Transpower

Savings are assets and so are part of the balance sheet, not the income/expense statement. From the standpoint of accounting, there is nothing wrong with drawing down savings. However, if your bylaws require a balanced budget each year, then the expenses projected must equal the income projected for the year. In this case, then, no, it would be wrong to draw down savings.

A Point of Order should be raised (as this appears to be a continuing breach), and then the chair rules on the point ("is well taken" or "is not well taken"), subject to appeal and possible vote.

The rest of the committee will have to "ratify" what's been done, or else the member will have to cover whatever expenses he caused.

Adoption of special rules of order requires a 2/3 vote and previous notice, or a majority of the entire membership. Adoption of standing rules requires only a majority vote. So: how was the motion adopted?

Here's a useful list of the rules of decorum in RONR: R U L E S O F D E C O R U M 1. Speakers (except for officers/committee chairs reporting) must address their remarks to the Chair, maintain a courteous tone, and avoid injecting a personal note into debate or attacking others’ motives. 2. Officers and committee chairs should come to the front left or front right to present their reports and address the body. 3. Speakers should refer to officers only by title and should avoid the mention of other members’ names as much as possible. 4. Remarks must be germane to the question before the assembly and should not be about a prior action not pending. 5. Stand when wishing to speak and when speaking, otherwise sit. 6. Refrain from disturbing the assembly by whispering to one another, walking out, etc.

RONR (11th ed., pp. 224-228), paraphrasing: A member can raise a question of privilege of the assembly ("I rise to a question of privilege of the assembly."). The chair then directs the member to state his question of privilege. The chair must then rule whether the request or motion is in fact a question of privilege and, if so, whether it is urgent enough to interrupt the pending business. If so, the chair may request that the member make a motion covering his question of privilege, and another member may second it. The chair then proceeds as with any other main motion. On the other hand, the chair could "assume" the motion, state it, and take the vote directly if he senses there will be no opposition. In that case, the decision of the chair would, in fact, be the same as that of the assembly.

He doesn't.

A standing rule cannot counteract a bylaw. The automatic dues increases are a continuing violation of the bylaws, and so any member may move a point of order against them.

If he is not a member of the executive committee, then he himself could not move a motion there--but he could give the proposed motion to a member of the executive committee who could then move it.

That provision is clearly at odds with ordinary parliamentary procedure: delegating the functions of one's office to another officer would ordinarily be considered a dereliction of duty. However, bylaws trump RONR, so I suggest you amend your bylaws to fix this issue.

Perhaps the election meeting would count as the 12th meeting, so then if the member had attended 8 of the last 11 meetings and attends the election meeting, then that should, I think, count as complying with the bylaws.

This sounds like a resolution. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 105-110.

You have the word "until" in your bylaws, so the substitute will serve until the next annual meeting, at which point an election for the office will occur.

I've had township clients--and yes, some townships do make use of RONR.

Guest Clark: Please post the relevant section of your charter.

As an aside, my first encounter with a consent calendar was at a meeting of the Bucks County PA Commissioners. It drastically speeds up business, so I definitely recommend its use wherever possible.

Prior to the beginning of debate, you could raise an Objection to the Consideration of the Question. No second is required, and no debate. The objection is sustained if 2/3 vote against consideration.

If your current bylaws specifically state that at least 15 voting members must be present in order to amend the bylaws, then I don't see how the rules could be suspended to require only 14 to be present. What should then be done is to make calls to all those not attending to see if they can come in. However, if your entire organization is down to only 14 members, then I'd have to go with Mr. Mervosh's suspension of the rules.

So the starting time was in violation of the bylaws! Again, there is no way the meeting could be considered legal.

There does not appear to be an emergency here; rather, the chair started the meeting ahead of the announced time, which is not his right to do. I therefore now think that the motions adopted are null and void.

Whereas the day or days of meetings should be specified in the bylaws, the time should not be--it should be set in the standing rules, and these can be changed by a simple majority vote. I suppose, though, that if there is an emergency, the time could be changed without a vote.

Her action would only be allowed if she was the one who appointed the committee members in the first place.

RONR (11th ed.), p. 97, ll. 28-30: "...an electronic meeting that is properly authorized in the bylaws is treated as though it were a meeting at which all the members who are participating are actually present." (Italics added.)

Any electronic form of communication must be specified in the bylaws for it to be accepted as valid.

Robert's Rules of Order contain a comprehensive set of parliamentary procedures, but there are others. Robert's is by far the most commonly used by ordinary societies.