Greg Goodwiller, PRP

However you want to treat the email vote, your called meeting is a new meeting, and it is in order to make the motion as though it had never been considered before.

Actually, RONR does have a bit to say. It is in the section with the heading "A Vote By Mail," on page 424. the end of the section says, "E-mail and other means of electronic communications can be tailored to comply with these requirements" (RONR pg. 424, ll. 32-33). The point is, this kind of vote, while it can be valid if so authorized in your bylaws, is not a meeting. Therefore, there simply is not yet any motion that has been duly made in the context of a meeting, and one will have to be offered in order for it to come before the assembly.

In addition to what has been said, I would recommend that you explore the possibility of meeting electronically - which as noted the current edition of RONR indeed contemplates, and I work with numerous organizations that either meet entirely electronically, or meet in person but with one or more members joining electronically. There are a number of considerations when it comes to electronic meetings - some of them technological, some related to bylaws and/or special rules of order. some important considerations are outlined on pages 97-99 of the 11th Edition (the current edition of RONR), and the electronic edition of the 11th edition even includes sample special rules of order for various kinds of electronic meetings.

I think to answer your question fully requires a bit more than saying "no motion, no mention," as my colleague has suggested. If, for example, a committee chair gives an informational report that includes no motions, what the assembly did was listen to a report. So the minutes can say, "Mr. Smith, Chair of the House Committee, reported on the committee's work." What the minutes should not do is attempt to summarize what the chair said.

It sounds as though you are talking about some sort of vote taken outside of a meeting. The rules in Robert's Rules pertain to voting processes within meetings. If you take votes other than at a meeting, you must look to your own rules for guidance about the requirements.

Understand that a "term limit" is different from a "term of office." You bylaws should stipulate the length of time for which officers are elected, which is the "term of office," as in: "for a term of two years, or until a successor is elected." A term limit would be something like, "no officer may serve more than three successive terms in the same office." So what do your bylaws say about terms of office? If they say nothing, the result would be that once elected, your officers are elected for life, or until they cease to be eligible (as, for instance, if they are required to be members of the organization to hold office, and they cease to be members). In that case, holding annual elections wouldn't make sense, because you would only need a new one if an old one quit, died, or became ineligible. Assuming your bylaws say that officers are elected for a one year term, then they definitely have to be re-elected each year - and if there is no defined term limit, they may continue to be elected year after year. If your bylaws say something more ambiguous, such as "officers are elected annually" or " . . . at the annual meeting," then that probably means they are elected for one year terms, but that is a matter of interpreting your bylaws, and ultimately, the members of any organization have to interpret their own rules.

Unless something in your rules states otherwise, yes, such a motion needs to go to the membership. It is a motion to "limit or extend limit of debate." Since it affects the rights of membership, the motion requires a two thirds vote for adoption.

Unless there is some specific delegation of that authority to the board, then the membership would need to approve it. So it depends on what your bylaws say about the Board's authority.

Parliamentarians do not make rulings or "set" rules. They only advise the presiding officer. Nor, for that matter, can the presiding officer make any sort of declaration about rules for debate that alter the default rules of the organization or its parliamentary authority (which, if that authority is Robert's Rules are that each member can speak for up to ten minutes per speech and no more than twice on any motion, the second time only if there aren't others who have not yet spoken). If there are to be other "debate rules," they are adopted under the motion to limit or extend limits of debate. That motion requires a second, is amendable but not debatable, and requires a two thirds vote for adoption.

By its very definition, a convention is "an assembly of delegates" (RONR pg. 600, ll. 2-3), and "delegates are selected by, and from among, the members of each local unit" (RONR pg. 600, ll. 11-12). Unless your rules define your conventions in some other terms, then no, the assembly does not have the authority to seat individuals as delegates who were not properly (in accordance with your rules) "selected by" the local units.

To be clear, unless your rules state otherwise, the VP automatically becomes the President upon a vacancy in the presidency. It doesn't require a vote. My question at this time is, when you last held an election for President, was the President elected for a two year term? And if so, how long ago was that election? It seems to me that if he was elected (correctly or not) for a two year term, then he has the right to serve for that amount of time, and you should correct the problem later - either by holding a special election for a one year term to get you back on track, or by the VP assuming office one year from now.

Only if the vote was a "roll call vote," by rule or by order of the body. If the vote was a "counted vote" by rule or by order of the body, then the vote count (for and against) is reported, but not by name.

I would add two comments to this conversation First, "it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that each person who is a member of a deliberative assembly is entitled to one - and only one - vote on a question" (RONR Pg. 407, ll. 1-4). That said, the question posed is about a committee, which by definition is not a form of deliberative assembly. Second, according to Robert's Rules, in small boards and in committees (regardless of the size), "If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions" (RONR pg. 488, ll. 18-20).

First of all, do your bylaws say anything about vacancies? At face value, your bylaws appear to have conflicting language in requiring presidential elections to be for terms of two years (period), and then also to occur only in even numbered years, if in fact they say nothing about what to do if a vacancy arises. Do you have a vice president who should have then become president for the remainder of the president's term (and is that so stated in the bylaws)? I think any way it goes, you are currently out of compliance, and it will ultimately be up to the association to determine how it wants to get back into compliance. I'm not sure any way is better or worse than any other, except that the sooner you are in compliance with your rules, the better. But you're going to have to knowingly break one rule or the other to do it, if I have the facts correctly (either elect a President for an odd number of years instead of a two year term, or not hold an election now because it is an odd numbered year, and allow the current president to serve for a three year term). The other option would be to amend your bylaws to better describe your current practice (if that's how you want to do it). I It also sounds as though your bylaws need some work regardless of how you resolve this, to ensure that it doesn't happen again.

There is no such requirement in Robert's Rules. Under "New Business," unless your own rules state otherwise, members may make motions about items not otherwise under consideration at the meeting. But unless your meeting is composed of no more than about a dozen members, and therefore operating under the rules for small boards (RONR pg. 487 ff), discussion without a motion on the floor is prohibited unless your own rules provide otherwise.

You need to tell us more about your rules. When you say "one executive left," what do you mean? Who are the "executives" in your structure? If the only members of the board in question are its "executives," then how is a quorum present? What are your rules?

No, a 2/3 vote of the Executive Committee or of "the organization" would ordinarily mean two thirds of those present and voting at a meeting (at which a quorum is present), unless your rules say otherwise.

RONR pg. 433, ll. 29-35 states, "Members of the nominating committee are not barred from becoming nominees for office themselves. To make such a requirement would mean, first, that service on the nominating committee carried a penalty by depriving its members of one of their privileges; and second, that appointment or election to the nominating committee could be used to prevent a member from becoming a nominee."

Ok. So, what did the Board do with your request? And for that matter, who issued or authorized the reprimand?

Are you talking about the Gleason's that was written in 1920? Really? Is this a supplemental text of some sort? Why not teach them from the current editions of Robert's Rules and Robert's Rules in Brief?

I'm not sure there's much we can do for you in this forum. This is a matter of your club's rules and how they are applied. You certainly deserve to at least be shown the rule that the letter says you violated.

Why not just vote "no" on the resolution?

The only clear statement in Robert's Rules about "conflict of interest" the statement that "No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances" (RONR pg. 407, ll. 22-31). So even in that case, it is a question of should, with a clear statement that a member cannot be compelled not to vote. Any other rules about a conflict of interest must be spelled out in a particular organization's governing documents.

I love it when I have to go to dictionary.com . . .

In addition to what has already been said (with which I agree), it is generally the officers who are authorized to sign contracts, and if they are the ones who were absent, yes, they can certainly sign the contracts indicating that the association or board they represent properly approved it.