J. J.

Speaking only from experience, a professional parliamentarian should give advice, with the permission of the chair outside of the meeting. 

1 hour ago, Guest John said:

Our bylaws state the following:

 

" A candidate for the office of President shall have served at least one full term as BOD..."

 

Can this rule be suspended to allow qualified candidate who has never served in the BOD to run for office?

 

 

 

No.  A rule in the bylaws can only be suspended if it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order or provides for its own suspension (p. 17).  A rule of order "relates to the orderly transaction of business in meetings and to duties of officers in that connection (p.15)."  Eligibility does not relate to the transaction of business.

Further, anyone not eligible for a position cannot be "qualified," no matter how well suited for the position.  It has nothing to do with the persons ability, only to if he is permitted, under the bylaws, to hold office.

3 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

Even if the Secretary knows that no one reads the newsletter?  

Well. what is the guarantee that members won't toss the notice out with the junk mail?  The secretary can only send out the notice, but he cannot require anyone to read it. 

16 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

I don't know about "separate from any document," but the bigger point is that notice should be sent the way you'd send it if you actually wanted people to see it.  It's not pro forma, you have to actually try (unless you're following a procedure in the bylaws).  I don't have a source for that, but it seems like common sense (and is what courts seem to have come up with in federal civil procedure).

If the secretary puts it in the newsletter, and the newsletter goes to everyone, that should be enough.  Now, if the put it extremely small font, like the kind used in currency, that is a bit of a difference.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Guest Natalie, I agree with the others. If your organization wants to be able to give notice of special meetings, etc, in the newsletter, you need to amend the bylaws to provide for that option. The downside is that some members may not even bother reading the newsletter and those who quickly glance at it can easily overlook a notice that is buried rather than prominently placed.

What if the newsletter is sent to every member?

The rule does not say that the notice must be sent separately.

On 8/8/2017 at 11:12 PM, Richard Brown said:

RONR contains no rules or guidance on secrecy other than for meetings conducted in executive session.

Well it does mandate that disciplinary actions be conducted in executive session. 

24 minutes ago, Guest Karl said:

2/3 of those present.

 

My question is maybe then what defines being "present?"  Does being listed on the minutes as attending the meeting mean "present" or does being available (I.e. In the room) to cast a ballot at the time of the vote mean "present"?

So if 8 people attend the meeting the minutes would reflect those 8 ppl present and 1 person absent.  Then when it came to the vote,  if the three people stepped out would we restate in the minutes that only 5 were present for the vote (and list the names of those who were there?)?

Thank you.

Present in defined being there.  If a member leaves the room, he is not present at that moment.  The majority could order a roll call, which would include listing what members are absent.  Normally, a motion for a roll call would be dilatory, but, in this case, I think there would be a legitimate reason for doing it.

1 hour ago, Tom Coronite said:

Would leaving the room solely so the motion would pass, making their action singularly responsible for adopting the motion, really make them feel better than simply voting yes? It may very well be possible their fear of a "conflict of interest" is unfounded, unless they for some reason have a pecuniary interest not held in common with other members. Is that really the case?

 

There is no guarantee that if they leave the motion will be adopted.  It would be for the sole reason of adopting the motion.

9 minutes ago, Guest SallyW said:

At our last meeting a voice vote was taken on a motion.  The chair announced that the motion was adopted.  A member called for a division and a counted vote was taken.  The motion was also adopted with the counted vote.  Should the minutes reflect that a voice vote, division and counted vote occurred?  Or should the minutes just reflect that the motion was adopted and the number of ayes and nos?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.

If the vote was counted, the count could be in the minutes. 

The member may use his time in debate asking questions of a candidate.  The candidate doesn't have to answer. 

What do your bylaws list as the term of office. Quote the clause exactly. 

A presiding officer can ask for unanimous consent, if no one objects and the vote is not required to be by ballot.  A member could request that the members on the losing side to switch their votes, but they certainly are not required to change it. 

22 hours ago, smb said:

  Questions: (a) If the Board wanted to amend or rescind the standing rule without prior notice, it would require a 2/3 vote or majority of the board.  Would that also be required to suspend the rule without prior notice, or would a suspension require only a majority vote?  

I do agree that this is an unusual situation.

First, unless there is  something in the bylaws to the contrary, the board could not suspend these rules at a board meeting.

Second, the board could amend or rescind the rule, by a 2/3 vote or a vote of the majority on the board.  This is a basic rescission vote.

Third, by the same vote, the board could amend the rule to prevent it from being in effect during the convention.  In other words, they could amend the rule by adding an amendment that says, "This rule shall not be in effect during the 2017 convention."  This technically is not suspending the rule, but, like suspending the rule, it will render it ineffective at the 2017 convention.

1 hour ago, Libran said:

My questions refer to TP #40, which is "Extend time for consideration of pending question, or time until announced or scheduled adjournment or recess".  It is classified as an incidental motion that is not debatable or amendable, among other characteristics.  

Is it only an incidental motion with no debate or amendment if the privileged motion "Call for orders of the day" is pending or if there is a set time on the agenda for its consideration?  

If there is a set time on the agenda for consideration, is the debatable and amendable subsidiary motion to Extend the Limits of Debate then not in order?

Thanks.

   What is TP #40?.   I would not call incidental when applied to a debatable motion.

Also, a Call For the Orders of the Day would end debate of the motion, at least temporarily. 

Even if there was a time set for a motion, Extend the Limits of Debate could be adopted, as  it would effectively suspend the rules.  Note that an order of the day can be set aside by a 2/3 vote

I would note a motion extending, or reducing, the length of debate would be an incidental main motion.

45 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

Why should it? 

Before an assembly decides to suspend all of the authority, rights, and duties of any one of its officers (see, e.g., p. 659, ll. 25-28), it is its responsibility to make sure that it has arranged (or will arrange) for someone to fill in the gap. 

It would great if it was in the book.     I'm not disagreeing.

3 minutes ago, J. J. said:

I  wish it was that clear in text. 

 

(or, I missed it)

By that, I mean who takes over those duties. 

52 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

 

An assembly can also adopt a resolution suspending any or all of the authority, rights and duties of the president which pertain to his office if it does so together with a resolution preferring charges against him.

I  wish it was that clear in text. 

(or, I missed it)

1 hour ago, Guest Carol Dodge said:

 

In addition to a recent hiring situation, there are other concerns of members, but they were not listed in the Call for the meeting.  When the matter of the hiring practices has been reviewed and discussed, can there be a Good of the Order – or after the meeting is adjourned, can the president or members hold an informal meeting or town meeting to discuss (not take action) on other issues?  I think a discussion done by the members will be good input for the Board.

 

Nothing beyond what is included in the call can be discussed in the meeting, excepting some things related to the conduct of the meeting, e.g. a motion to turn on the air conditioner.  Something informal may happen outside of the meeting process.

The meeting should authorize board or a committee to approve the minutes, unless the regular meeting is held within the quarterly time perion (which is another example of a motion related to the conduct of a meeting).

2 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

Perhaps you intended to say that they don't like RONR because they are NOT trained in it.  

You are correct  and present company excepted. 

15 minutes ago, Cliff said:

If a nominating committee fails to nominate a full slate of officers or if someone previously nominated to be on a slate of officers subsequently withdraws himself/herself from consideration, does the chair then open nominations from the floor? Lacking direction from the bylaws, can or should the nominated slate, being compromised by lack of sufficient candidates for the open positions, be voted on any way, leaving a position open for later consideration?

The chair should normally ask for nominations from the floor, even if there is a nominating committee (p. 435, ll.9-26).

I could speculate that they don't like RONR because they are not trained in it. 

Basically, you can tell them that RONR is used by most groups, and is incredibly flexible.  It can lead to orderly meetings and will settle most of the questions about rules.  Do they want to spend most of the club time arguing about what the rule is, or do they wand to conduct the business of the organization.

You can also tell them that there a number books, such as Robert's Rules in Brief, that can help them. 

Dutchman, I think you be well advised to contact an attorney familiar with both the statute and the 11th edition of RONR to determine if proxy voting is permitted..   I think this goes beyond the scope of this board.

I would note, however, that there at least two reasonable opinions on if proxy voting is permitted.

3 hours ago, Josh Martin said:

Only within the context of meetings, however, unless the organization's rules provide otherwise.

I'm not sure, based p. 662, ll. 25-31.  The text is clear that the accused "duties as an officer," could  be suspended, but it is not clear who would exercise them. in anyone, in the officer's stead.  Duties of an officer can extend beyond the boundaries of a meeting.

I would note that, if RONR is your parliamentary authority, either your bylaws or applicable statute would have to specifically authorize proxy voting. 

1 hour ago, Guest Will said:

If the board suspends the president, are they still the president?  Can the 1st VP and 2nd VP simply move up a position to president and 1st VP?

Assuming the board has the authority to suspend the president, the first vice president would act as president in that absence (p. 457, ll,34-35).