with skepticism. But I suppose I did presume that the chair might be swayed by this armchair authority and require a written copy. If there's no danger of that, then the armchair authority can be pre-ignored.

Yes it's often called a resolution expressing the sense of the meeting. Perfectly acceptable. While it's true that motions that don't do anything are considered dilatory, and therefore not in order, making the views of the organization known can conceivably achieve a great deal.

Or voted on.

Yes, it does: The chair—either on his own initiative or at the secretary’s request—can require any main motion (10),. amendment (12), or instructions to a committee to be in writing before he states the question. [RONR (12th ed.) 4:18] It may seem silly, but the chair can insist on it, even for a simple motion. On the other hand, if it is a simple motion it's easy enough to put it into writing. This motion would barely be a single line--even if you write large with a dull Sharpie®. But what is not required is previous notice for the motion. So there's nothing to stop you from coming to a meeting, handing your motion to the secretary, obtaining the floor and moving its adoption, and voting on it, all at the same meeting. Apparently this member who is claiming a variety of things hasn't been asked for a citation supporting those claims. The percentage of time that someone who claims "Oh, that's in Robert's Rules" is actually correct, is unimpressive at best. Make sure you know what your bylaws say, because they supersede RONR, but don't just accept any claim as fact.

Yes, although unless time is of the essence, the most foolproof method of providing previous notice at this point would seem to be doing so during a meeting.

Well, nothing in RONR would require prior notice for an ordinary main motion like that. And if the Treasurer has sufficient powers as provided in the bylaws, or an adopted budget to work within, then I doubt you would have to go back to the membership at all. I can't say much more without knowing what this "council" is, or how your organization is structured. Do you have a board, a general membership, an office of Treasurer? Some organizations are structured so that every nickel of income or expense has to be considered by the full general membership. Some only by the board, and others only by the Treasurer--presumably with budgetary limits depending which department or committee is seeking to spend money. Is the "council" an elected public body like a city council? Or....what?

You might want to send the request to the Clerk, as it should have been originally, along with this citation: 10:51 Instead of being given at a meeting, a notice can also be sent to every member with the call of the meeting at which the matter is to come up for action, in cases where there is a duty or established custom of issuing such a call. In such cases, the member desiring to give the notice writes to the secretary [i.e., clerk] alone, requesting that the notice be sent with the call of the next meeting, and the secretary then does this at the expense of the society. I can't find a citation that says you can send the notice yourself, but by analogy to the right of a member to stand and state a motion in his place, when the chair refuses to properly acknowledge the motion, I would think that if the Clerk refuses, you might as well give it a try. Since notice is required, it has to be accomplished somehow. No, your right to speak first only applies after you have made the motion in a body of which you are a member. You should familiarize yourself with Point of Order [RONR (12th ed.) §23], and Appeal [§24]. That's how bylaws get interpreted. There is no motion to interpret. You go ahead and do the thing you believe you have a right to do, and wait for the chair to rule against you. You (obtaining the floor) : "Having given previous notice, I move the adoption of this amendment to the bylaws, a copy of which I now hand to the Clerk" Chair: "That motion is out of order because the deacons have some lame excuse." You: "I appeal from the decision of the chair!" Your friend: "Second!" This usually requires a good deal of ground work in advance. Just showing up at a meeting, moving the amendment, getting ruled out of order, and appealing, without any allies knowing what you're up to might not even get a second to the appeal, and you're dead in the water. You need to have a plan of action and as many supporters as you can round up.

Here's one citation that might be of interest: 9:16 The requirement that business transacted at a special meeting be specified in the call should not be confused with a requirement that previous notice of a motion be given. Although the call of a special meeting must state the purpose of the meeting, it need not give the exact content of individual motions that will be considered. When a main motion related to business specified in the call of a special meeting is pending, it is as fully open to germane amendment as if it had been moved at a regular meeting. Conversely, the requirement for previous notice of a motion should not be confused with any of the requirements of a special meeting.

If they didn't approve moving the funds at the time that they approved opening the new account, then I guess you will want a motion saying how much to transfer. The procedure for actually transferring is up to your bank(s). Writing a check comes to mind. Remember checks?

n/a