Gary Novosielski

I think it should be pointed out that in the terminology of RONR, the power to appoint a committee means to name the members, and probably the chair, of a committee. It does not include the power to establish new committees, unless that power is made explicit.

I suppose for the same reason that the District Attorney is not allowed to be on the jury.

You'd better not try, or you'd be violating their rights. Not good. Besides there are any number of reasons they might notice an error in the minutes even if they were not present. The date might have been wrong, which they would not have to be present to know. They could certainly notice grammatical errors or misspellings. Suppose the minutes said that they were present and made a motion? Are you suggesting they should not be allowed to correct the record? No. They participate fully, like any member.

Did anyone say something different?

I think the distinction you are drawing is between main motions and secondary motions, e.g. a subsidiary motion such as Postpone. Resolutions are typically offered as original main motions, but the only difference between that and an ordinary main motion is in the formatting. From a parliamentary point of view, the two are handled identically.

I'm confused by the timeline here. It makes no sense that the opportunity to "run from the floor" ends before the report of the nominating committee is issued. The whole point is to allow for additional nominees if members feel that those selected by the nominating committee are not the best. If the rules in RONR apply, the chair must call for nominations from the floor immediately after the report of the nominating committee is delivered, and if this takes place at a meeting prior to the election meeting, must call again for nominees from the floor at the election meeting. Also, the ballots must include sufficient spaces for write-ins. Do your bylaws have rules that supersede these provisions?

If the vote in favor is less than a majority, the Noes have it and the motion is rejected. The Chair is in error. You are correct.

The following is not RONR-based advice, so I will keep it brief. In my experience, when a board (which is a subordinate body to the membership) starts looking for loopholes to cut the membership out of the decision-making process, one of three things occurs: The membership decides that it would be better off with a board that is transparent and responsive to them, and votes in a new board. The membership decides that it would be better off with a different organization, and votes with their feet, leading to the dissolution of the organization. The membership splits into factions, one of which votes with its feet and forms a new group, leaving behind a group which supports the board, but which nevertheless promptly votes in a new board. In other words, it does not end well for the old board in any case.

I agree with @Joshua Katz. 45:72 Straw Polls Not in Order. A motion to take an informal straw poll to “test the water” is not in order because it neither adopts nor rejects a measure and hence is meaningless and dilatory. If the assembly wishes to discuss and take a vote on a matter without the vote constituting final action by the assembly, it may instead vote to go into a committee of the whole or a quasi committee of the whole ([§]52). Under these procedures, the assembly considers the matter as would a committee, and its vote while in committee of the whole (or quasi committee of the whole) serves only as a recommendation to the assembly, which the assembly is free to reject just as would be the case with regard to the report of any ordinary committee.

I can't think of any do's.

I'm assuming these items are on some sort of agenda, or the question would be hard to understand. If there are candidates who can't make the meeting, why not just skip them? When their item comes up, if they're not present, don't move the item, and move on to the next. Any items on an an agenda that are not disposed of at the current meeting would come up under Unfinished Business at the next. So it would not even take one vote.

I do. Thanks, to both you and @Josh Martin, for helping work through the details. This whole thread was a strange one.

If the rules in RONR apply, expulsion can only be done by the general membership, but any rules on discipline in your bylaws would supersede those in RONR.

I don't disagree, but at the risk of splitting hairs, let us suppose that the secretary and the chair acted properly and recorded all the necessary information, so no suspension is required; now the minutes have come up for approval. 41:10 says, in relevant part: …. Corrections, when proposed, are usually handled by unanimous consent (4:58–63), but if any member objects to a proposed correction—which is, in effect, a subsidiary motion to Amend—the usual rules governing consideration of amendments to a main motion are applicable (see 12). And in 12:7(7) we find: Requires a majority vote, regardless of the vote required to adopt the question to be amended. This is true even in cases where adoption of the amendment would result in changing the vote required to adopt the question being amended, as from a two-thirds vote to a majority vote or vice versa…. So a correction offered, essentially as an amendment to the draft minutes, seems to require only a majority vote, even though it might change the vote required to adopt the minutes to two-thirds. This is considerably complicated by the fact that said vote never occurs; the minutes are simply declared approved. As I said, I'd oppose any attempt to strike the names of a roll-call vote if I were a member, but the rules aren't as crystal clear as they might be.

I did see that reference, but it seemed to me that the distinction being drawn was not so much between adding vs. striking material, but rather between what is regularly included vs. what is amended/corrected on a case-by-case basis. But you're right that striking material from the draft is not explicitly mentioned, so it's a fair point.

If it were up to me, I'd say that it was flatly improper to omit the names of members in a roll-call vote. But it's not up to me. Specifically, I don't think I could find support for that view within the pages of the Book. The idea that the assembly is fully in control of what goes into their minutes and what doesn't is pretty firmly established. They can include material that clearly doesn't belong there, and omit material that does, with no more than a majority vote. It's clear that if there were a rule that roll-call votes are required in some instance, it would take a Suspension of the Rules to waive that requirement and order a counted rising vote, for example. But I'm less convinced that it would take a two-thirds vote to scrub the names from the minutes, even though I'd be pleased if it did.

It does, if the people present at the time think it does, and it does not if they think it does not. I don't think it rises to a particularly objectionable level, but I wasn't there.

Well, everybody is okay at this point because no timely action was taken at the time. As to whether anyone's actions are worth of censure, that's entirely up to the result the vote if someone moves to censure them. I'm certainly not capable of making that judgment.

Yes, 62:2 ff are right on point: Remedies for Abuse of Authority by the Chair in a Meeting But you will also want to memorize the phrase Point of Order! That's the only meaningful way to demand that the rules be properly followed. Simply asking questions or complaining will not work. You will want to be familiar with §23 Point of Order for how and when to use this motion. Points of order can interrupt the proceedings even while someone (including the chair) is speaking. They call for an immediate decision (ruling) by the chair. You should also memorize the phrase I appeal from the decision of the chair! and have someone lined up to quickly call out Second! any time you utter it. Study §24. Appeal for details. If proper use of these two motions does not tame the chair's autocratic impulses then you have to move on to §62, as noted.

I don't know what you mean by I described to you earlier how corrections to the minutes are offered. I did not say it was done by a motion to Suspend the Rules. Corrections to the minutes require only a majority vote. But it is certainly unusual not to include the names in the minutes of a roll-call vote. That is the entire purpose of a roll-call vote. If you don't want the names included don't use a roll-call vote in the first place. Threats should be reported to the police. And they are certainly sufficient grounds for expulsion.

RONR (12th ed.) 9:1 and 9:13 define regular and special meetings, which are the two types. You will note that randomly showing up does not qualify as either type.

I think you need to read my reply again. Since there should be no vote taken on the approval of minutes, neither you nor anyone else must vote Yes or No. (Abstaining is not voting at all.) And nobody ever must vote on anything. You don't have to state anything. If you do not want to offer a correction, then when corrections are called for, simply remain silent. I am trying to understand whether you want to correct the minutes or not, and what is the nature of the disagreement you have with what's in the draft minutes.

See FAQ #20 (scroll down to 20.) for info on removal of officers. If the officer signed something on behalf of the organization which was not authorized by the organization, resulting in money damages, you have a potential civil liability issue, and will need to consult an attorney. That question goes well beyond parliamentary procedure.

First, I have to assume that the Board has been given the authority to approve the minutes of the Annual Association Meeting. In that case: As a board member you can participate fully in the approval of minutes, and could, even if you were not present at that meeting. However, that process does not involve any vote on approval, if the rules in RONR apply. It might include votes on corrections, if those corrections are not agreed to by unanimous consent, but there is no vote on final approval. The relevant paragraph in RONR (12th ed.) is: 41:11 After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair’s inquiry, “Are there any corrections [or “further corrections”] to the minutes?” the chair says, “There being no corrections [or “no further corrections”] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or “are”] approved [or “approved as read,” or “approved as corrected”].” The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary’s draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it.³ It should be noted that a member’s absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. So, when the minutes come up for approval, and the chair asks for corrections, you may offer one. Offering a correction is essentially moving to Amend the draft minutes, and would be stated in the same way by striking some words, inserting others, etc., so that the minutes then read correctly. Usually, corrections are accepted by unanimous consent, but if any member objects, they are handled the same as any amendment, with a majority vote deciding, if required, until all corrections are decided. If the minutes are properly drafted, i.e., if they are purely factual records of what was actually done at the meeting, and no record of what was said a the meeting, they are usually corrected and approved with little or no controversy. Is that the case with your minutes, or is your correction likely to be controversial?

If I were in Member B's shoes I might want to know why as well. But having not been present I might have assumed or at least hoped that the "reprimand," if it can be called that, from the chair was delivered with a level of sternness appropriate to the offense. Or I might be miffed enough to move for censure, although I did not witness the offense and those who did took no further action at the time. I might be just as miffed at them as at Member A.