J. J.

I agree with the other posters, but will note that there may be a clause in the bylaws stating that someone removed is disqualified from holding office in the future. Absent that, the member may be re-election and serve until he is removed, dies, or resigns.

My hard copy of the 4th edition (1915) has a preface from Henry M. Robert, III is copyrighted in 1971. The text of the 4th edition has appeared online for at least a decade, but without the preface; it also contains a copyright from 1951 (which I would assume was the renewal). The 4th and 5th editions are copyrighted in 1943 and 1951, respectively. I actually do have a copy of Parliamentary Law that contains no prefaces, except from General Robert, which contains no later date than 1923.

I agree that page 407 would apply, however that is clear that while should abstain, he cannot be compelled to abstain. While it may be advisable to disclose the financial relationship, there is no rule requiring it, even if the member should choose abstain for that reason. While failing to disclose or failure to abstain could result in censure, so could just about any action that member might take or fail to take. There is basically no standard for determining the reason for censure. Similarly, the grounds for disciplinary action are basically determined by the assembly (see pp. 643-4).

Was there any new information put in the, e.g. a recently written forward.

There could be some resistance to the topic.

The more recent copyright was 1951. Al least according to the chart, the copyright would still expire 95 years from the first publication.

Just to be clear, at the meeting, the chair would ask for corrections, and if there are none, declare the minutes approved. It should not be overly difficult to approve the draft minutes at a meeting.

Under normal circumstances, yes; there is no rule in RONR prohibiting a member from taking notes. However, the majority could decide to prohibit the taking of notes. I would treat it as a question of privilege of the assembly. A member has a right to attend meetings, enter into debate (on a debatable motion, without 2/3 curtailing debate, et c.), and vote on a question before the assembly. He doesn't have a right, created by RONR, to take notes. I can see situations, e.g. to protect the accused in a trial, where the assembly may prohibit note taking.

This answer does not, in any way, attempt to interpret statute. It refers solely to the rule in the bylaws. I will assume that a "majority of a quorum" was present. The chair said that the board would not take any comments from the floor; no board member objected. This is almost like the chair asking for unanimous consent (p. 54ff.), i.e. "Debate shall be limited to board members?" No member objected to this at the time, and presumably, the "majority of a quorum" could adopt this motion, "That Association Members that are not board members be permitted to enter into debate," at some later point in the meeting. The chair, to be textbook, "Without objection, debate shall be limited to board members," and continuing on without objection. While this was not textbook,it is still fundamentally the same thing. The chair assumed the motion, and no member objected. A "majority of a quorum" could take this action. While a member of the board could object to this process, either or both by objecting to the chair's assumption of the motion or by objecting to the use of unanimous consent, none did. I am not seeing a violation of the bylaws, though the chair technically did not text language.

If proxies are permitted, i.e. a member can transfer his vote to someone to act on the members behalf, that person receiving the proxy and attending could normally take notes. Conversely, a member does not have a right while attending meeting, bring a stenographer or secretary and let that person take notes on the member's behalf. The majority could permit this, but the member does not have a right to do that. Note that, under RONR, proxies are not permitted unless required by applicable statute or permitted in the bylaws.

In all fairness, we are talking about a hypothetical rule/bylaw that none of us have seen. If there was a rule requiring a budget be adopted (and nothing else), I think it would be treated like an election. An assembly may adjourn with an being incomplete, so I think the same rule would apply.

While that would work with minutes, it could only work if an officer or committee (or someone) has the authority to submit a full budget. Assume that no rule specifies who is responsible for submitting a budget, though the bylaws require that one be adopted. I get to the floor and move that the budget (Budget J) be adopted; I'm a regular member, but do not hold a position that requires me to submit a budget. There may not be a majority that would support any specific amendment, but the majority is opposed to Budget J. Just because I made the motion, that should not permit me to foist a budget on the assembly against the will of the majority. In my experience in local governments in my state, it is often the case that a statute will require the government's legislative body to adopt a budget, but does not specify how that budget will come before the body.

I think that this may be the problem. If the bylaws require that some action be taken, even the defeat of a motion to take that action does remove that requirement. That may supersede the rule in RONR about renewing the motion (p. 337, ll. 9-12, the exception). The motion could certainly be amended. If the rule regarding the renewal of motions does not apply, it should be possible to introduce several different budgets as independent main motions

Since there is no vice president, the automatic succession rule from RONR does not apply. If there was no rule in the bylaw regarding the filling of vacancies in office, the society would fill the vacancy. RONR does note that where the position exists, the president-elect has finished his term in that position he "automatically becomes president for a full term (p.457, ll. 16-17)." The bylaws include this clause, that the president-elect "... shall automatically succeed to President." That clause can reasonably be interpreted to refer to a situation where the president leaves office before the end of his term. So basically there are two possibilities, vacancy or succession. RONR notes that "There is a presumption that nothing has been placed in the bylaws without some reason for it (pp. 589-90)." There is no reason to include the words "... shall automatically succeed to President," if those were to solely refer to cases where the president-elect completes his term and becomes president. Based on that, I would conclude that the president-elect does fill the vacancy. If I were chairing the meeting, I would rule that way. However, I would also note that my decision would be subject to appeal.

In American English, a "past president" is someone who was president and isn't president at the current time; George Washington is a "past president" of the United States of America, for example. Under RONR, there is no definition or duties for a "past president." The bylaws would have to create a different definition and if there is one, the person is a past president. If the bylaws that all past presidents can do X, and nothing else, she can do X.

Yes, unless the bylaws say otherwise.

It would not comply with the rule, as written. The assembly instructing the secretary to note the endorsement on the membership application would comply with the rule. To strictly comply with the rule, something has to be on the application indicating the endorsement, but not necessarily a signature of the two endorsers.

No, don't. I think that something has to be placed on the application to comply with the rule. The rule is: "The application shall state the name, address and occupation of the applicant and it shall carry the endorsement of two members in good standing." The rule does not say that "two members in good standing" must endorse the candidate. It says that, "The application ... shall carry the endorsement of two members in good standing." Something would have to be on the application to conform with the rule. That would not necessarily be a signature. Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Katz could verbally offer an endorsement, but that application would not "carry the endorsement of two members in good standing." Even though the applicant has two members endorsing him, for the application to comply with the rules, that endorsement has to be on the application.

Well, I cannot think of another one that could be stated on an "application." If the rule did not apply just to the application itself, I would agree.

Disciplinary action does meet the broad criteria of referring to the transaction of business within a meeting. While RONR that the bylaws can include a section on discipline (p. 583), there is nothing that says that, in order to use a different process, there must be authorization in the bylaws. For example, RONR notes that, in order to impose a fine as a penalty, authority to levy a fine must be specified in the bylaws. There is no such language relating to the process, or two other penalties for that matter.

You could adopt a special rule of order that would create its own disciplinary procedure, which would not need to include those steps and could permit expulsion by a majority vote, without notice. I do agree with Mr. Katz's implication that such a rule may be unwise.

In terms of American English, "endorsement" means "an inscription (as a signature or notation) on a document or instrument; especially : an inscription usually on the back of a negotiable instrument that transfers or guarantees the instrument." An inscription would include, but not be limited to a signature, but should be something under the rules. Presumably, the document could have no lines to sign, but two members could sign the back or somehow "inscribe" it to guarantee that they support the application. The rule itself does not require signature lines at the bottom, but it does require some type of an inscription. Even if an application did not have signature lines, the rule would still require that it be signed or "inscribed.".

There isn't a really good definition of what a "rule." I would say that, broadly, a rule is something that governs the actions of the assembly. In that respect, custom is a rule. I would also not that p. 19, custom is contrasted with "written rules." To me, that indicates custom is an unwritten rule. It is also under the general heading of "Rules of an Assembly or Organization." In other words, if I were to give a list of the types of rules of an assembly, custom would be on the list, though at the bottom. It is more of a semantic distinction, and does not change how the rules work.

I would classify custom as being a type of rule, though a very low ranking one that can be easily changed. In your case, your assembly may follow the custom that self nominations are prohibited, until it decides that they are not prohibited. That sounds a bit trite, but it is actually the case.

You could amend your bylaws to permit it. Suspension of the rules applies to rules that exist solely within the meeting. A term of office almost always exists outside of the meeting context.