Rev Ed

If the person has caused problems as a Chairman, then he can be replaced as a Chairman but the individual/group who appointed him to begin with. If he is causing a problem as an employee, then the issue is one of employment law and a lawyer needs to be contacted with regards to termination of his employment. If there are issues at general membership meetings, the organization could censure him or order him removed from the meeting if he creates issues.

If one Committee is invited to another meeting, then it is not a joint meeting. It is only a joint meeting if both Committees are going to hold a meeting in the same place at the same time. In such a case, if there is a member who serves on both Committees could be asked to Chair the meeting (with permission of both Chairmen and the Committees), or the Chairmen could agree amongst themselves.

But still any limitations on membership must be found in the By-laws so if the By-laws do not say that the non-voting member cannot make a motion (or enter into debate, or anything else) then the member can vote.

Well a tie vote defeats the motion. However, in this case you still have a vacancy. Ultimately, it is up to the organization to interpret its own rules. However, you would just ahve to hold more votes until someone is appointed, preferably by finding someone who can receive four votes.

Well, the By-laws trump anything found in RONR. However, a motion to "Amend Something Previously Adopted" could be made to bring the issue back up at a next meeting so I wonder why the reconsider option was placed into the By-laws in the first place (other then it was placed there by someone who did not understand parliamentary procedure.)

True. But, in general if a member has a right to the floor, then the member has the right to the floor. So how long had the member been speaking?

No. If a Chairman refuses to recognize a member who has the right to floor, then the Chairman should be reprimanded. Perhaps it would be as simple as removing him/her from the Chair for the issue (or the meeting) up to, and including, removing him.her from office.

Of course, the By-laws or an applicable statute might allow the general membership to 'review' the Minutes of the Board. Both would overrule anything found in RONR so check them both to make sure as well.

But if the Chairman is a member of the group, the Chairman has the same rights of every other member (i.e. to make motions, second motions, enter into debate, vote, etc.), but should not to preserve the appearance of neutrality unless the group is operating under the 'relaxed' rules of RONR which Chris already mentioned.

True - but my point was sometimes there is one person who just wants to use the system to his/her advantage - but yes special rules of order can deal with these types of issues.

The only time I can think of is if it becomes obvious that a particular member consistently uses his right to make a motion to Postpone Indefinitely to have 'extra' debate opportunities. Of course, the membership would have to back up the Chairman even the Chairman rules the motion to postpone as being dilatory. At the end of the day it doesn't matter what we say, it is up to the membership to decide how its meetings operate.

To me it is not being "unfair" to current Board members if new candidates are nominated at the meeting - if members nominated in advance assume that they will be running unopposed, this is their fault entirely. They know people can be nominated at the meeting so should be prepared. Also, remember the members ultimately decide who is and who is not elected. If they like the current Board, then would vote for those members to be re-elected. Having belonged to groups where I have been on the Board, and where I have wanted to get on the Board to make it better, I can tell you that election process, if kept honest as it does in your organization, is fair. In the end the people decide who they want on the Board. And if they end up voting for the "wrong" people that's their own fault. While RONR technically deals with parliamentary procedure, it's process for election is actually very democratic - even the requirement for a candidate to receive a majority of votes casts to be elected is democratic as it means the successful candidate is essentially representing a majority of those who bothered to vote.

You might also want to use one of the general meetings to amend the By-laws to clear up the issue. I'd almost suggest under the situation to only have a Board of Directors comprised of the Officers and a number of Directors instead of a Committee and an Executive Board. Then require the Board to meet once a month and allow the Board to have special meetings that are called by the Chairman or on request of any two members.

You round up - it's that simple.

Thank you Tim. The Chairman should state something like this: "Does anyone object to entering into Executive Session? (pause) If not, then we shall enter into Executive Session."

There are two options: 1) The President/Chairman could state: "If no one objects (pauses for any objections), then we chall enter into Executive Session." 2) If someone objects, or if anyone wants to go into Executive Session, someone can offer a motion to into Executive Session (i.e. "I move that we go into Executive Session") or the President/Chairman can ask if there is a motion to enter into Executive Session. If there are generally no more than around 13 members, the group can follow the relaxed rules of RONR in which case the President/Chairman may make a motion to go into Executive Session.

For me, the Head Table really only requires the Chairman, the Secretary, the Parliamentarian (if applicable), anyone else who will be presenting a report. Otherwise, there is no reason to have the person at the front table. However, for some organizations, they do like having the Board at the head table so that it is easier to see them and state "This is what we think". It is really up to the organization - I have seen situations where there is no formal head table, but the Chairman and Secretary sit at the front of the room and anyone making a presentation simply stands up at their seat when it is time to make their report. By the way, I have even seen meetings of the membership where a 'roundtable' idea is used - the seats are basically turned to make a large circle - sometimes two rows deep. This way everyone can see everyone else more easily.

Sorry, I should have said "is not in order." My mistake. Thank you for pointing that out to me.

Page 457 of RONR deals with not reading the Minutes. However, the Minutes should be sent out prior to the meeting (so memebers can read them) and the Minutes must still be approved and corrections offered. RONR does not state anything that I can find stating that a motion to dispense with the reading of the Minutes is in order. However, a memeber has the right to require the Minutes being read.

It all depends on the what the 2/3 vote is out of. Assuming there are 100 members, and 75 of them are present at a meeting, here are the different possiblities: 1) If it is 2/3 of all members, then there must be 67 "yes" votes. Anyone who abstains, or is not present, has the same effect a a "no" vote. 2) If it is a 2/3 majority of votes cast, then an abstention has no effect on the vote. If 60 of those 75 people vote, then 40 will be sufficient as 40 is 2/3 of 60. 3) If the vote is 2/3 of those present, then 50 of those 75 must vote "yes" and an abstention has the same effect as a "no" vote as 2/3 of all those members present must vote "yes."