Steven Britton

15 hours ago, Guest John said:

Does anyone know if, as a general member, one can amend a vote position (e.g., from 'yes' to 'abstain') on a motion already voted on at a general member's meeting (e.g., a few days before the change in the member's position)?

I agree with what Dr. Stackpole's  and Mr. Jacob's answers; however, the original poster may be  asking a slightly different question. Under RONR, 11th ed., abstentions are not mentioned when recording a vote. IMO, Sometimes there are circumstance where a member should request that the minutes reflect that he/she did not participate in the deliberation or vote on a particular business item if they did not participate; but it's the ultimately the assembly's decision to adopt such a caveat in its minutes.

The Brewers won the playoff - a round of Milwaukee's Best for everyone.

19 minutes ago, Guest Member X said:

Can an executive board hold a meeting at a residential home (someone's home)?  Does Robert's Rules have anything on this?  The situation is this...Mr. Chairman called an "Emergency Meeting," our bylaw doesn't stated/specific what an Emergency Meeting was, it just stated that Mr. Chairman can call an Emergency Meeting.  So, Mr. Chairman text his board that we going to have an emergency meeting and someone asked to see whats the meeting is about, but Mr. Chairman refused to tell what's the meeting is about.  Mr. Chairman gathering his board into one of the board member home and conducted a meeting.  Is Mr. Chairman's action right?  Is it right to hold meeting at such place? 

There is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition, that prohibits an executive board from meeting in someone's residence. I would suggest you check the organization's bylaws regarding meeting notice requirements for such an "emergency" meeting. If this a public governmental meeting, check with a lawyer about compliance with your jurisdiction's public open meetings laws.

Also, if this is a new question, in the future, please post a new query.

4 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

My guess is that this thread has languished for a few days without further response because virtually everyone agrees with Mr. Katz that whenever an original main motion has been divided before there has been any debate on it and before any subsidiary motion other than Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair, an objection to the consideration of any one of the parts into which it has been divided can be raised whenever that part becomes the immediately pending question provided that the objection is raised before there has been any debate on that part, and before any subsidiary motion applied to it (other than Lay on the Table) has been stated by the chair.

Looks right to me.

Thanks Dan, in the particular scenario, let's say, it isn't a situation where the question could be divided by demand, and I appreciate your answer.

11 minutes ago, intrmom said:

Once meeting minutes have been presented and amended if necessary and accepted for filing are they subject to being changed in the future?

Under RONR, 11th ed., nothing prohibits the application of the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted to minutes. If your question is with regard to a municipal or governmental body, ask an attorney.

27 minutes ago, Guest Amy said:

Can an item not on the official, published agenda be discussed?

Generally, RONR, 11th ed. does not prohibit taking action on business not listed in a published agenda. Generally, discussion on a subject is part of transacting a particular item of business.

Sometimes, business such as bylaw amendments require previous notice to members before action on the amendment may be acted on. Also, amending business previously adopted may require a greater voting threshold to adopt the changes. Check you organization's own rules.

40 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The answer, it seems to me, can't be any different than the answer to this question: A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part is taken up. Can a member immediately interrupt and object to consideration, prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the first part?

That seems simpler, and I think the answer is clearly yes. So I'll go with yes to the original question, too.

The alternative is that objection to consideration would need to be made before division, and so it could be avoided by simply tying together the incendiary motion with one that everyone thinks needs to be taken up at the session.

In theory, it seems to me it should matter how division took place - if it required a majority vote, I am less certain. But I can't see any textual support for distinguishing on that basis, so I think my answer is the same, yes, to both.

This is similar to a question that Paul McClintock recently asked regarding application of the Previous Question once Division Of The Question is adopted, but the Standard Descriptive Characteristics to Object To Consideration Of The Question, RONR, 11th ed., p. 267, state:

"The objection can be raised only before there has been any debate or any subsidiary motion except Lay on the Table has been stated by the chair; thereafter, consideration of the main question has begun and it is too late to object."

As Division Of The Question is an Incidental motion, my concern is with the whether it matters that debate occurred on the first question only after the original question was divided.

22 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

The answer, it seems to me, can't be any different than the answer to this question: A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part is taken up. Can a member immediately interrupt and object to consideration, prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the first part?

That seems simpler, and I think the answer is clearly yes. So I'll go with yes to the original question, too.

The alternative is that objection to consideration would need to be made before division, and so it could be avoided by simply tying together the incendiary motion with one that everyone thinks needs to be taken up at the session.

In theory, it seems to me it should matter how division took place - if it required a majority vote, I am less certain. But I can't see any textual support for distinguishing on that basis, so I think my answer is the same, yes, to both.

Of course, if there was debate on the original question prior to its division, then Object To Consideration Of The Question is obviously not in order on the 2nd part.

A question is moved, and subsequently divided in two parts. The first part, after debate, is adopted. Can a member then interrupt and  Object To Consideration Of The Question on the 2nd part of the divided question prior to any debate or application of a subsidiary motion to the 2nd part?

1 hour ago, Guest Karyn said:

are there any hard and fast rules for the use of a vote by plurality in an election, rather than by a majority?

RONR, 11th ed., p. 406:

 "A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws."

13 hours ago, smastiff said:

Our president resigned , vice is now president and took over . The resigned president claims she has the full privileges as is assign a past president ,  The term of office she resigned from ends 2019. So can she attend all executive meeting and vote as our past president has privilege to do?

Do your bylaws actually specify the office of Immediate Past President?

21 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

So you insist that an application cannot "carry" a person's endorsement (support, backing, approval, whatever) of someone's application without that person actually signing it. It can't simply say that Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Katz (both members in good standing) support this applicant. No doubt about it, eh?  🙂

Would the following action at a meeting suffice: "Mr. President, Mr. X and Mrs. Y request that their endorsement of Mr. A and B Miss be enter in the minutes." (?)

16 hours ago, Guest Marcus said:

Can the President deny a motion or deny to recognize it 

Under certain circumstances, that is,  if the pending motion is an original main motion, that otherwise doesn't conflict with the assembly's rules-as Mr. Novosielski has noted-the presiding officer may object to the motion's consideration.

RONR, 11th edition p. 268 states:

"RESEMBLANCE TO POINT OF ORDER. An Objection to the Consideration of a Question is similar in some ways to a Point of Order. The presiding officer, on his own initiative, can submit his objection of this kind to a vote, just as he can raise a question of order on his own accord."

Without debate, the chair puts the question regarding the motion's consideration to a vote. A two-thirds vote in the negative sustains the objection.

7 minutes ago, Tim Wynn said:

😂 Heard that.

I believe we're in harmony now on this particular answer.

5 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

 Certainly bylaws cannot be amended in discord with the process for bylaw amendment prescribed in the bylaws (or higher governing document)? 🙂 I would consider the rules of RONR for amending bylaws that are silent on bylaw amendment to be in accord with bylaws that are silent on their amendment.

Certainly, if the bylaws prescribe a method for their own amendment, as they should. Myself, as a classically trained musician, I always tried to avoid dis-chord.

3 hours ago, Tim Wynn said:

Bylaws can only be amended in accordance with the process for bylaw amendment prescribed in the bylaws (or higher governing document). Check to see what the bylaws say about their amendment.

 

I agree with Tim Wynn's answer (and welcome him back) except for the phrase " only can be." Further expanding on his explanation,  RONR,  p. 52,9 ll. 1 - 13, 11th edition, further states: 

If the bylaws are silent regarding their own amendment, …. "Special requirements for this motion's adoption should be specified in the bylaws, and they should always include at least notice and a two-thirds vote, which (with a vote of a majority of the entire membership as an allowable alternative) are the requirements for its adoption if such specification in the bylaws is neglected (see pp. 580–82)."

12 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

All that is needed, really, is for a couple of members to show up, call the meeting to order and then set an adjourned meeting for whatever date and time has been agreed to in advance and then adjourn. Setting an adjourned meeting is one of the few things that can be done in the absence of a quorum.

 

And if there is no need to conduct business other than the bylaws require a meeting, Just call the meeting to order and adjourn.

3 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Well, the most recent discussion relates only to an understanding of what is said in RONR on page 435, lines 4-8, but what makes you think that the Nominating Committee (not the "bylaw committee") in this instance did not comply with the requirement that it "shall previously obtain the consent of each such nominee" before it completed its charge in November and was discharged?

Dan, I never stated the nominating committee didn't comply with its duty to obtain the consent prior to reporting-please don't imply that I did. However, generally if the candidate doesn't have an ability to withdraw his/her consent after the committee presents its reports, depending on how much time intervenes, it renders RONR 11th ed. p. 435. (ll. 4-8) absurd. Also, the  parallel language regarding obtaining acceptance to nominees in RONR 11th ed. is on p. 434 (ll. 1-6) and it is silent concern candidate's withdrawing his/her consent, and does not specifically use the word consent; it states:

 It is desirable policy for the nominating committee, before making its report, to contact each person whom it wishes to nominate, in order to obtain his acceptance of nomination—that is, his assurance that he will serve in the specified office if elected. The bylaws can make such a practice mandatory.

18 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Yes, it says a nominee may withdraw; it doesn't say that he may withdraw his nomination. As I said before, he can withdraw as a candidate, and/or indicate that he will not serve if elected. 

All else aside, it should be obvious that a person cannot withdraw a nomination, or a suggestion to fill a blank, or any motion for that matter, that he, himself, did not make.

Regarding the analysis, thus far, I agree with Richard. In this particular instance, the club bylaws stated:

"The nominating committee shall previously obtain the consent of each such nominee." <reference to nominating committee edited.>

The requirement concerning obtaining the candidates consent is an issue with the bylaws, not RONR. If the candidate is permitted to withdraw his/her consent, he/she is no longer eligible for election. The committee no longer has the member's consent. Also, in this particular matter, that is, whether a candidate may withdraw his/her consent, is a concern with the bylaws, and as such, is outside of the scope of this this forum.

Nothing in RONR (11th ed)  specific to your prepositional phrase, and nothing in RONR that prevents a board member from serving as a staff member.

1 minute ago, Peter J. Vedro said:

Thank you for responding--the WI Open Meetings Law merely requires that whatever is on the agenda needs to be posted 24 hours in advance.  My motion was to "discharge from Committee" a specific MOTION--that was approved by the Board 19/12 and a motion to reconsider that action was defeated 19/12.  So it is obvious the full Board want "ownership" of the primary motion and voted it OUT OF COMMITTEE.  I believe some are trying to deny that fact by making it seem we did NOT do what we actually did by a vote of 19/12 (!) They will argue the vote was simply to put on the agenda a motion to discharge--but we already took that vote as a full Board.  What should be on the agenda is the actual primary motion REMOVED from the committee--at least that's how I understand it.

Peter

Presuming 19 affirmative votes is a majority of the entire membership of your board of directors and there is no conflict with the Wisconsin Open meetings law, the motion to discharge a committee - without previous notice - was adopted. See RONR (11th ed.) pp. 310 - 315. Also, according to Standard Descriptive Characteristic #8  (p.312), at the time, reconsideration was not in order.

If counsel advises that there was a conflict with the Wisconsin's Open Meetings Laws, follow counsel's advise regarding compliance with Wisconsin law.

Page 656 of RONR, 11th ed. states " member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated."

To what extent is this a fundamental right under common parliamentary law? 

Would a better wording be, "to return to public session?"

You should check with an attorney licensed to practice law in Michigan. Your question for the attorney should concern - what limitations on voting in executive session does the act prescribe? If the act limits voting - in executive session, it is possible that the qualification in Dan's motion to go into executive session to vote was not in order due to rules outside of RONR. You need to check with your own attorney.

6 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

Okay, but saying that it may not be possible to delegate certain duties and saying that the Secretary can't have an assistant at all are very different things.

On ‎12‎/‎19‎/‎2016 at 8:35 PM, Gary Novosielski said:

Nothing I said was intended to imply that assistant officers (your term) were actually officers, so I don't believe the quoted language is applicable.

I see no prohibition in RONR for appointing one or more individuals of non-officer status whose task it is to assist the secretary in the performance of the duties of the office.  The same goes for assistant treasurers, bookkeepers, membership clerks. facilities managers, and the like.

If the bylaws provide for non officer assistant treasurers, book keepers, memberships clerks, and are silent about non-officer assistant secretary's?