Rob Elsman

One option is for the association to dissolve.

Until their resignations have been accepted, or at least there has been a reasonable opportunity for the resignations to have been accepted, the officers remain in office. By submitting their resignations at the general membership meeting, "they did it" in a way that comports with the rule in RONR (12th ed.), however rashly it may have been done.

If the rules require something done in a meeting to be entered on the minutes, then that something should be entered on the minutes without regard to how the topic "should be handled".

Well, it seems to me that the board president was abusing his authority when he refused to recognize the chairman of the committee for the purpose of presenting the committee's report. It is true, however, that motions arising from the report can also be made by members of the board after the recommendations contained in the report have been disposed of. The proceedings, in general, sound a little bit too loosey-goosey to me, even considering that this board is likely to be a smallish board. I suspect that all of the members of the board are in need of further training in proper parliamentary procedure. Have all the members obtained and read Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief (3rd ed.)? Does the president of the board have access to a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised (12th ed.)? Has he thoroughly studied the relevant parts of it? Does he bring it to each meeting of the board? When he makes a ruling not to recognize someone who is seeking recognition to be assigned the floor, does he give a brief reason for ruling the way he did? Is that reason reasonable (I know how awkward that sounds)? Do members of the board know how to raise a Point of Order or an Appeal from the decision of the chair?

There is a lot of information available about the preparation and presentation of reports and the making of motions that arise from them. Check the index under the entry, "reports".

Be sure to keep the comments period orderly and observe all the rules the board has adopted to govern it. Since no business is pending during a comment period, it is unlikely that the chairman of the board will tolerate any attempt by the spectators to "engage in debate".

Our guest who originally posted does not seem to be a member of the board. If he is allowed to attend board meetings at all, his role is that of spectator. While observing the proceedings can be helpful to a spectator in judging which members are not fit for office, his recourse against those he judges to be unfit is to vote for a different person at the next appropriate election. All of the rest of the post seems to have more to do with legal matters than matters of parliamentary procedure.

A Request to be Excused from a Duty, RONR (12th ed.) §32, is an incidental motion. Although it may be admitted by way of the motion, Question of Privilege, RONR (12th ed.) §19, which is a privileged motion, its formal classification as an incidental motion does not change thereby. I have earlier opined that the "incidental motions" exception does not apply, because the incidental motion in this case does not arise out of business that is specified in the call of the special meeting.

Oops!

Thank you, Mr. Honemann. As per my earlier opinion, the motion to accept a resignation that is not specified in the call of the special meeting cannot be considered during the special meeting on account that it does not fall within the "conduct of the meeting" exception. RONR (12th ed.) 9:15.

So, is Mr. Honemann asserting the "conduct of business" exception? it seem so from his selection of quotations, but his response is not explicit about this. If so, I again opine that the resignation cannot be accepted at a special meeting if it is not specified in the call of the meeting. Again, if an essential officer is lacking at the special meeting, the proper course of action is to hold an election of an essential officer pro tem, which can be admitted as a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of the assembly under the "conduct of business" exception.

Mr. Kapur's suggestion may be unnecessarily contentious, since the order of accepting the resignations in the way he suggests will likely influence the submission of names to the president.

If it is being asserted that the motion to accept the resignation falls within the "incidental motion" exception of RONR (12th ed.) 9:15, I kindly disagree. It is clear from the context of the discussion of special meetings that the "incidental motion" exception is meant to permit the admission of incidental motions that arise out of the transaction of business specified in the call of the meeting. I think what I am having difficulty ascertaining from the discussion thus far is exactly what exception in 9:15 others opine applies to permit the admission of the resignation. It would help me to know more precisely what exception is being asserted that prevents the general rule from applying.

I am not certain I understand this phrase. "Where names will be submitted" seems to be written in the agent-less passive voice, since it is unlikely that the Executive Board is the agent of "will be submitted". It is also not clear whether the Executive Board has the power to forward multiple names to the President, from which he selects one for appointment to fill "said office". What constitutes an "emergency decision" is not specified and lacks any scope. At any rate, assuming there is a properly called meeting at which six members are present, a main motion could be made "that A, B, C, and D are excused from their duties as members of the Executive Board in consideration of the letter of resignation which each of them has submitted."

Let's take just one step back, if we can, please. 1. RONR (12th ed.) 47:11(3) informs us that, in the absence or impedance of the president and all vice presidents, the assembly has the power proceed to the immediate election of a president pro tem as a temporary occupant of the chair. Such an election may be admitted as a question of privilege affecting the rights and privileges of the assembly, so the election can interrupt other pending business if the situation demands it. So, if a vice president is not present, and the president suddenly walks out in a fit of anger or disgust (whether or not he has submitted his resignation), the assembly has the power to temporarily fill the chair. There is no special or urgent need to accept a sudden resignation in the middle of a special meeting. 2. What is said above also applies to the secretary or any other officer whose function is necessary for the orderly functioning of the meeting. There is no special or urgent need to deal with a sudden abandonment of any necessary office in the middle of a special meeting (whether or not a resignation has been submitted). I would, therefore, opine that the rule in RONR (12th ed.) 9:15 does not preclude the election of a necessary officer pro tem in a special meeting ("conduct of the meeting" exception) that the acceptance of a resignation or a properly noticed election to permanently fill a vacancy in a special meeting must be included in the call of the special meeting.

It is your bylaw; you tell us. 😐

Since the sending of draft documents seems to occur outside the context of a business meeting, parliamentary procedure does not apply.

I think Center Mic is what Robert's Rules of Order calls a president. He is the presiding officer. Having said this, RONR (12th ed.) is designed primarily for business meetings in which the members are physically present together in one meeting room or area. Some of what is said will necessarily not apply to videoconferencing.

Although I agree with Mr. Merritt that "the rules of decorum still apply", I think that, were I in the chair, my ruling would actually be that the offending words exceeded the scope of the privilege granted, since it is not reasonable to believe that the body had granted the privilege with the expectation that the offender would yell at another person or make threats.

Even if the body had extended the privilege of speaking for some purpose it seems clear to me that "yelling at another person" or "making threats [toward another person?]" would not be in order during the meeting. It certainly would not be if I were in the chair, whatever the circumstances.

Mr. Honemann, is there a way we could explore your "very interesting question" without having to know "if this is a convention of delegates" or "the exact language of the bylaw provisions"? It would be a shame if we let the opportunity go without having the opportunity to learn something new.

Well, I am so confused that I hardly know what to say. Now it sounds like these two committees are not subordinate bodies of the town council. I would like to help, but I will be frank and admit that I just don't get it.

I would opine that "conduct unbecoming of a member" covers the behavior. However, I would also opine that a complete reimbursement would finish the matter, and the outgoing directors would soon leave office at the end of their terms in disgrace.

See https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/39489-can-the-chair-make-a-motion/#comment-234116

So, the tab was apparently paid on the account of the club, I gather. I suppose the next step is for the treasurer to invoice the person who paid the tab on the club's account for reimbursement. The club's general membership assembly can order the treasurer to do this by adopting a main motion by majority vote. You can go from there, depending on what happens.