Rob Elsman

The role of an alternate committee member is exactly what is defined in the organization's bylaws or the motion establishing the committee, and nothing more. Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) gives such an alternate any particular role at all.

It is something of a misnomer to say that the wife was "appointed". A better description would be "elected". An election to fill a vacancy requires previous notice, which is a protection of the rights of members who might otherwise be absent. This requirement for previous notice cannot be suspended, and the failure to give proper notice has the effect of nullifying the result of the election. The original post leaves me with the impression that previous notice was not properly given, so I have to wonder whether there were absentees to protect; if so, the election is null and void. The vacancy to be filled is for the remainder of the term of office of the person who resigned. We are not told in the original post what the remainder of the term is. It is not clear to me that the board must suffer the appointment for a full year. The term of the elected wife-president will expire at the same time the term of the husband-president would have naturally expired had he not resigned. Depending on the wording of the bylaw defining the term of office of the president, It may be possible for the "new" board to rid itself of the wife-president without a disciplinary procedure involving a trial. Check those bylaws.

If, as you say, the exact text of the main motion is, "I move to adopt the proposed calendar", then the primary amendment, "...cancel the meeting on June 1st" is not in order on account that the primary amendment does not propose to modify the text of the main motion. For some reason that I do not understand, the original poster and I are not communicating in a meaningful way, so I am going to bow out of this topic with the hope that someone else can do a better job than I can.

I appreciate the picture of the main motion that you have drawn up in your mind. For the lack of sufficient information, I had imaged in my own mind that the primary amendment was a motion to strike out words, in which case the secondary amendment to strike out and insert words would not have been in order. All this goes back to my earlier request for the exact text of the relevant part of the main motion that went unfulfilled.

One more thing: For one moment, let's play like the main motion was admissible (it is not, as I explained earlier). It is my opinion (without even having seen the text of the main motion--I'm just going on a description of it), the main motion encompasses a series of independent, free-standing proposals that have been moved under one overarching main motion to adopt this "calendar of meetings". If I am right about this, any member could have demanded a separate vote on the scheduling of the June meeting. The other (eleven?) meetings could have been voted on as a group, and the question of the adoption of the motion to schedule a June meeting considered thereafter. Since this is the case, the primary amendment would not be in order, since the effect of adopting the primary amendment would be the same as the effect of rejecting the main motion to schedule the June meeting.

Provided the applicant has fulfilled all the requirements for membership eligibility, he can be admitted to membership at the beginning of the annual meeting and vote on all business that is transacted at the meeting thereafter.

If I understand the new facts correctly, I have to disagree with Mr. Novosielski. As I see it, the effect of adopting the secondary amendment is the same as rejecting the primary amendment. Therefore, were I in the chair, I would rule that the secondary amendment was not in order.

For organizations that do not have regularly scheduled meetings established in the bylaws, it is not in order to adopt a main motion with a "calendar of meetings" for a whole year, since doing so would interfere with the freedom of each session. Each meeting, the assembly must adopt a main motion to schedule the time (and place) of the next meeting, and this needs to be done early enough in the meeting that it will be possible to postpone main motions thereto.

This is a mess because too much information has been left out. Let's start over. Please provide the exact text of the relevant paragraph of the main motion at the time when the primary amendment was made. Then, provide the full text of the primary amendment at the time the secondary amendment was made. Finally, please provide the full text of the secondary amendment at the time it was made.

What may be in the back of Jay M's mind is the legitimate practice where the maker will submit a written motion of some length or complexity to the secretary beforehand. Sometimes this is referred to as "sending a motion to the desk". When the mover is recognized for the purpose of making the motion, he may say something like, "Mr. President, I have submitted a motion to the desk, and, at this time, I move its adoption." The mover should resume his seat, and the chair will immediately recognize the secretary (or a reading clerk) for the purpose of reading the motion. This practice is especially useful where the secretary needs to have a copy of the motion to enter on the minutes. However, the practice is not particularly useful when the motion is simple enough to be made orally by the mover and copied down by the secretary. Thus, "I move to adjourn until ten o'clock tomorrow morning" is so simple and straightforward that requiring such a motion to be written down by the mover would be a little silly.

I would hesitate to be so definite. I am not in a position to know what was the intent of the adopters of the bylaw, and I am not sufficiently a textualist to be willing to divine the proper interpretation without that additional information.

The proper answer depends entirely on the interpretation of the bylaw--whether "a more detailed packet containing proposed resolutions, nomination and election information, and other relevant meeting materials" constitutes a requirement for previous notice. Any of the delegates may raise a Point of Order when any of the items of business included in the bylaw comes before the convention, and the chair will have the duty to rule on the point, if he is able to form an opinion, or he can place the question directly before the convention for its judgment.

I think we need clarification about whether the "practices" involve parliamentary procedure. So far, everyone seems to assume so, but I have my doubts. Again, what kind of practices are we dealing with?

What kind of practices are we dealing with?

Don't elect him to office anymore.

I suspect this group should likely drop the whole agenda thing and just use the established order of business. Convince me I'm wrong. 🙂

A main motion that has been permanently disposed of at one session can be renewed at any later session. Since this assembly meets frequently, the motion should be made again when the New Business heading is reached in the assembly's established order of business for the meeting. The assembly almost certainly should drop the whole agenda thing, since the assembly already has an order of business without approving an agenda at each meeting.

Nothing in RONR (12th ed.) authorizes the president of a board to distribute copies of the calls of meeting to persons who are not members of the board. If your organization has delegated this authorization, the organization's own rules and orders will have to provide the basis for such authority. I do not understand what exactly is the "corporate office", but the answer I have given most likely applies to it, as well.

Can the Members request of whom?

I have a strong suspicion that this "agenda" has as much to do with compliance with open meetings laws as with the establishment of an order of business, so the assistance of the board's legal counsel will likely be needed to answer the question in a way that is fully compliant with these laws.

RONR (12th ed.) 14:1 specifically refers to a postponement "...after a certain event."

Well, I cannot really understand the meaning of "non-voting members" of the board. Are they members, in the sense of parliamentary law, or are they not? If they are not, then what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 50:12 applies. It really is up to the organization to get rid of this nonsensical term and clarify what exactly is the status of these two persons.

This whole topic arises from the designation of these persons as "non-voting members". If that is what the governing documents call them, then I guess that is what they are. I think it is more likely that these two are functionally "necessary staff" of the board, rather than the "non-voting members" they are made out to be, and the governing documents ought to be made clearer about this.

This seems to me to be definitive. Applying Principle of Interpretation 6, RONR (12th ed.) 56:68, I would venture that the board is limited to only approving rules for use of the Society's facilities that have been submitted by the Facilities Committee and nothing greater.

It might also be appropriate to get a formal definition of "...house rules/ground rules...". At first, I was just certain this is a colloquial term that is functionally equivalent to rules of order, but, upon further reflection, I am less sure about the real nature of these rules.