Rev Ed

Or better yet, take your copy of RONR (it sounds based on an earlier post that you have a copy of RONR) and ask her to show you the passage if she still claims what she is saying is true (I have the feeling based on other people who have had similar issues - i.e. people claiming things existed in RONR that do not exist - that some people will still claim things, so it helps to have 'the book' available for a "Then show me" response.

The scrutineers would only help count votes in the event of a ballot vote, so unless a ballot vote is ordered by the assembly, or is required by the by-laws, then this would not be an issue. Can you provide more information as to why you are asking the question, please.

A person who is not a member of the organization would have no rights of membership - including not being able to vote at all.

You may need to consult a lawyer if you have listed the job on any job boards (including the Church's own website), but until that point, I would say yes the job description could be amended through a motion to amend something previously approved. However, once you agree to hire someone - or if the Church is in the actual process of hiring someone (i.e. advertising the job and accepting applications), then while RONR would still allow you to change the motion that approved the job description (you haven't actually hire anyone so the motion has in effect not been completed) but again this issue touches on employment so employment law may say something different and that is beyond scope of RONR, so beyond what we can advise on this forum.

It all depends on the wording of the specific rule in question, plus who is empowered to enforce the rules. Some rules may have a 'Grandfather clause' contained in them. For example, the rules may read that a member who joined prior to January 1st, 2017 and who keeps their membership in good standing, may park their car for up to two weeks in the organization's parking lot. However members who join on or after January 1st, 2017 can only park their cars on the organization's property while using the organization's facilities. The Board cannot take action against a member who joined on December 31st, 2016 from leaving their car in a parking spot for two years, but may do so against a member who joined February 1st, 2017.

Yes to any books that belong to the organization. So if the Secretary has the official binder with the official copies of the Minutes and/or any other documents, then yes he/she has to turn them back in. As for their own personal notes, or their own copies of documents, then no.

Well, even the death of the IPP it could have issues with quorum. Even if the President dies in office, it could be argued that death made him the IPP - so how could he do the job of IPP now that he has died?

Of coursenothing would stop the Board from forming the Committee and then appointing themselves as members of the Committee, unless the By-laws state some other method of appointing the Committee. On a side note, if the Committee does not existat the moment, then how is there a Chairman for the Committee?

Better yet, just change the By-laws to stop having the Past President automatically be a member of the Board.

Yes, thanks for the correction Richard. At the same time, I was trying to make a point that an election essentially has to be accepted but a nomination cannot be refused.

There is no requirement for those nominated to accept a nomination to office - people may not have considered running but will end up accepting election once elected. It also allows members to provide an alternative to those who also nominated for office (there is no option to for no to any candidates - the only option is to vote for another person.) As such, no acceptance of nominations are required. However, anyone elected to office has to accept election (either by formally accepting election - i.e. "I would like to thank you for electing me" - or by not refusing election when notified)

Okay - yes I concur. But that would be in the Minutes. However, at the same time we are not lawyers - it is quite possible that a court could order the Minutes to be produced in order determine if the resolution or motion contained anything defamatory. But we cannot twll the original poster if that would occur or not.

Well, the general membership should ultimately decide this by putting it into the By-laws. For example, a By-law could read something like this: "As for issues of discipline, the Society shall follow the disciplinary options available under the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised with the following exemptions: a) that all copies of records related to the disciplinary be made available to all Committee members and that the copies shall be numbered and signed for by each member of the Disciplinary Committee who receives a copy and that all copies shall be collected at the end of the disciplinary action." The wording could be altered to make it more clear or correct, but it would allow for this to be handled. Otherwise, I would suggest that the Committee make the decision for themselves at the moment. But the Minutes of any meeting, under RONR, do not contain what was said but what was decided. Therefore, there should be no defamation contained in the Minutes. However, I am not a lawyer, so I cannot tell you what would occur if the issue went to court. However, if there are libelous statements contained in any records used at the disciplinary meeting, the accused should disagree with them and try to prevent as much evidence as possible about why those comments are incorrect. However, we cannot get further into legal related issues, only a lawyer can advise you on what would occur if these records are used to convict an accused at a disciplinary hearing and the accused tries to take the issue to court. There should be no records of what occurred at the hearing other then the Minutes (indicating what decisions were made, not who said what), and any report provided back to the Board or general membership, as required. We are also way past the first edition of RONR - I believe we are up to the 11th Edition of Robert's Rules. The whole point of Executive Session is so that people can say what needs to be said in private without their statements being taken out of context. RONR allows for a trial and at that trial the accused has the right to defend himself/herself. So the accused can correct any statements (or deny any statements) made by others.

The answer is simple - no. Proxy voting, or any kind of absentee voting - such as sending out the ballot by e-mail - are only allowed if the By-laws allow for them.

Regardless, a regular meeting must be known to the Board member - either through specific notice (i.e. a letter or e-mail being sent out to all members of the Board) or through a By-law stating when regular meetings will be held (i.e. "The Board shall meet monthly on the third Tuesday of the month at 7 p.m. in Board Room.") So you cannot hold a regular meeting without the board member knowing about it. Of course, that does not necessarily mean that specific items must be disclosed in the notice - or sent out at all. For special meetings, all board members must be informed and can only be called if the By-laws specifically allow for it. And only issues specified in the call for the meeting can be discussed and/or vote upon.

SaintCad - I know of several organizations where the By-laws have included a statement that if a Board member misses three meetings within a calendar year without a reason that the Board can declare the position vacant. So if the member leaves for three months after stating "I quit", the Board could declare the position vacant regardless. So even under your situation, the person could win on appeal only to still be removed from office.

Based on the information provided, the Vice President has withdrawn he resignation and as such will continue as Vice President.

Normally, the President would chair the meeting, then the Vice President. If neither are present, then the Secretary should call the meeting to order to elect a Chair pro tem. As none of the above are present, then any member may call the meeting to order and hold an election for a Chair pro tem. Once a President is elected, he/she would take over as Chair. P.S. A Chair pro tem is a temporary Chair who chairs a meeting until the normal Chair (i.e. the President) or a Vice President arrives or is elected.

There can be as many Vice President's as the organization wants - just like there can be as many directors as the organization wants. Each organization is going to be different. For example, for a For-Profit organization (i.e. a company who is out to make money like a bank or large retail organization), the organization may have more than one Vice President heading up each department/section of the organization (i.e. Vice President of Finance, Vice President of Human Resources, Vice President of Marketing, Vice President of Sales, etc.) For a Not-For Profit I'd keep it to a small number of Vice Presidents. Perhaps one - but no more than three, depending on the size of the organization. You may have a for each major area of the organization, such as a Vice President of Fundraising, but the By-laws should state how each Vice President will rank in succession for the Presidency. For example, in such a case I have advised ranking the Vice Presidents according to seniority. The longer the person has been a Vice President, then the closer they are to take over the Presidency in the case of the Presidency becoming vacant due to death, resignation, or removal from office.

Nope. First you vote on the original motion, and if against it vote against it. Then make a motion to do the opposite. To take up on Bruce's example above: first you vote on the motion to commend something, and then if it defeated you are free to make a motion to censure.

It all depends on what any statute covering your organization says. Legislation may require an audit. But as far as RONR is concerned the By-laws can contain whatever the members want them to say.

Also, as the assembly has the ultimate final decision, if the Chairman starts denying the right of the assembly to make a final decision on the issue, the assembly could move to have the Chairman removed as the Chair of the meeting. Plus, further disciplinary action could be taken, if required.

I'd go with the membership - its their Minutes of their meeting. But I remember something about the Board, or another group doing so because of the time interval. Someone else will give you a more concrete response.

Another example would be if the Board (for example) normally takes a recess roughly halfway through the meeting. A motion could be made to "Not take a recess during the meeting."

Then what do you call corrections? You do not vote on the Minutes themselves, but on the corrections offered. As such, if necessary, another member could offer a completely different set of Minutes by way of moving to correct the Minutes with a new set of Minutes. Something along the lines of "I move that the Minutes be corrected through the draft version offered by Joe Smith." Someone else will likely provide a more accurate motion.