Rob Elsman

I do not disagree with Mr. Wynn's second half, but I do not see anything in the original post that makes it relevant to the question that Tomm asked.

If the rules in RONR (12th ed.) are controlling, any new business is allowed to be introduced after the orders of the day have been disposed of, provided that previous notice of motions requiring previous notice has been properly given, until the meeting is adjourned. Nothing in the original post indicates that the assembly adopted an order to adjourn after the orders of the day were disposed of, and all the discussion about this seems irrelevant to me. In fact, the fact that there might (or might not) have been an adopted agenda seems irrelevant to me. As the facts have been presented, after the orders of the day were disposed of, the chair should have asked something like, "Is there any further business?". As Mr. Wynn points out, it is improper for the chair to try to deprive members of a reasonable opportunity to rise and seek recognition by hurrying the proceedings too much. So, the direct answer to the question asked is affirmative.

I am a little confused. At the beginning, a town council is the body that seems to be meeting, but further in the post, no member of a committee raised their hands, so the item of business was dropped, apparently for the lack of a main motion. I would have thought that any member of the town council, not just members of a committee, would have been qualified to make the necessary main motion in a meeting of the town council. So, also, is the Conservation Committee the same committee as the committee of which none of the members raised their hands, or are these two distinct committees?

This will be a matter for debate when the newly organizing society is considering its first set of bylaws.

The county commission and all its inferior bodies will want to be scrupulous in complying with all statutory and regulatory rules or restrictions. If there are questions about these, the commission's legal counsel should be able to provide assistance.

When a roll call vote is taken, the secretary (the president does not call the roll) calls the names of all the members on the roll, regardless of the fact that the result of the vote is determinable before the end of the roll is reached.

The proper manner of transacting business is laid out in RONR (12th ed.) §3, 4. Since it seems that Robert's Rules is the association's parliamentary authority, I am sure the board is familiar with the book and will have no trouble understanding how to handle these four alternatives.

I have provided you the reason why the rule does not apply.

Mr. Novosielski, the motion to adopt the recommendations contained in a committee's report is made on behalf of the committee, not on behalf of the reporting member. In my opinion, if such an obviously awkward situation were to arise (and I hope it would not), the reporting member can speak in opposition to any or all of the recommendations on his own behalf without violating the rule that prohibits a member from speaking in debate against his own motion, RONR (12th ed.) 43:25.

The exclusion of some members of a body from the call of a meeting renders the meeting an illegal meeting, and any votes cast at such a meeting are illegal votes by illegal voters. Any business transacted at such a meeting is null and void, since the basic rights of the individual members who were excluded have been violated. See RONR (12th ed.) 23:6, item (e); 45:56. In contrast, nothing in RONR restricts the right of a limited group of members to gather and discuss whatever they want to discuss without transacting business. Think of it as a pizza and beer party. However, be aware that some states have passed open meeting or "sunshine" laws that may restrict the right of members to gather and discuss public business outside a properly called public meeting. In my state, for example, county commissioners have actually been convicted of a felony for just discussing public business outside a properly called public meeting.

When the chairman of a committee does not agree with a report that has been adopted by the committee, the committee should appoint another member of the committee who does agree with the report to present the report to the committee's parent body. This avoids the awkward situations where 1) a reporting member who does not agree with the committee's report has to make a motion to adopt the recommendation contained in the report on behalf of the committee, and 2) the reporting member, having preference in recognition, opens the debate speaking on his own behalf in opposition to the very report that he presented.

Didn't you wonder why they kept spraying disinfectants when you approached them?

In business, a copy for distribution that is not signed and photocopied usually indicates that the original was signed by "/s/ Margaret Duffy".

...or maybe newest first. Or, maybe, some other order. This is an incompetent board, so why would anyone expect anything to be logical?

With the exception of the College of Cardinals in a conclave, people are generally considered to be free to come and go from a meeting. Maybe this member had to go to the restroom. Maybe he wanted to step out for a quick run to the ice cream parlor for a cone. Who knows? Who cares?

Because individual members of the town council cannot speak on behalf of the board, it is best that the public address comments to the presiding officer without asking questions that are expected to be immediately answered. Also, it is not fair for individual council members to be blindsided with questions for which they are not adequately prepared to give an answer.

If there are different classes of trustees (for example, trustees have staggered terms) it is best to designate each trustee according to his class--for example, a Class "C" trustee would be elected in years evenly divisible by three. When a trustee resigns, the vacancy is filled by a trustee of the same class as the class to which the trustee who resigned belonged. As Mr. Martin points out, the vacancies can be filled in any order, but it is imperative to know to which class each vacancy belongs.

Since executive boards are usually fairly small, there should be no need for an executive board to have a parliamentarian at all. If this society is experiencing the need for a parliamentarian at board meetings, the competency of the chairman of the board is in grave doubt.

The motion "to table", in any of its forms, is not in order for this purpose. The proper motion in lieu of "table" is Commit. The details of this subsidiary motion are found in RONR (12th ed.) §13.

Other than the presentation of the board's report and any recommendations that the report might contain, the board is not represented at the meeting of the general membership assembly. When the reporting member moves the adoption of any recommendations contained in the report, he is doing so on behalf of the board. Otherwise, members of the board are only representing themselves when they attend meetings of the general membership assembly. They are free to make motions that the board might not agree with. They are free to express opinions the board might not agree with. And, they are free to vote contrary to the way the board might decide a question.

OK, Tomm, that is very helpful to me, and I will keep it in mind as you make further post on this forum. Thank you for responding to my concerns. If the board members take their seats on the dais or front of the meeting room, any member may obtain the floor when no business is pending and move that the members of board who are not functioning as presiding officer or secretary of the meeting take their seats among the other general members (or, in the spectator section, if there are members of the board who are not members of the general membership assembly). Such a motion is a main motion; and, it requires a second, is debatable, and requires a majority vote for adoption.

Were "we" (the board?) authorized to deviate from the established order of business of the society when "we" "instituted" this "session" (by adopting a special rule of order?)? I bet not, but you can tell us. What bylaw conferred that authority?

Certainly, it is proper for the president to be seated at the front of the meeting hall at a place where he can be easily seen and heard. The secretary needs to be seated close to the president to facilitate handing papers. It is sometimes customary to welcome honorary presidents to sit at the front near the president and facing the general members. Other grandees may also be invited to do so. Board members who are members of the society are just general members for the purpose of the annual meeting. One of the members of the board will present the report of the board. Other than that, they have no special function in the annual meeting. If you read this forum, you will find that there have been many questions raised about board members trying to run the annual meeting of the general membership assembly. When this happens, it is always the case that the board members seat themselves at the front in order to unbalance the power of the room so they can pontificate over the meeting. I have repeated advised that the seating arrangement in the hall is up to the general membership assembly, not the board. Whether or not the board members are permitted to sit here or there is up to the assembly. If the assembly is displeased with the seating arrangement, it can adopt an order requiring the board members to take their seats among the other general members or in the spectators' gallery if they are there are board members who are not members of the general membership assembly. All this having been said, Tomm, I have been gaining an increasingly better understanding of your society the more you have posted. I am closer to believing that your organization is actually a public trust of some kind, and that the true members of the organization are only the members of the board. I suspect that what you are thinking of as general members are actually volunteers to the organization, but not members in terms of the common parliamentary law. Am I wrong about this? If, indeed, this organization is a public trust, the trustees (board members) have the right to control the meeting room. The volunteers would be spectators, in terms of the parliamentary law, who would not have any rights under the common parliamentary law. The volunteers would be permitted to participate only to the extent that the board would suffer them to. So, you see, the correct answer to your question depends on what the nature of this organization really is, and, consequently, who the membership really is. When you first started posting, I thought your organization was one of a million very ordinary organizations. Now, I am not so sure. I advise you to examine very close all the organizing documents. You need to figure out what kind of an organization you have before you can figure out who has authority to control the meeting hall.

I interpreted this sentence to mean that the mover was, in fact, an illegal voter. Otherwise, who would care?

Unless the illegal vote of the illegal voter determined the result of the vote, the time for raising a Point of Order at the next regular business meeting has expired. If the illegal vote of the illegal voter did, in fact, determine the result of the vote, a Point of Order can be raised at the next meeting, unless the motion has been fully executed.