David A Foulkes

Thank you Richard. My own thinking on that second bylaw is that I don't anticipate being removed, disabled, or dead, so I'm letting those go. When I am no longer a member, and thus unable to hold the office, I don't see that as an absence either. I hope I'm right on all counts, at least the first three. As for whether the RONR default vis-a-vis VP automatically ascending the throne on June 1st, particularly in view of the first quoted bylaw above, I'm still unsure. Perhaps an amendment to that bylaw to exempt the President's office from the cited vacancy filling procedures is in order.

He's baa-aack. At least for today. I have a question (okay, two actually) I believe I know the answer(s) to, but want confirmation that I'm on the right track to present to the membership. I am President of an organization, and my three-year term expires this March at the Annual Membership meeting on the second Sunday of March. Bylaws cite a three-year term with the language " or until their successors are elected." Also, in order to hold office, one must be a member for at least a year (I have) with annual dues paid for the current year. Dues are payable in the month of March. If un

Why wouldn't the club members voice their own concerns at the general membership meeting? Just askin'........

One might hope if this is true, the Parliamentarian would know the answer.

Well, what DO your bylaws say about amending? (Not that we'll interpret it here for you, but it might help to know) And bear in mind a "revision" is just a large-scale version of amending, typically covering many Articles/Sections as opposed to a singular amendment of one small section. As for what RONR says: "The bylaws should always prescribe the procedure for their amendment, and such provision should always require at least that advance notice be given in a specified manner, and that the amendment be approved by a two thirds vote. If the bylaws contain no provision for their amendment,

All true, though I'm not sure what Guest_William is actually asking about. He writes about "acceptance of" the report, and makes no mention of recommendations, if any. It may be that the report is purely informational and as such, is not accepted or adopted or approved or anything except placed on file. Perhaps Guest_William will return to fill in some details.

Though a few more details might change my course of thinking, p. 508 ll. 4-10 (RONR 11th Ed.) say it should be someone else.

P. 21 could be read that way, but I suspect Weldon's point is that trying to duplicate the rule(s) in RONR can often lead to needless confusion and ambiguity. If a majority of the entire membership is what the society deems appropriate for its quorum, why not let RONR carry the load? Otherwise, it often ends up as "50%" or "50% + 1" or some other just slightly erroneous interpretation of "majority" as we've so often read here on the internet's premier parliamentary forum.

An internet search for "certification of a quorum" would lead most readers to believe the call to order comes first. The "certification of a quorum" (by that terminology) is not part of RONR, however.

It may be best at this point to advise Guest_Laura that RONR does not hold the answer to her question, and likely with good reason. I'd suspect the concept of "joint meetings" has not escaped the authorship team, and they have (wisely?) not addressed it on purpose. Whether a third committee, combining the two, should be appointed, or the bylaws amended to address the issue of quorum (and other issues that are not yet considered) at "joint meetings" will be up to the society to decide.

It would seem to be, assuming the president is in favor of holding the meeting. If not, it is up to the EC to vote to hold the meeting, and therein lies the rub. As teleconference meetings are not authorized, the EC would have to hold a regular meeting to vote to call the "intermediate meeting", and therefore should likely be able to address the "move to change a motion that was adopted" at the regular meeting, thereby removing the need for the "intermediate meeting". It's a bugger.

I'd ask your "parliamentarian" to show you the rule (in RONR or other applicable document) that supports the position s/he has taken. Then, I'd think about getting a new "parliamentarian."

A majority (more than half) of votes cast is required to elect. Half of 11 is 5 1/2. Since no candidate received more than 5 1/2 votes, you have an incomplete election and need to vote again (and again and again) until a candidate gets at least 5 1/2 (okay, we'll call it 6 or more) votes. If at first you don't succeed......... Why didn't you vote?

I call no fair citing the 12th edition when we're all still using the 11th.

If the President is a member of the assembly that is meeting (if not, then the short answer is never), s/he always retains the right to vote, although there are some instances when s/he should not vote in order to maintain the appearance of impartiality.

Well, as one example when it's not okay to revote (using proper parliamentary procedures, of course) is if the action of the previously adopted motion is complete. For example, if the motion was to paint the barn red and it's been painted, you can't exactly vote not to paint it. You can move (and vote) to repaint it a different color, or put vinyl siding on, or burn it down, but those would be new motions, not "revotes". Martin B - a few details would be helpful. And it would be much better to start a new thread for your question.

Well, why the confusion wasn't cleared up before voting began is the real question here, and one we can't answer. Barring a rule to the contrary, members have the right (via write in voting) to vote for whomever they wish, regardless of whether they were nominated for a position. It seems that, given the chance to elect a 1st VP, they voted for the one they felt best qualified. It would be fair to assume that even if a revote were taken, Mr. Popular (or perhaps anyone else at all) would still receive more votes than Mr. Sourgrapes. Perhaps he should ask why that is.

For argument's sake - the 1st VP resigns, and his resignation is accepted by the assembly. Nothing in RONR says the chain of VPs moves up, so there is a vacancy in the 1st VP office. Before that vacancy is filled, the President resigns, and his resignation is also accepted. Are there two vacancies now, or does the 2nd VP become President? If so, what rule in RONR supports that? If the President resigns, the 1st VP automatically becomes President, the 2nd VP automatically becomes 1st VP (filling that vacancy) and so on. But if there is no vacancy in the 1st VP???

I'd hazard a guess that since no rule in RONR covers this (1st VP staying in office), and only states that the 1st VP (not 2nd, 3rd, etc) moves up the food chain to the top, an election would be required.

Not according to RONR: Reading and Approval of Minutes. The chair says, "The Secretary will read the minutes." However, in organizations where copies of the minutes of each previous meeting as prepared by the secretary are sent to all members in advance, the chair announces that this has been done, and the actual reading of them aloud is omitted unless any member then requests that they be read. (RONR 11th ed., p. 354 ll. 9-15)+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are there any correcti

Guest_Jacki -- We had a similar discussion here not long ago, which may provide additional insights.

Are you talking about a scheduled election? You speak of the challenging Director "ousting" the other Director, as though the other Director's term is not up yet, as if some sort of coup by the challenging Director. RONR has no rules on this. If this is a scheduled election due to the other Director's term coming to an end, then I submit that requiring only non-sitting members can "challenge" for the position puts all the sitting Directors at a disadvantage, and that isn't fair either. Per the rules in RONR, when a scheduled election is at hand, all eligible members are.... well, eligibl

In answer to your questions, yes of course it can be changed. The default quorum by RONR is a majority (more than half) of the membership. To change that higher or lower, the bylaws can be amended to include a different number, percentage, etc. To change again what the bylaws set as the quorum can only be done by amending the bylaws, not simply by a regular old everyday motion at a meeting, especially one at which a quorum is not present. To change the quorum, you will need a) a quorum at a meeting, and b ) to follow the amendment procedures as set forth in the bylaws. If the bylaws inc

All this is, in the long and short of it, irrelevant. The vote was 4-0, the motion passed.

If I had to guess, I'd say that the reference is to "joining the debate" (perhaps signing up in advance in some way, thus listing name, pro/con side, and summary of remarks). I don't think it refers to joining the organization.