J. J.

Yes, under several circumsances: 1. Their next regular meeting is in March. 2. There next regular meeting is after March and they establish an adjourn meeting in March. 3. They have a regular meeting in February. They postpone the election to the February meeting, and when it becomes pending in Fenruary, they postpone it until March.

Assuming that the election takes place at a meeting, as it usually would, the members may postpone the election, when it is pending, subject to the rules for the Postpone To a Certain Time.

While is always a good idea to have a capable attorney, simply involving one does not make it a legal issue, as opposed to one of procedure.

I was treating that as a given, in this situation, based on Guest Bobby's statement, and assuming it is accurate: Had she attempted to vote and was denied, e.g. was deliberately not given a ballot, or not called in a roll call, my answer would be different. Had her vote not been counted when cast, e.g. she gave a ballot that was crumpled and tossed in a waste basket, my answer would be different.

Does the past president hold a board position because he is the Immediate Past President and the bylaws say that the Immediate Past President serves? If so, he can hold another position on the board, though he would not gain an additional vote.

Under RONR, a two-thirds vote means two thirds of the votes cast. 5 is more than 2/3 of 7. Unless your bylaws specify a vote two-thirds of the entire membership of the board, this was a two-thirds vote (see p. 403). I will also agree with Bruce that, even if there were not two-thirds vote, it is too late to raise a point of order. Since she was removed as president, the board should continue on, probably with a new president.

If no one prevented her from voting (or prevented her vote, if cast, from being counted), then she was permitted to vote, but chose not to cast a vote. If someone told her to jump in a lake, she would not have to jump in a lake.

Who told her that? Did she attempt to vote?

The basic rule is that, if ballots are required, the bylaws would have to prohibit casting votes by write-ins (pp. 441-2). Also see the footnote on p. 16.

It depends what the "action" is. If the action is to plan out a strategy for the next meeting, this is not a meeting, for example.

The president can get together with whomever he wishes. The president can only call a special meeting, where business of the organization is conducted, if the bylaws permit it. The president must give notice of this meeting to all members. I cannot determine if this was meant to be a formal meeting or an informal get together.

There is no requirement or suggestion in RONR that the principle office be listed. However, if you organization is incorporated, it may be required by statute to be included. There could be some legal advantage to inclde it, even if not required. You should consult with an attorney familiar with the corporate statutes covering that organization in that regard.

I'm looking at those lines, and I am not seeing that. Perhaps if there is a difference, the text needs to be much clearer. Something like, "A motion that has been created a special order because of its inclusion of an agenda (see p. 365) should be stated by the chair." That said, I would suspect that the chair would usually assume the motion.

To give a definite answer, someone would have to read through your bylaws, but I would suspect that it would be elective and that you could appoint an MAL. You might want to hire a parliamentarian to look at your bylaws, but there will probably be some cost to it. You may locate a parliamentarian through either or both of these organizations: National Association of Parliamentarians 213 South Main Street Independence, MO 64050 Office: 816-833-3892 Toll Free: 888-627-2929 Email: hq@nap2.org or American Institute of Parliamentarians 618 Church Street Suite 520 Nashville, TN 37219 Toll-free: 888-664-0428 Fax: 615-248-9523 Email: aip@aipparl.org

But yet, some motion can be created a special order, "I move that the following motion be created a special order for 11:00 AM: That the clubhouse be painted red." The motion would not need to be made at 11:00 AM. Even though that there was no motion made specifically, at 11:00 AM the chair should state the motion That the clubhouse be painted red. Presumably, a general order would be made the same way. An agenda is a collection of special and general orders (p. 371, ll. 17-19) and by adopting an agenda the assembly can actually makes an order of the day (p. 635, ll. 30-35). They are, collectively, orders of the day. I would note that in the description of the motion "Call for the Orders of the Day," notes that an order of the day "... which such a call may bring before the assembly is itself invariably a main motion, and when it is announced and pending, it is amendable and debatable... . (p. 222, ll. 21-24, emphasis added)." There is no suggestion that motion must be announced, made (or re-made), and then become pended. Supposed that the was an agenda with the motion, That the clubhouse be painted red, set to be brought up at 11:00 PM. The chair does not call it and a member, correctly, stand and says, "I call for the orders of the day." The chair would then have to say, "The agenda sets the time for considering the motion, That the clubhouse be painted red, for 11:00 AM. It is 11:00 AM. Will somebody make the motion?" That, to me at least, seems to be bad form. While I realize things have changed since 1923, Gen. Robert was asked "Should the chair announce a special or general order?" he responded. He responded, "Yes, it is the duty of the chair to announce the order, or to state that the time has arrived to take up the special order (PL, p. 494, Q&A 232, b.)." As today, special orders could be created by putting a motion on the agenda, and there is no suggestion that this should be treated differently.

I'm hedging because I don't know the full context, but I suspect that the membership elects these Members at Large (MAL)and the president chooses one (or more). If the membership or the board does not elect these MAL, my answer might be different.

My answer deals with the "intent" of the rule, as opposed to the plain meaning. A rule, given as an example, that says, "All motions shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of the members present," and nothing else, means just that, even if the intent was to exempt motions that RONR states require a different standard* (p. 588, ll. 26-28). *which is all of them.

The line is: "The President shall appoint at least on[e] Board Member at Large to coordinate special interest group activities." You, as president, can appoint someone, who is already a Board Member at Large, to coordinate those activities. That clause does not say "They president may appoint to serve on the board as a Member at Large." No morphing. Now, some other clause might grant you that authority, but that one, standing alone, does not. In context it might.

The bylaw reads: "The President shall appoint at least on[e] Board Member at Large to coordinate special interest group activities." If Members at Large are elected by the assembly, this could mean that the president must appoint one of these elected Members at Large "to coordinate special interest group activities." It would not grant the president to appoint a member at large in that case. What is the rest of bylaws will determine if what the answer is. There may be nothing to undo.

First, I am speaking of the general case, and not to this one as it is unknown if a person on leave may vote. In the case the person is a voting member at the time, I will have to make two assumptions: 1. That there is nothing in the bylaws that requires a member to vote. 2. That there is nothing in the bylaws that requires a member to vote by telephone, i.e. there is a meeting where a member could attend and vote. In that case, the framers of the bylaws, established both the ability to vote by phone, unlimited, and the requirement to vote by ballot. A person voting by phone cannot vote by ballot, at least as the current level of technology. There is the implication that, to cast a vote by phone, where the member is voting by ballot, that he waives his right to secrecy in that circumstance. The member can retain his right to secrecy in voting by showing up; the member, even if present, could reveal how he chooses to vote, even in a secret ballot vote. The member has to make a choice to either maintain the secrecy of the ballot, by showing up and voting by ballot, or voting by phone and waiving his right to secrecy.

RONR does not cover a leave of absence. The ability to grant a leave of absence and what rights a member on leave has would have to placed in the bylaws.

While that might have been the intent that this rule not apply to parliamentary motions, that is the effect. A statement in the bylaws that is clear, e.g., "All motions shall be adopted by a vote of a majority of the members present," does not leave room for interpretation.

I think that would be correct, unless the bylaws say something differently, i.e. exempts the ability to suspend the rules from the majority of members present requirements.

For officers, yes. I think these are members of a committee; it is a different standard.

I do not agree based either citation. On p. 373, ll. 33-35 it reads that the member will "offer the motion or resolution embodying the scheduled topic (unless the question has previously been introduced ..." (emphasis added). It seems clear, in this situation refers to a topic, not a specific motion. In the other words if the agenda were state that a motion "relating to the clubhouse" will be brought up at a specific point, it would be necessary to to state a motion. In this particular, the motion on the agenda and is fully formed. On your second citation, this refers something created a special order and notes that no motion is necessary "since the introduction of the has been accomplished previously (p. 357, ll. 15-18)." Putting the specific motion on the agenda, and having the agenda adopted, has "accomplished" this introduction. The motion becomes one of that "series of special orders or general orders- or a mixture of both" that comprises the agenda (p. 371, ll. 16-18).