J. J.

Some members of the society take action on behalf of the society; they have no authorization to do so, are not a committee or part of one, nor are they officers. For example, claiming to act on behalf of the society, they reserve the picnic grounds of the second Saturday in July. At the next meeting, they inform the assembly. Surprisingly, a majority of the assembly that are present thinks that this is a great idea, and wishes to authorize the action of reserving the picnic grounds. What is the proper method for doing it? I'll say these things that I think would apply: 1. It does not meet the criteria of something that could be ratified (pp. 124-5). 2. The assembly would certainly have the ability to take that the action, i.e. reserving the picnic grounds. 3. I could see some circumstances where the motion could be an original main motion.

I would assume that that an assembly could approve and make legitimate some action taken by groups of members in the past, provided that the approval is done complying with any of the requirements needed to take the action is the first place. In other words, if the assembly would be required to conduct some vote by ballot, it could not approve that action, except by ballot. I am wondering it there would a substantive difference between the motion "that ______ action be approved" and "that _____ action be ratified?"

Did you leave out a "not" in the last sentence.

What do the bylaws say about the officers being on the board?

You will probably have to pay the individual for that service.

Without looking at your bylaws in full, the president appears to have the sole authority to take emergency action. The board does not have this authority, but the president can certainly consult with them if he chooses to do so. To answer the question fully, it would be necessary to review you in full. You may contact either the American Institute or Parliamentarians or the National Association of Parliamentarians for a referral. Several articles may be sufficient to explain the situation. They are linked at the bottom of the first page of this thread:

Does state law or your bylaws permit conference call meetings?

What meaning do you wish to adjourn?

You can order the 11th edition through either Amazon or the National Association of Parliamentarians. However, the 12th edition is expected to be out in a few months.

That will be up to your assembly to decide. Note that the motion Previous Question requires a second an a 2/3 vote.

You would have to draft your own rules on e-mail voting.

I would suggest that you read these two articles: https://www.academia.edu/42254288/RONR_versus_Blizzards https://www.academia.edu/42254625/Flexibility_of_Adjourned_Meetings I think they will explain just about everything, but if you do have some more questions, come back and ask.

Unless the bylaws permit you suspend meeting, you cannot do so. You might want to consider have just one member attend the meeting, note there no quorum, then adjourn for lack of a quorum.

I agree, but I would note that the ability to change a vote is described in the context of a non-secret vote.

No, especially if this was a secret ballot vote.

What is the difference in terms of liability (or responsibility) between the members meeting at an inquorate meeting and members meeting at an improperly called meeting? In either case, the persons that took the action.

What if it isn't an officer or a committee, but a group of members (in an improperly called meeting). If ave no doubt that the assembly, at a properly called meeting, could somehow authorize the action; I am wondering about the mechanism. The only distinction I can see is that the motion might be an original main motion.

What, then, would be the mechanism for enacting such action? The members, at an improperly called meeting, agree to sell a piece of property, Lot Z. At the next properly called meeting (with a quorum), the assembly wishes to enact this action. What is the mechanism? I could see a motion "That we approve the sale of Lot Z," but that seems like a form of ratify, at least.

However, in the case where the right to vote was abridged there could be situations where that would affect the result. There is no possibility of that in a trial that happened in open session, or it that information was released by the assembly after the fact. However, the difference is primarily that there is a stated right in RONR that a member (a "voting member") has the right to vote. There is no corresponding right to have the disciplinary process conducted secretly stated in text. I would note that is a right for any member to demand that the vote on guilt and penalty does exist in text and would, in my opinion, void the vote if that demand was not met.

Technically, it is not a right, and the purpose of the rule is to protect the assembly (which goes back to the 4th edition). If the society would chose to conduct a disciplinarian action in open session, I would not find the act null and void, for that sole reason. It might open the assembly to litigation, but the act of attempting to discipline the member would not be subject to a point of order after the fact. I would point out that this would be true even if the defendant was fine with having the action in open session.

I think such a rule could be suspended, though I would question the wisdom of doing so.

Actions could be ratified at a future meeting.

You could do this as a roll call vote, where each voter would give that information, but that will take a while.

I cannot see how a secret ballot could be conducted by a conference call, but presumably the rule about handling voting cards could be suspended for the session. It might be better to look at the adjourned meeting possibility, if applicable.

Not necessarily. There is effect of adopting a parliamentary authority to put some things beyond the control of the assembly unless the assembly permits those things in its bylaws.