Greg Goodwiller, PRP

Unless something in your rules states otherwise, the board presumably has the authority to either grant or deny the request. And assuming the manner in which the request was made is appropriate under your rules, the board cannot simply ignore it. If it would prefer not to take a stand on the request (the result of which would be that the request is not granted, but without the board having declare it), the proper motion, rather than "table" would be "postpone indefinitely." That motion is treated more like a main motion - including the ability to debate the question. If a majority votes in favor of indefinite postponement, the matter goes away for that session.

Well, I am a newer face, but glad to join the conversations. Once you dig your books out of the boxes, let us know what questions you have.

I am serving as the "technical assistant" to the credentialing commission. In that capacity, I have signed a confidentiality agreement that bars me from disclosing anything about the content of the new tests; however, I can tell you where they are in the process. "Alpha testing" is currently underway (current RP's and PRP's taking the new tests to establish baselines and identify problems with particular questions). Once that process is complete and adjustments have been made, "beta testing" will begin, in which an already identified representative pool of members seeking their RP credential will take the tests, resulting in another round of adjustments. After that, the new RP testing will at some point go live. I am doubtful that all of that will occur by this summer. So if someone were on the verge of taking the registration exam at this moment - or even in the next few months - I would advise them to proceed with the current exam.

Thank you all for your further explanations. "Censure" in my church discipline world is inextricably connected to a finding of guilt in a disciplinary proceeding. I shall try my best to think beyond that limitation when dealing with censure in broader contexts.

I am having difficulty accepting this, but I will openly admit that my, although fairly extensive, experience with disciplinary processes is specifically related to discipline in the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), which has its own disciplinary rules. So comments in this stream such as J.J.'s related to censuring someone who isn't even a member of the organization are completely foreign to me. Please help me to understand how it is in any way fair (RONR pg. 656, ln. 18) to a member to censure them without giving them an opportunity to defend themselves and their position. And also, how do you square this position with the statement I referenced in my original post (RONR pg. 649, ll. 18-32)?

Regarding your question about the cost of becoming an official parliamentarian, go to the website of the National Association of Parliamentarians (www.parliamentarians.org), and you'll find a bunch of information. Knowledge is power, and learning RONR well is definitely empowering for knowing what to do in a meeting, what your rights are, how to appeal bad rulings, etc. In the meantime, take care of yourself. There is a lot more important in life than your HOA!

This, I think, is the RONR answer to your question: The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include: • action improperly taken at a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present; • action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not mentioned in the call of that meeting; • action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority; • action taken by a local unit that requires approval of the state or national organization; or • action taken by a state or national society subject to approval by its constituent units. An assembly can ratify only such actions of its officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies 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 (RONR pp. 124-5). So, if there is an action that "officers, delegates, or subordinate bodies" need to take that is "in excess of their instructions or authority" (including raising fees without official authorization), the action can be "ratified" at a later time; however, the board isn't required to do so, and could instead end up censuring those who took the action. So be careful, and ensure that it is what they want do be done.

A "motion of censure" would be appropriate only if the "improper conduct" occurs during a meeting, and the motion is made "promptly after the breach occurs" (RONR pg. 649, ln. 32). Since this is the result of an investigation by a committee, it is clearly the case that it relates to conduct either "elsewhere than at a meeting," or at one or more previous meetings, either of which would require a trial (RONR pg. 649, ll. 18-32).

I think the first question is whether the proposed correction is in fact correct; that is, does it make the minutes more accurately reflect what was done at the meeting? If so, I don't see any problem with making the correction by unanimous consent, which is how corrections to minutes are normally handled. If, on the other hand, as RONR states on pg. 354, ll. 30-33, there is any objection to the correction, then the "usual rules governing consideration of amendments" apply, which would be that when someone submits something for consideration at a meeting, it must still be "moved" by a member who is present in order to be considered. If no one moves its adoption (and if appropriate, seconds it), then it falls to the floor. If it is before the body by virtue of a member's motion, it may be debated and voted on.

Generally, "recusal" means a member's removal from both debate and voting on a matter. Robert's Rules does not discuss that, although requirements related to it are sometimes included in the rules of an organization. Refraining from voting on any matter (also known as "abstaining") is a right of any member, and need not be even be noted in minutes, unless the organization has some rule requiring it.The standard for voting - unless otherwise specified in the organization's rules - is of those present and voting. So if a member chooses not to vote, there is simply a different total of those "present and voting" than on a matter on which everyone present actually votes. If you need further clarificaiton, let us know.

Any use of electronic methods of meeting or voting must be authorized in an organization's bylaws. If you need more details about the ins and outs of that, let us know. But the basic answer given what you have said is no. One caveat, Some state laws require allowing electronic voting in non-profit corporations. And we don't comment on legal matters here, except to note that state law takes precedence over Robert's Rules.

Which is not to say that it would be inappropriate for a society to adopt rules related to dress code - just that such rules would be ordinary standing rules, rather than rules of order. In most cases i am aware of, dress "codes" are strictly a matter of local custom, and what any particular society does is related to how its members dress in other settings.

There is no rule in RONR that wives must be disruptive and critical. There is a clear statement only members of any society (or board) have any rights - including the rights to be present and/or to speak. Those are completely the responsibility of the society or board, unless the bylaws say otherwise.

Well, I think the way you stated it, it was a motion. The maker was just asking that the motion be adopted by unanimous consent. There are process motions handled by unanimous consent (such as extending a speaker's time) that might not make it into the minutes (although they might). But you can't set a date for party in a meeting without a motion. The motion can be made by someone or assumed, and whichever it is should be noted in the minutes (such as "On an assumed motion to hold a party . . .) . And then it can be adopted by a variety of methods (such as voice vote), one of which is by unanimous consent.

The wording is the same for each example: On motion by member A, it was agreed by unanimous consent to host a Christmas party on December 21, 2019 from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m.

I don't disagree that the committee should find more candidates and hold another meeting if/when it is possible to do so. But until they do, the Board apparently has the ability to appoint members and bring them into compliance - who serve until they are replaced by those duly elected by the assembly.

I certainly do not disagree with this approach. But if it is unsuccessful, it sounds as though the Board is authorized to fill the vacancies until the next membership meeting in order to be in compliance with its bylaws.

Unless there is some provision in state or other civil law, no. Robert's Rules no only does not automatically authorize proxy voting, it recommends that it not be authorized, because those who vote by proxy are not present for the deliberative process that is at the heart of why parliamentary process exists.

While "write-ins" may be legal, I assume there is some reason that nominations from the floor are not allowed (such as vetting possible nominees because the board works with children or something). What provisions exist in the bylaws for filling vacancies on the Board?

When you say that the "bylaws do not permit nominations from the floor," do you mean that the bylaws explicitly forbid such nominations, or only that they are silent on that question? If the latter, is Robert's Rules their parliamentary authority? RONR states, " After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor" (RONR pg. 435, ll. 10-12). So if nominations are by a committee, and the bylaws do not restrict or forbid them, then they are allowed.

My condolences to the family members and close friends of Mr. Robert who are a part of this forum.

The chair may vote when it affects the result - including when it would create a tie (and therefore disapprove the motion). there is not required to do so.

I'm really in the same place as my colleagues. As I already said, it's only a matter of where it goes on the agenda. Either way, a motion needs to be made and processed.

That is pretty much the definition of "unfinished business." So if your "regular business meetings . . . are not separated by more than a quarterly time interval" (RONR pg. 358, ll. 2-4), then such a matter should be placed on the agenda as unfinished business, rather than new business. But regardless, someone still needs to move the adoption of items on an agenda. So the only real question is where it goes on the agenda. If it is unfinished business, it has priority over new business.

Assuming your bylaws list the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (RONR) as your parliamentary authority, ask them to show you where the procedure they are following is described.