Richard Brown

Well, it isn't possible to rescind something that hasn't yet been adopted, so I am going to take a chance and assume you are asking if a motion that has been WITHDRAWN is recorded in the minutes. If that is your question, the answer is no, a motion that has been withdrawn is not normally recorded in the minutes. 48:4 (6) (RONR 12th ed.). See 48:4 (7) for information on a couple of exceptions.

That seems to be the logical interpretation, at least if we further interpret the provisions to mean that the two bodies must agree and that the Representative Council does not have "veto power" over the executive board's decision.

We say it primarily because the bylaws go on to say that the authority granted to the board is “subject to the direction of (the organization)“. That means that the board does not have the sole or exclusive authority over the affairs or property of the organization and It is subject to the directions and control of the membership of the organization. In addition, the bylaws do not say or indicate that the board has the sole or exclusive authority to do those things. It shares those powers with the membership, but the membership has the ultimate authority and can even reverse actions of the board.

I agree with Mr. Martin. If, for the sake of argument, we assume that the member who recused himself “was not present“, that means six members were present. A majority of six is four, not three, and the chair should have declared that the motion failed. However, RONR is clear that the declaration of the chair stands unless challenged by a timely point of order. It does not appear that was done.

I agree that a quorum of 2/3 of the members is a somewhat high quorum requirement, with a majority being the norm, but I do not believe it is “ridiculously” high for a board of directors. Board members are generally expected to show up for meetings, whereas that is not so much the case with the general membership. For a board of 12 members, which is fairly common, a quorum of a majority of the members would be seven members, and a quorum of 2/3 of the members would be eight members – only one additional member. I do not think such a requirement is ridiculous.

I agree that RONR is clear that meetings may not be conducted electronically unless authorized in the bylaws. However, it is possible that state law in the state where this organization exists might authorize electronic meetings, unless specifically prohibited in the bylaws. In addition, I don’t recall that we have been told that this organization has officially adopted RONR as its parliamentary authority.

That’s what my math comes up with.

Guest Guest, is the Parliamentarian credentialed by either of the two national credentialing organizations for Parliamentarians, namely, the National Association of Parliamentarians (NAP) or the American Institute of Parliamentarians (AIP)? In other words, does he have the NAP credential of Registered Parliamentarian (RP) or professional Registered Parliamentarian (PRP)? Or, if he is a member of AIP, does he have the designation of certified Parliamentarian (CP) or certified professional Parliamentarian (CPP)? I agree completely with the answer by Dr. Kapur (and with the answer just posted by Mr. Merritt) regarding whether the chair should call for abstentions. RONR is clear that he should not. I have concerns, however, about the chair, apparently frequently ruling that motions are out of order because they violate the bylaws, and that the Parliamentarian states that those rulings by the chair are correct. RONR is clear that rulings of the chair may be appealed unless “there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions“. 39:3 (RONR 12th ed.). See also 24:3 (2) (b): “ when the chair rules on a question about which there cannot possibly be two reasonable opinions, an appeal would be dilatory, and is not allowed“. So, the question is not about whether the chair believes the motion violates the bylaws, but whether there can possibly be different reasonable interpretations as to whether it violates the bylaws. If reasonable minds can disagree as to whether the proposed motion violates the bylaws, the appeal should be permitted.

@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.