Richard Brown

If you are asking if the president can cast a vote for the absent member, the answer is almost certainly an unequivocal NO!! However, the president may be able to cast his own vote, depending on the circumstances. You haven't given us enough information to answer that.

EMP, you can also give previous notice of the motion to rescind verbally at a meeting if you really need to lower the threshold to a regular majority vote. You give the notice at the next meeting and then vote on the motion at the next meeting after that one. Edited to add: Note the following language from page 4 of RONR: Under certain circumstances, whatever the vote required, there may be an additional requirement of previous notice, which means that notice of the proposal to be brought up—at least briefly describing its substance—must be announced at the preceding meeting or must be included in the "call" of the meeting at which it is to be considered (see also pp. 121–24). And also this from page 121: The term previous notice (or notice), as applied to necessary conditions for the adoption of certain motions, has a particular meaning in parliamentary law. A requirement of previous notice means that announcement that the motion will be introduced—indicating its exact content as described below—must be included in the call of the meeting (p. 4) at which the motion will be brought up, or, as a permissible alternative, if no more than a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90) will have elapsed since the preceding meeting, the announcement must be made at the preceding meeting. The call of a meeting is generally sent to all members a reasonable time in advance, which may be prescribed in the bylaws. In organizations that meet less often than at quarterly time intervals (see pp. 89–90), or that meet as a convention of delegates, the bylaws should require the secretary to issue a call.

I have several questions and concerns about the situation you mentioned. Note, these responses are not in the order of your questions. First, if this is a public body, state or local law might well dictate the vote required to rescind a previously adopted motion. Second, if you have 21 members in the body, then nine members is not a majority and the motion to rescind would not have passed even using the vote requirement of a majority of the entire membership. Third, since no one raised a point of order when the chair declared that the motion failed, it is too late to do anything about that now. a point of order of that nature must be raised at the time the chair declares the result of the vote. You snooze, you lose. Fourth, the motion to rescind may indeed be renewed (made again) at a future meeting unless there is something in governing law that would prohibit it.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole, I will add that it would likely have been improper to refer the proposed bylaw amendment to the executive board for actual adoption. Referring it to the board so that the board can study it and make a recommendation is ok, but the board is almost certainly not able to actually adopt an amendment to the bylaws, even if the membership referred the question to the board. The precise wording of your bylaws on amendments to the bylaws must be taken into consideration in making that determination.

I agree that it might be helpful to know if this is a public body, but a public body isn't defined by having a "constituency". Public bodies can be boards, committees, commissions, etc... with or without a constituency as such. The key is more like whether the body serves a governmental function or is created by a governmental body. To new member laniem, the reason this can be important is that if this is a public body, recorded votes might be required and a reason for abstaining might be required. The rules in each state are different. If this is not a public body, then, as Mr. Mervosh explained, an explanation is not only not required, it is improper.

Ahhh, ok... I misread the original post and did not catch the fact that both sentences are part of the rule. However, my opinion remains the Same. Although it is ultimately a legal question, it depends mostly on the rules of grammar and punctuation. I think the rule was clearly intended to prohibit trailers and mobile homes. I think the emission of the in the last sentence is a typographical or punctuation error. The rule makes sense only when interpreted to prohibit both trailers and mobile homes. Edited to add: if I'm on the board of directors of the homeowners association, my interpretation would be that trailers are prohibited. Take us to court if you disagree. Or if you refuse to remove your trailer we will take you to court.

I think it's more of a grammar question. I interpret the provision as prohibiting both trailers (of all kinds) and mobile homes. The comma between "trailer" and "mobile home" is the key. Perhaps it's ultimately a legal question, but it involves the rules of grammar and punctuation.

What is the board doing interfering with a membership meeting during a membership meeting? The board is not even present as a board at a membership meeting. It is a membership meeting, not a board meeting. Do your bylaws give the board the power to reverse actions of the membership? If not, per RONR, the membership is the superior body and the board has no authority to reverse actions taken by the membership. See official interpretations 2006 - 12 and 2006 - 13 on the main website: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

What exactly do your bylaws say about a vacancy in the office of the chairman and the vice chairman filling the vacancy? Please quote verbatim, don't paraphrase . Usually the vice president or vice chairman completes the remainder of the term. What do your bylaws say that is different?

Very well said, Joshua.

Do you not have a vice chairman who would automatically succeed to the chairmanship?

I agree with Josh Martin that an assembly, in this case the board, may adopt a motion of censure as to anyone, regardless of whether that person is a member, an employee, or someone totally unconnected to the organization. A motion of censure is merely an expression of disapproval.

You make a very good point and I was thinking about that very thing as I made my post. I do not know the answer to it, but it seems to me that there can be situations where the board would have that authority. An example might be where the voting is conducted by mail and it is the board which collects and tabulates and announces the result and the membership does nothing but send in the mail ballots. The board, rather than the membership, would actually be conducting the election.

I agree with JJ's comments immediately above. I was thinking the same thing as I was making my own comment earlier

I agree as well. I think that either lay on the table or to postpone until later in the meeting would be appropriate.

I think that Josh Martin and JJ are both saying about the same thing, or nearly the same thing, and I agree with them. It seems the difference in their statements is whether violating the state law by discussing something in executive session that does not qualify for an executive session negates the secrecy of the entire executive session or only as to the item improperly discussed. Regardless, I believe this is a question of interpreting state law, not RONR .

A little more information as to exactly what the College of Bishops voted to approve would be helpful. If they approved a document submitted to them by the committee, even if the document contained a provision that should not have been in it, that document has nonetheless been approved. It is hard for me to understand exactly what happened based on your post.

There is a chance - a very slight chance - that state law might provide that for a political party once a quorum is attained, business can still be conducted despite the subsequent loss of the quorum. I would not count on any such provision, though! I think your remedy is going to be to avoid the scheduling conflict or to amend your bylaws to provide for a more realistic quorum.

If you want more information or examples of minutes, go to the NAP ( National Association of Parliamentarians) website. It has several publications , some very inexpensive, on minutes. www.parliamentarians.org. Once on the website, go to the bookstore.

If it's correspondence regarding the organization, I would say yes, it is the property of the organization, not the property of any particular president. It should stay with the organization's records or, at a minimum, be turned over to the incoming president. I think it is best kept by the secretary with the other records of the organization. Edited to add: RONR says on page 458 that the secretary is the custodian of the organization's records.

Then , in that case, the board does not have the authority to invalidate the election unless the bylaws grant the board the exclusive authority to manage the affairs of the organization. I doubt that your board has that much authority.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole, this is a decision only your organization can make based on the way your membership interprets the bylaws. It's a judgment call. However, in my personal opinion, the inclusion in the two-week calendar did not satisfy the notice requirement. Since I'm not a member of your organization, my opinion doesn't count for much. It is the opinion of your membership that counts. Question: what is the custom in your organization of sending the notice of meetings? Is what happened this time a regular occurrence or are the notices usually sent in proper form at least 10 days prior to the meeting?

I'm going to perhaps disagree somewhat with my colleagues, or at least raise a possibility. The provision in the bylaws regarding the duties of the Secretary might well be interpreted as a rule of order. If it is a rule in the nature of a rule of order, it can be suspended. Since (or if) if can be suspended, I'm wondering that if the bylaw provision can perhaps be changed indirectly by the adoption of a special rule of order setting out different responsibilities for the secretary. Regardless of whether the bylaw provision can be effectively changed by the adoption of a special rule of order setting out different secretarial duties, if the sentence in the bylaws which says the secretary shall perform the duties set out in RONR is removed, then the society absolutely can then adopt a special rule of order setting out whatever duties for the secretary that the society desires. There is no need to insert a new provision in the bylaws. Removing the current provision will suffice.

I need to bring this post to the attention of my city council. It has long irritated me that their consent agenda contains reports which should not be part of a consent calendar. For just one example, the consent agenda contains an item for reports by the mayor, CAO and department heads. At that point the Mayor usually makes a five to ten minute speech on whatever he wants to talk about.... usually things like tax receipts, new business openings, upcoming public events, reports of sweeps by Code Enforcement officers, etc. I've brought this to the attention of the Council president, but they seem reluctant to change anything.

Guest Ellen, more information would be helpful. Why do you ask the question? Can you give us some specifics? As others have posted, there are situations and circumstances where the presiding officer can refuse to permit motions.