Richard Brown

That does not change anything. The lack of a second is immaterial an is waived once debate commences. The lack of a second would have required a timely (immediate) point of order. Edited to add: From page 37 of RONR: After debate has begun or, if there is no debate, after any member has voted, the lack of a second has become immaterial and it is too late to make a point of order that the motion has not been seconded. If a motion is considered and adopted without having been seconded—even in a case where there was no reason for the chair to overlook this requirement—the absence of a second does not affect the validity of the motion's adoption." Also, if the chair of the committee falsely presented the motion as being a recommendation of the committee, I agree with Mr. Martin that disciplinary action or a motion of censure as to the chairman might be appropriate.

My take on this is a bit different (but not totally different!) from that of Mr. Mervosh for the following reasons: First, the vote requirement in the bylaws is poorly worded and must be interpreted... something only the organization itself can do. If the intent is to require the affirmative vote of two thirds of the members present, it should say exactly that: "A vote of two thirds of the members present". That is the suggested wording in RONR when a vote based on the number of members present is required. The wording "two thirds vote of those present" is ambiguous. It could be interpreted to mean an ordinary two thirds vote rather than "the vote of two thirds of the members present". There is a difference. The phrase (clause?) "of those present" could be a poorly worded means of identifying the body authorized to expel a member".... in this case, the members present at a meeting as opposed to, say, the board or the entire membership or the votes of those who vote by mail, email or proxy. So, although in my opinion the most likely intent of the provision is to require "the vote of two thirds of the members present", it is not clear, it is not the wording suggested by RONR, it creates an ambiguity, and is therefore in need of interpretation by the society itself. I don't think any of us non-members on this forum can say conclusively what the wording used means. See pages 402-404 of RONR for suggested wording for variations of the vote required. It is my opinion that a deviation from the standard "two thirds vote" requirement is not clearly stated as required by RONR. It is ambiguous and susceptible of two interpretations. From page 404: Whenever it is desired that the basis for decision be other than a majority vote or (where the normal rules of parliamentary law require it) a two-thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, the desired basis should be precisely defined in the bylaws or in a special rule of order. My second "disagreement" with Mr. Mervosh is that even if the required vote threshold was not reached, it is too late to complain about it now. It would have required a timely point of order when the chair declared that the motion was adopted. No point of order was raised, so the termination of membership stands. Edited to add: See Official Interpretation 2006-18: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

That is a good point. I agree.

Only the election of the unqualified candidate is void. You have an incomplete election for that position which should be completed as soon as possible. You will essentially hold a new election for that position.

Mr. Chairman (or Mr. President), according to this language from page 23 of RONR: A vice-president is addressed as "Mr. President" or "Madam President" while actually presiding. (A possible exception may arise where the usual form would make the meaning unclear—for example, when the vice-president is in the chair while the president is also on the platform. In such an instance, the vice-president should be addressed as "Mr. [or Madam] Vice-President.") A person presiding at a meeting who has no regular title or whose position is only temporary is addressed as "Mr. [or Madam] Chairman" by long-established usage.

I was surprised when you opined earlier that RONR seems to create this "officer elect" position. I know your question is directed to Josh, but I for one am having a hard time agreeing that RONR creates the position of "officer-elect". I can accept the premise that a person who has been elected but has not yet assumed office can be removed from office as if he was already in office, but I disagree with the premise that RONR actually creates an "officer-elect" position. I think it is used as a descriptive term, not to define or to create an "office".

Well, I interpret this follow-up post by guest Kathryn as stating the bylaws do provide for the board to impose special assessments: Based on that statement (and assuming that is what the bylaws do in fact say), I am of the opinion that the board did have the authority to impose the special assessment.

You cannot arbitrarily change the terms of the proffered resignation. You must either accept it or reject it, but you can't make it effective prior to the date specified in the resignation.

What makes you think that any sort of suspension of the rules is involved (or required)?

I'm of the opinion that if the bylaws provide only for dues and make no mention of special assessments, this special assessment is invalid and has been invalid from the beginning. The bylaws cannot be suspended or overridden by two-thirds vote or any other vote to permit an assessment unless it is specifically authorized in the bylaws.

Guest Oliver , what exactly do your bylaws say about when the terms if office begin?

Ann makes a valid point. If the contract with the parliamentarian provides that he shall provide advice only to the presiding officer and need not respond to member inquiries, then he is in a somewhat better position, but the assembly can still ask him for the information it wants and he can decide whether to comply. But, no matter what his contract says, he can still be subject to a motion of censure and even to a complaint with the AIP or NAP, but his changes of prevailing on the complaint are enhanced if the contract says that he shall provide advice only to the presiding officer.

These two lines from page 466 indicate to me that the parliamentarian should respond to such a request (or motion) from the assembly and that such a motion is on order: "During a meeting the work of the parliamentarian should be limited to giving advice to the chair and, when requested, to any other member." and: "Only on the most involved matters should the parliamentarian actually be called upon to speak to the assembly; and the practice should be avoided if at all possible." Therefore, I think the answer to questions 1 and 2 is definitely "yes". As to question 3, that is a bit tougher, but I'm inclined to think the answer to it is likewise "yes". However, I don't think the parliamentarian can be compelled to answer, but his refusal could result in the assembly discharging him forthwith if the assembly has that power. The assembly could also adopt a motion of censure as to the parliamentarian, the chair or both.

I thought the 11th edition changed the preferred term from "Point of Information" to "Request for Information". From the "most significant changes" to the 11th edition on page xxvi: "12. Establishment of Request for Information as the preferred name for the motion Point of Information, in an effort to reduce the common misunderstanding or misuse of this motion to give information rather than request it [294–95]."

I agree with Mr. Martin. While it might be nice to give a reason and might frequently be done, it is not required. I'm thinking that more often than not a reason is probably not given.

There is a very recent thread by member"Nosey", started just a few days ago, that asks similar questions. You might find the discussion in let thread useful. Although no seed does not say so until way down in the discussion, her organization is using the small board rules. Some of us were aware of that from the beginning and some were not. I will try to find that thread and post a link, but it is by Nosey and was started within the past week. Edited to add: well, I found the thread, and apparently you are the same person as member "Nosey" but you have changed your name. Perhaps you thought that by making this post using a different name we would not know who you are, but when you changed your name it changed your name on all of your posts. We have cautioned you in the past about making changes in posts that wind up being misleading. As I recall, you promised not to do so again. However, you just did it again.

That is really up to your assembly to decide. The minutes should accurately reflect what happened. Whether your organization wants to correct spelling and punctuation errors is a decision for your organization to make. However, when the minutes are up for approval, any member who is present has the right to make a motion to correct the minutes by correcting punctuation and spelling errors. If one or more such motions are made, the assembly will decide by majority vote whether to make the corrections.

John, I think if you were go back and reread the original post, the original poster is talking about adopting what would amount to a Special Rule of Order requiring the secretary to provide future draft minutes to the membership by certain date. I don't think he is talking about past minutes. You do agree, don't you, that the society may in fact adopt such a Special Rule of Order requiring a draft of future minutes to be produced to the membership by date certain and the any such provision would supersede any contrary provisions in RONR ?

@Atul Kapur are you using voice to text? You might want to read over your last post carefully and make sure it says exactly what you intended for it to say. It seems like a couple of words may be missing and I wonder if you intended to refer to catching the boat at the end of your post or if you intended to say cast a vote. My voice to text regularly types boat when I'm trying to say vote. Among lots of other screwy screw-ups!

RONR already says the secretary shall have the draft minutes prepared by the next meeting. What is wrong with the Society adopting a rule that the secretary shall have that draft ready at some earlier date and should submit it to the general membership at the same time it is submitted to the board?

What then? The same things that are possible any time an officer, board, or committee refuses to perform as directed. Disciplinary action and / or removal from office. Or censure. Or just not getting re-elected. Hopefully, the secretary is conscientious and will perform the duties of his office as the rules require.

Again, I agree with mr. Martin. I believe the society certainly can adopt a rule requiring draft minutes to be published or released to the membership by a certain date.

Well, I'm in the camp with Josh Martin. I think the membership can almost certainly adopt a special rule of order requiring the Board to make its minutes available to the general membership by a certain date. That is different from directing the board to release already transcribed minutes to the general membership, although I think the membership could also do that.

Perhaps this provision from page 177 of RONR will be helpful: VACANCIES IN A COMMITTEE. The power to appoint a committee includes the power to fill any vacancy that may arise in it. The resignation of a member of a committee should be addressed to the appointing power, and it is the responsibility of that power to fill the resulting vacancy (see also pp. 467–68). Unless the bylaws or other governing rules provide otherwise (see pp. 497, 653), the appointing authority has the power to remove or replace members of the committee: If a single person, such as the president, has the power of appointment, he has the power to remove or replace a member so appointed; but if the assembly has the power of selection, removal or replacement can take place only under rules applicable to the motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted (see p. 497). Committee members are presumed to serve until their successors are appointed. Read your bylaws and other governing documents carefully to make sure they don't contain a different provision, as your governing documents would control.

How did this person become a member of the committee? Under the rules in RONR, the person or group who appoints committee members also has the power to remove them. With more information we can probably give you a somewhat better or more precise answer.