Gary Novosielski

Yes, of course, but not to the entire membership of the society. But if some executive board members are getting together unofficially, that's different. And such a get-together cannot take place in executive session or for that matter conduct any actual business, since it is not a meeting as far as RONR is concerned.

Were you the secretary pro tempore, or do you have a title of Acting Secretary? But what you have is essentially fine. The phrase "Respectfully Submitted" is optional, but if its customary in your organization, there's nothing wrong with it.

What sort of committee is this? You mention taxpayers; is this a public body of some sort? In general, if you are not a member of a committee you have no right to attend or address the committee but things can be different if you're talking about a governmental body. So please expand your question a bit. What's the situation, what do you want the situation to be?

Yes, I think it's fine for future conventions, as long as it provides that the thing to be done is possible to do, and not some logic paradox.

If I'm reading the rule correctly, it requires someone to have taken an action ten days prior to the time that the rule was passed. Since the rule was not in effect then, I don't see how it can be properly applied to that period of time.

Board members only have the power to vote as board members during a meeting of the board. During a meeting of the Membership, the only people who can vote are members of the general Membership and each has one vote. Board members can vote during membership meetings only if they are also general members, which is commonly true, but are exceptions in some organizations. Except for the fact of where this recommendation originated, it is irrelevant that the organization even has a board. The board is not in session at that moment, and nothing that goes on at a Membership meeting is an act of the board.

I cannot. But we assume that the distinction is there for a reason. I could, if pressed, give an example of an action that is not a motion. Perhaps that is the point of the distinction.

Is defective notice a violation of a "procedural rule" within the meaning of 10:55? Note that the absence of a quorum is the only exception to this rule. I would also note that Ratify applies to "actions" and not necessarily "motions", which presumes that this distinction may, in some situations, be significant. 10:55 An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, subordinate bodies, or staff as it would have had the right to authorize in advance. It cannot make valid a voice-vote election when the bylaws require elections to be by ballot; nor can it ratify anything done in violation of procedural rules prescribed by national, state, or local law, or in violation of its own bylaws, except that provision for a quorum in the bylaws does not prevent it from ratifying action taken at a meeting when no quorum was present.

There's nothing unusual about such elections. One method would be to produce a ballot with the names of the six nominees listed, a check box next to each name, and the instructions in that section saying, "Vote for no more than five". There should also be room for write-in votes where voters can enter one or more names of eligible but unnominated persons. Another method is to simply use a blank ballot or one with five lines. Post a list of nominees at the front of the room, and instruct voters to write in up to five names on their ballots. Again, they are not restricted to voting for only nominees, but may not vote for more than five. When counting the votes, each ballot which contains votes for at least one but no more than five candidates is counted as one "Vote Cast". Ballots which express no preference are abstentions and do not add to Votes Cast. Ballots which have more than five votes are illegal and are counted as one Vote Cast, but not credited to any candidates--same as votes for Donald Duck or other ineligible "persons" Calculate the majority (the least whole number more than half) of the Votes Cast, and call that number Required to Elect. Anyone receiving that number or more is elected, up to five people. Anyone receiving fewer votes is not elected. If all seats are not filled, hold another ballot for the number of seats as yet unfilled.

I had the thought upon seeing the "one and only" statement on discipline that a rather thin rule was being used to create some sweeping powers for the board.

To be clear, I would call this a special form of unanimous consent. Rather than saying, 'If there are no objections, the minutes stand approved," the chair says, "If there are no corrections, the minutes stand approved." Offering a correction is the only way to object to their approval. There is no way to simply object and force a vote, since the approval of (correct) minutes is mandatory. Those corrections are usually handled by unanimous consent, unless some dispute arises. And disputes are handled by discussion and (majority) vote, like an amendment.

In what ways is the parliamentarian overstepping the president? This sounds like something that could be cleared up with a single Point of Order, considering the following: 23:17 [Regarding breaches of order.] Before rendering his decision, the chair can consult the parliamentarian, if there is one. The chair can also request the advice of experienced members, but no one has the right to express such opinions in the meeting unless requested to do so by the chair. 47:46 Parliamentarian. The parliamentarian is a consultant, commonly a professional, who advises the president and other officers, committees, and members on matters of parliamentary procedure. The parliamentarian’s role during a meeting is purely an advisory and consultative one—since parliamentary law gives to the chair alone the power to rule on questions of order or to answer parliamentary inquiries. <emphasis added>

Yes, business can continue in a meeting while voting continues outside it. But that business conducted in the meeting can't interrupt the voting process, and any points of order about the conduct of the election must wait until the results are announced.

Oh, no argument there. What I mean is that there may occur situations where it would be desirable to keep secret even the description of the business that was to be considered during the meeting. And since a call is not something issued in a meeting, much less in executive session, the description in the call is information that can't be shielded under the protections of executive session. Or so it seems to me.

Absolutely not, absent an explicit power enumerated in the bylaws. If the rules in RONR apply, the executive board has no business having so much as moderately strong opinion about how the Membership conducts its own elections, especially if voting has begun. And even if the executive bord is granted such exceptional powers, RONR provides that once voting has begun, nothing can interrupt it, not even a privileged motion--not even a Point of Order! See: 19:6, 45:6. If I'm not mistaken, it's about the only rule in RONR that admits of no exceptions.

I am by no means a scholar of what acts do or do not qualify as the most Christian ways of doing things; but, It seems to me that speaking in hushed tones or remaining silent during reigns of tyranny would be less likely qualify. Just sayin'.

I don't think any of the answers so far have addressed a potential problem that will exist, even if some method is found to ensure that the meeting is in executive session from the moment it is called to order. The call must specifically describe the business to be conducted in the special meeting, which may conflict with the need for secrecy. I know of no method to issue a call for a meeting so that the call itself is secret.

I can see the logic of that if the board wants to create an incentive to resign, which it well might. But at the time the membership considers the resignation, the charges will not have been dropped, and that will be contingent upon what the membership decides. So, in effect the membership is being asked to decide a question without being fully informed of the consequences of that decision. If they vote to accept, and later learn the relevant facts, they may feel that they were manipulated by the board, and I'd be unlikely to disagree with them.

I wouldn't think so. Is this electronic vote taken at an in-person meeting, or by some remote method? Do you have local rules regarding electronic voting, and do they provide, as some do, that the results of an electronic vote are assumed to be correct?

Well, that's what's meant by "escaping" discipline. If resigning short-circuits the investigation, then you really have no basis on which to deny a future application for membership, except for the memory of individual members, who may never have heard any details in the first place. You can't have it both ways. If you want the matter to be carried to conclusion, deny the resignation and proceed with the investigation. Then presumably the membership committee would not recommend readmission.

No, 11-6 does not meet the threshold for 2/3. The quick way to test for 2/3 is--the Yes votes must be at least double the number of No votes. So 12-6 would pass, but 11-6 does not.

Presuming (as seems necessary) that the current president is in office, and the past president is no longer in office, the president presides. I don't know what you mean by "reopen" however. Can you clarify that?

None of the above. For situations not covered in your bylaws, you would follow any applicable Special Rules of Order that the organization had adopted. Or, if none, then any applicable rules in the parliamentary authority, presumably the current edition (12th) of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR). I say presumably because this is the website you arrived at. 🙂 And the rule in RONR is that the terms of office are in the bylaws and the board can't change them on a whim. RONR states that a mid-term vacancy is filled for no longer than the unexpired remainder of the term. To serve beyond that, you need to be (re)elected.

No. The fact that someone is under investigation is ordinarily something that the membership would already know, since it is they who will have appointed the investigatory committee. As long as no details are revealed, the fact that an investigation is in progress is necessary for the membership to know, in order to reach an informed decision on accepting the resignation. If the society's rules prevent this, then the suspect can indeed escape discipline by resigning. I agree that this information could injure someone's good name if it were released outside the society, but within it, the members will know the results of the investigation, and whether they clear the subject of wrongdoing. Or not.