Richard Brown

@Rob Elsman and @Gary Novosielski, there is a distinction between a request and a formal motion. I believe you are blurring that distinction. I am not referring to a motion. I am referring to a request to withdraw a motion made by the member who made the original motion. Please read carefully the words in 33:2 (4) “the other requests do not require a second, except when moved formally by the maker of the request”. I am specifically not referring to making a formal motion and I believe the 33:15 is clear that no such formal motion is required unless the chair declines to put the question to the assembly on granting the request to withdraw the motion. Note also that 33:16 makes a distinction between a request for permission to withdraw a motion and a formal motion to grant such permission.

No, they do not. I think you need to read both sections again carefully. I’m not referring to making a motion to withdraw a motion, I’m referring to a REQUEST to withdraw a motion, made by the person who made the motion he is seeking to withdraw. If there is an objection, the chair can put the question directly to the assembly without anyone having to make a formal motion. 33:15.

Then you have it wrong.

Yes, and the request does not need a second if it is made by the member who made the motion he is seeking to withdraw. I think 33:15 is clear on that. Requests such as this do not require a second. She also 33:2 (4)

Are you sure? That’s not the way I read 33:15. That section seems to clearly say that if there is an objection to the request to withdraw a motion by the member who made the motion, the chair can put the question directly to the assembly. The request can be granted by unanimous consent if there is no objection.

Neither the bylaws committee nor its chairman have the authority to tell the board that it cannot debate the proposal unless the bylaws give it that authority.

The actual answer will depend upon your bylaws, but the answer is almost certainly yes, they should be included in the count of voting members present, if they are in fact, members of the organization. The fact that they are also officers or board members or committee members makes no difference

I disagree that this sounds like debate. In meetings such as city council meetings, I have seen countless instances of an expert or city department head addressing the city Council, either before or after the proposed ordinance or resolution has been introduced, in the way of providing background or context, or the reason for the proposal. That almost always takes place prior to the council members actually beginning to debate the motion (ordinance, resolution, proposal, whatever). I do not at all consider such a presentation as taking part in debate. Edited to add: I have also seen experts and department heads respond to questions from council members during debate in the form of a request for information. I do not consider that to be participating in debate, either, but simply as responding to a request for information from a member of the assembly.

I agree that permitting a nonmember to speak in debate requires suspending the rules, but he can be permitted to address the assembly in the way of making a presentation, not in debate by means of a regular majority vote. In either case, it can also be done by unanimous consent, if there is no objection.

That will almost certainly depend upon your city Council’s local rules, your city charter, and applicable state law. Many state open meetings laws (sunshine laws) require a period of public comment at meetings of public bodies such as city Council meetings. Local rules usually dictate when this comment period shall occur. RONR does not grant the right to speak to non-members of the body that is meeting, but in the case of governmental bodies, this rule is usually superseded by local rules or state law

The president cannot bypass the VP if the VP objects. If the VP consents or is absent, the president can name someone else to preside, unless there is an objection or someone else is nominated from the floor. If there is an objection, but no one else is nominated, then the matter would go to a vote, and it would require a majority vote to approve the president’s appointee. If there are one or more other nominees from the floor, the winner would be selected just as in any other vote, and would require a majority vote. Normally, when the president desires to name someone else to preside and the vice president either consents or is absent,, there is no objection, and it is done by unanimous consent.

This provision is a rule in the nature of a rule of order according to RONR (12th ed.) and therefore the rules may be suspended to permit someone else to preside. However, if the regular chair cannot or does not want to preside for some reason, the vice president shall preside if present and willing. If no vice president is present and willing to preside, then the president can designate someone else to preside unless there is an objection or someone else is also nominated. In that case, the matter of who shall preside is decided by vote of the assembly. See, for example, 43:29 and 47:11-47:13 (RONR 12th ed.). The regular presiding officer can be involuntarily removed from presiding by means of a motion to suspend the rules and remove the chair from presiding. If that is done over the chair's objection, it requires a two-thirds vote since it requires a suspension of the rules. See 61:10 - 61:15 for the procedure.

RONR does provide, however, in the footnote to 25:9 (RONR 12th ed.) that the rules may be suspended to permit non-members to participate in debate. RONR seems to be silent as to whether the rules may be suspended so as to permit a non-member to make motions. However, based on the language of 25:9 as a whole and the footnote, it is my opinion that the rules could also be suspended to permit a non-member to make motions. The rules cannot be suspended to permit a non-member to vote since it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only members may vote. A special rule of order could also be adopted to permit alternates to participate in debate and to make motions, but not to permit voting.

You are absolutely correct. I agree, provided the rules in RONR do apply, and that this organization does not have a contrary provision in its bylaws about a vacancy in the office of the present.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by the statement above? What exactly was the motion, what was the vote, etc? btw, how long ago did he "resign"? Was his resignation ever accepted? I agree with Mr. Katz that no rule in RONR prohibits him from running in the election to fill the vacancy.

Pursuant to the rules in RONR, you should have been permitted to speak on the nomination. However, it is too late now to do anything about that. A timely point of order by a member would have been required at the time of the breach or the breach of the rules is deemed waived. there are only a few breaches of the rules that constitute a "continuing breach" such that an immediate point of order is not required and can instead be made after the fact. This is not one of those exceptions.

Agreeing with my colleagues, this also depends in part on your own bylaws and any applicable rules of order governing the way your elections are conducted. Any such rules would supersede the provisions of RONR.

I'm not sure that is entirely correct and RONR is not as clear on the subject as it should be. Section 46:17 (RONR 12th ed.) does provide that " . . . if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, the committee is revived and should meet immediately to agree upon another nomination if there is time". That clearly suggests that a "nominee" may withdraw his name from nomination. It also strongly suggests that the re-convening of the committee to make another selection is something that would happen prior to the election, not in the middle of it. So, if a nominee can withdraw prior to the election, why can he not decline the nomination at the time it is made? Regardless, even if we assume that a nominee cannot "decline" a nomination, it is probably a nearly universal custom that if a person who has been nominated states that he "declines" the nomination, as a practical matter he is considered not to be a candidate and his name is not placed on the ballot if it has not already been printed. I do agree that someone who has either "declined" a nomination or asked to have his name withdrawn still remains eligible for election and may be elected by virtue of write-in ballots. If that happens, and the person elected still does not want to serve, he must immediately decline to serve if he is present when elected. If he is not present, he must decline the position as soon as he is informed that he has been elected. RONR 46:46 (12th ed.).

There is certainly no rule to that effect in RONR. I concur with the response by Mr. Katz. Unless you have a bylaw to the contrary, the president still holds the position of president unless he has submitted a resignation which has been accepted. That is not the same thing as a leave of absence. BTW, the concept of taking a “leave of absence“ is not even mentioned in RONR.

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, there is no such rule in RONR. Any rule such as that which you described must be contained in your own bylaws, special rules of order, or other governing documents.

The rationale is that the current president should not be in a position where he can select, or even have a significant role in the selection of his successor. The nominating committee is supposed to be impartial and unbiased and search for the best candidates, rather than candidates that might be inclined to Follow the policies of the current or outgoing president Edited to add: not having the president appoint the nominating committee also serves to prevent the president from “stacking“ the nominating committee with his cronies, so they will nominate his buddies or nominate him for another term.

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, please quote for us exactly what your bylaws say about the notice required for special meetings. If there is a provision regarding motions for this type of financial transaction, please include that as well.

I agree with Dr. Kapur's response. I'm not convinced that there is an actual conflict.

Are both references to "so and so" to the same person or entity? Or is each "so and so" a different person or entity?

Well, the system shows that he edited his post five minutes after first making it, so . . . . Edited to add: Some of us do as the forum requests and state the nature of our edit and some of us don't . . . .