Gary Novosielski

Apparently there is such a thing, as you have seen it done. Whether it is not unmeaningless or otherwise is another question. The common meaning of being "in" default is to have missed one or more payments due on a debt. This doesn't seem to be the meaning here. But the fact that interpersonal rancor interfered in the orderly conduct of the meeting is a situation where the buck stops at the chair. The president should be looking to nip such situations in the bud by enforcing the rules of decorum set down in RONR. They are designed and perfected to make interpersonal attacks difficult and unwieldy to carry out, without sounding foolish. Diving into the situation is exactly the wrong thing to do, and whatever official-sounding declarations one tries to invent to duck responsibility is just silly. One thing you can do if you notice tensions rising and voices raising, is to deflect attention by saying, "Point of Order! <pause to be recognized> I raise a point of order that the meeting is not in order." This is essentially a statement that the chair not fulfilling his/her primary responsibility of keeping the meeting on topic and orderly, and seeing that all debate remains germane to the currently pending question. With luck, it will cause people to reconsider what's going on.

I'd say a majority vote. If amendments are being entertained in advance of approval by the assembly, then a majority vote should be sufficient. The idea of having the agenda accepted by some other body is pretty sketchy. I'd interpret that to mean find it acceptable to be presented to the meeting for approval, but a subordinate body can't accept something on behalf of a superior body. That's putting the batteries in backward.

Yes, that refers to rules for the board itself--"its own special rules...." It cannot adopt rules that the membership is obliged to follow, as the board is a subordinate body to the membership. It is free to recommend rule changes to the membership, which the membership may adopt, reject, amend, or ignore. Conversely, the membership can issue instructions to the board which it is obliged to follow.

That's a practice that always provides dividends.

There is no such rule in RONR, so it will be difficult to share where it can be found. In short, it cannot be found. For your amusement, you might want to hand a copy of RONR to those who claim it is necessary, and ask them to find it.

I wouldn't know. That was a quote of FAQ #7, which makes the claim.

I wonder if a motion to Rescind is the right way to go on this. From the description, but not having a complete understanding of your custom rules, I think it's possible that the Board has exceeded its powers by creating term limits for committees, when 50:7 tells us the terms length of committees, and that a bylaw or other rule is required to change that. If that's true, and your rules are silent on committee terms, then the Board adopted a motion that conflicts with the parliamentary authority, creating a continuing breach that is subject to a Point of Order that it should be deemed null and void. Is the Board empowered to create new rules for the membership, on it's own initiative!? That would be unusual and, in my view, dangerous.

No.

The term “vote of no confidence” is not used or defined anywhere in RONR, and there is no mention of any motion for such a vote. However, this does not mean that an assembly cannot adopt a motion, if it wishes, expressing either its confidence or lack of confidence in any of its officers or subordinate boards or committees. Any such motion would simply be a main motion, and would have no effect other than to express the assembly’s views concerning the matter. A vote of “no confidence” does not—as it would in the British Parliament—remove an officer from office. So to answer your question, the members of the body in which it is moved get to vote on it--as with any other main motion. There's nothing special about it.

Agreeing with @Josh Martin, it's not a great idea to include a statement like that in the bylaws. In the first place, the use of the term "simple majority" is an indicator that the author was not well versed in Robert's Rules, and further scrutiny might be well advised. And since a majority vote is the default threshold for any vote not assigned a higher one by some superseding rule, it's not necessary to state the rule at all. Another problem is that RONR does require higher thresholds, such as a two-thirds vote for certain other situations, especially where the rights of the minority are being protected. Making a blanket statement that all votes are decided by a majority will have undesired side effects. It would supersede all the special cases in RONR, all of which are there for good reasons.

The entire membership of the organization is nine people? If that's true, then a majority of that number is five. But if that's the case, how could everyone not already know how everyone has voted, roll call or not?

Well, that's true. If the bylaws say only a majority is needed for any decision whatsoever, then only a majority might be needed to raise the threshold to two-thirds. Oh, the irony!

Unfortunately, unless your bylaws say otherwise, a Special Rule of Order requires for adoption: previous notice and a two-thirds vote; or, a majority of the entire membership. And you're undoubtedly outside the window of previous notice. So your only option is a majority of the entire membership, even those who are not there. Besides, if I understand correctly the roll-call vote was already held, so a rule disallowing roll-calls can't undo the past. If the approval of those minutes is what's coming up tomorrow, then I think the advice that @Dan Honemann gave is probably your best bet, depending how the secretary's draft has been, uh, drafted.

You can use a motion to Suspend the Rules to require a higher threshold for a particular motion or for a particular session. Doing so will require a two-thirds vote.

Legality is not something we deal with here. To determine if any laws were broken you need to consult a Michigan attorney. I am aware that Michigan is considered an "all party" as opposed to a "one party" state, but the legal history is far from straightforward, so there's no substitute for good legal advice on this topic. From a parliamentary point of view, the assembly has the right to decide whether recording is allowed, but secret recording is not something that's covered in RONR.

Yes, it's a motion/resolution to censure someone. It can be the result of a discipline process, and as such it is the lightest form of punishment, since while it expresses the displeasure of the assembly, it has no additional negative effects. But it is not necessary to go through formal discipline to censure someone. As you say, it merely puts on record the disapproval of actions the individual(s). Whether they are board members or not makes little difference. I am assuming, however, that this motion will be offered in a meeting of the general membership, not of the board. While it's not impossible for the board to adopt a motion of censure against a general member, it strikes me as shaky ground, since the board is subordinate to the membership. So I would expect the membership to be the one considering the motion.

That's a point worth considering. And if Guest Carole's group does opt for that, then a motion to fix the time at which to adjourn becomes an incidental main motion to Adjourn, with qualifications. As such it is in order whenever no question is pending, and need not wait for any specific category in the order of business.

I understand that Mr. Honemann has withdrawn that opinion, but there are some other points that I think need to be clarified. The phrase "irrespective of whether some may have departed" does not imply that people who have departed count toward a quorum. It implies that the count of the delegates who have registered, which forms the basis for the quorum, is not lowered by people departing. (I think that's still somewhat problematic. More on that below.) To establish whether a quorum is present, it is still necessary to know whether the delegates present in the hall constitute a majority of that number, or not. It does not make sense to say that a delegate, even one who has not "departed" for home, but has merely stepped across the street for a cheese steak, should count toward a quorum. I suppose it would be possible to write such a rule, but it would need to be much more explicit than what we have now. I think the confusion may stem in part from the phrase "registered at the convention as" alternatively "attending" or "in attendance". This does not imply that they are permanently "present" but rather that they have registered in person, rather than, say, by mail. "This may differ greatly from the number elected or appointed." [40:2(3)] But what's problematic about the actual rule is that it's possible, if enough people "depart" to make obtaining a quorum impossible. In my example, if 100 people register in person, and then half of them "depart," it is no longer possible to obtain a quorum. Only 50 delegates remain, yet the quorum is still set at 51, i.e., a majority of those who have registered. Note that it is the word majority here, which tells us that we still need to count heads in the hall. (If this were a mass meeting rather than a convention, then the quorum would simply be as many as are present, i.e., no minimum number. The number present is always greater than a majority of the number present, which is why this construction is not used.) But if the number of delegates at a convention is never lowered by departures, it may be impossible to achieve a majority of that number. Therefore, I think it would be wise when developing the rules for a convention, to consider not using the default rule, but to specify that the quorum is a majority of those who are currently registered as attending, i.e., those who registered minus the number who have turned in their credentials and departed. (How to ensure that they remember to do so is left as an exercise for the reader.) I say it would be wise to consider, but I realize a case can be made that the current rule is the better choice. It could well be argued that if enough people depart early, the remainder may be so unrepresentative of the general will that they should not be handling substantive business.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. The chair is confusing the motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn and a motion to fix the time at which to adjourn, neither of which is what's happening in the situation you describe, anyway. The chair has asked for changes (amendments) to the agenda/program. A motion to amend the item on the agenda labeled Adjourn by fixing a time for it is therefore perfectly germane, timely, and in order. Adjourning a meeting may or may not fix a time for an "adjournment of" the present meeting, which ends the current meeting but establishes a future meeting that is part of the same session. If no such time is set, it merely ends the current meeting. There's nothing wrong with that. But you are not moving to adjourn. You are moving to amend the program/agenda. And that's exactly what the chair asked for. Be prepared to Appeal next time he makes such a nonsensical ruling.

Correct. RONR solves this problem by lowering the number of proxies to zero.

I see. Continue...

If the rules in RONR apply, the general membership would appoint the committee, much like any special committee is appointed. It's not something that would be left up to officers to decide, except for their votes as a members of the general assembly. I don't see how it would be possible to exclude anyone from voting on an investigation, since unless and until such a motion is adopted, nobody is yet under investigation. If that committee then recommends named individuals who should stand trial, that's a different matter.

OOps, okay, never mind. You beat me by a minute.

3:4, 40:2(3) Which agree that the quorum is a majority of delegates who have registered as present, irrespective of whether some may have departed. So, in my example: 100 have registered in person at the convention Some of those may have departed, but we don't care. A majority of 100 is 51 We do not know how many are present. Q: Is there a quorum? I contend that if we can tell from the above whether or not we have a quorum, then two things are true: It is impossible not to have a quorum. The requirement for a majority has been included in the language for no reason.

I have read that section multiple times, and referred to the definition of quorum and of majority and I see no plausible way the rule could be interpreted in that way.