Hieu H. Huynh

The options for removal depend on your bylaws, as noted in FAQ #20.

And I am curious if the authorship team for the next edition will be announced.

Would it be appropriate for the poster to edit this post at this point (over two months later)? Should there be a thread describing the etiquette that is expected in this forum?

Would this be considered an "indelicate act"?

Guest_emily martinsen, Please post as a new topic. See here. Edited to add: Is your question related to the one in this thread that you started? If so, please ask your question in that thread.

Also, the rulesonline.com site contains the text of the 4th edition of Robert's Rules, which was published in 1915 (and is now in the public domain). Email did not exist back then. The current edition is the 11th edition published in 2011.

Would a separate topic on typos in RONR and RONRIB be useful?

I may have an interesting item. On page 182, lines 12-13 say "Is debatable; but debate is limited in that is must not go into the merits of the main question". . . Should it say "Is debatable; but debate is limited in that it must not go into the merits of the main question". . .?

There are several proper ways: a ) Election by ballot b ) Nominations from the floor c ) Nominations by the chair d ) Appointment by the chair e ) Appointment by adoption of a motion naming members of a committee See details in RONR 11th ed., pp. 492-497.

See FAQ #14.

"When an assembly wishes to do something during a meeting that it cannot do without violating one or more of its regular rules, it can adopt a motion to Suspend the Rules interfering with the proposed action -- provided that the proposal is not in conflict with the organization's bylaws (or constitution), with local, state, or national law prescribing procedural rules applicable to the organization or assembly, or with a fundamental principle of parliamentary law." (RONR 11th ed., p. 260, ll. 19-26) What do you have in mind regarding the motion to suspend the rules?

In RONR, all members have the right to attend meetings, including meetings held in executive session. See FAQ #9 regarding a conflict of interest. RONR does not require members to leave the room during the debate and vote (unless it is in regards to a trial for disciplinary action). Any such requirement would have to be found in your rules.

Yes, there is a difference between "a majority of the members present and voting" and "a majority of the members present". Since abstentions are not votes, "a majority of the members present and voting" does not include abstentions while "a majority of the members present" could be interpreted to include members not voting.

Does the board have "full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly" (quoted from p. 467)? If so, the board can fill vacancies. It may be the case that the vacancy was filled with a person who just happened to get the second most votes at the election. This person doesn't get the position automatically because of that fact.

There is no such rule in RONR.

#1 unless your rules say otherwise.

Hi All! After being a member of this forum for a few months and reading through hundreds of threads, I feel comfortable enough to start answering questions that get posted here. I know there's a disclaimer that we generally will not know the background or reliability of persons posting responses. I thought to provide a little background on myself. You can check my LinkedIn profile for my professional background. I got started in parliamentary procedure when I became president of the local chapter in my non-profit organization over 6 years ago. It was quite a crash course since I did not have much experience in being a presiding officer beforehand. After a while, I learned enough to be able to teach the basics of parliamentary procedure to others (using a 1-hour program my organization has called "Parliamentary Procedure in Action"). A few months ago after witnessing a meeting that was, let's say, not well-run (there was a 10-minute discussion on whether or not to read the minutes), I decided to go deeper. At that time, all the materials I had were based on Robert's Rules, but not the actual book. So I got a copy of the right book, RONR, and started reading it. I also joined this forum and started reading the posts. A few months later, I finished reading the book! And I have a much better understanding of it by reading the posts in this forum! So I'm curious, how did you get started in parliamentary procedure and Robert's Rules? What made you want to get into this unique area of knowledge? I would love to hear from the regulars to this forum... Hieu H Huynh (you can use my initials, HHH, to respond to me if you're afraid of mis-spelling my name) (bonus points if you know how to pronounce my name or can spell it phonetically)