Richard Brown

I don't think we can say that having the committee elects its chairman violates any rules without knowing how the committee was set up and what, if anything, the motion or bylaw provision creating the committee says about the selection of its chairman. Having committees elect their chairmen is a rather common practice and is specifically authorized by the following language on page 176: If the committee is named by a power other than the chair (such as the assembly or the executive board), the body that elects the committee members has the power, at the time the appointments are made, to designate any one of them as chairman. If a chairman is not designated when the committee is appointed, the committee has the right to elect its own chairman. What rule in RONR prohibits a committee from electing its chairman? It seems to be expressly permitted.

Yes, they did. It's on the CD-ROM version, but it's not as extensive as I would like. It's a very good start, though! I've seen other rules for electronic meetings that I like better.

Guest Carol, it is rather common for bylaws to provide that voting for officers shall be by secret ballot unless there is only one candidate for an office (or no more candidates than there are positions to be filled, such as with a board or selection of delegates), in which case the vote may be viva voce or the chair may declare the candidate elected.

That very paper trail, however, can serve to defeat the secrecy of the ballot.

As Mr. Katz stated in his first response, committee members can generally be removed in the same way they were appointed. If they were appointed by the membership, they can be removed by the membership, generally by means of the motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. How and by whom was this member appointed to the committee?

Even if they can't be disciplined, they can be subject to a motion of censure.

Actually, I agree with you. I don't think it matters whether provision B says that it may be suspended or if it's provision A which says that provision B may be suspended.

Not unless your bylaws or some superior rule (such as your constitution, articles of incorporation or state law) authorize electronic meetings and absentee (electronic) voting. It would be up to your organization to set (and interpret) quorum requirements in its own rules. Edited to add: RONR contains some very general information and suggestions on electronic meetings on Pages 97-100.

There shouldn't be any need for anyone else to weigh in, but just to be clear, qualifications for office that are contained in the bylaws cannot be suspended.... ever... period.... unless the provision itself provides for its own suspension. It doesn't matter whether it's in a meeting or not. Qualifications for office in the bylaws cannot be suspended.

I agree.

Why are they resigning AFTER their terms are up? They are automatically off the board when their terms expire. If they are members of the body that will be electing their successors at the time of the vote, then they get to vote.

Unless it happened during a meeting, it probably should not be in the minutes at all. If the report is read and accepted at a meeting, then the minutes could just report that the report of the investigation into xxx was accepted (or approved). The report itself could be attached to the minutes or just be included in the records of the organization. As Dr. Kapur mentioned in the response he posted as I was typing, if email voting is authorized by your bylaws, then whatever procedure your organization uses for recording email votes in the minutes should be recorded. It is somewhat common for the secretary to report the results of an email vote at a meeting and that report amounts to the minute entry. Other organizations have a procedure spelled out for recording email votes.

Yes, I agree!

Well, as evidenced by prior discussions on this subject, there is disagreement among some of the regular contributors to the forum as to whether a nomination can be declined and whether a person who has been nominated can withdraw as a candidate. The disagreement is caused by two references in RONR which seem to indicate quite clearly to some of us that a candidate MAY withdraw his name from nomination and if he does, his name is removed from the ballot and if he was nominated by a nominating committee, the committee should meet again if there is time and come up with a new nominee. Those references are on pages 435, 441 and the footnote on 441. There would be no reason for either of those references in RONR if a member could be compelled to remain a candidate (or in nomination) against his will. However, regardless of that issue, I agree with the previous posters who don't see anything wrong with the procedure that was followed and who say that even if proper procedure was not followed, the breach would have required a timely point of order and it is too late now to complain about it. It was not what RONR refers to as a "continuing breach" which would cause the action to be invalid and capable of being set aside on a point of order raised after the fact. It is simply too late now.

Well, of course. I don't think my answer implied otherwise. The member who made the motion is a member and if he objects, then there is an objection. My main point is that his express consent is not necessary and that the proposed "friendly amendment" can be handled by unanimous consent if there is no objection.... from ANY member.

The answer to FAQ # 8, posted above by Mr. Mervosh, pretty much addresses that type situation. It is important to note, however, that if even one member objects, the proposed "friendly amendment" must be treated as any other amendment and processed and put to a vote of the assembly. The maker of the original motion has no more say in the matter than any other member.

Agreeing with the comment above by Mr. Katz, the assembly may also suspend the rules to permit the member parliamentarian to participate in the meeting to the same degree as the other members or to whatever degree it deems advisable. It may, for example, suspend the rules to permit the parliamentarian to vote but not to speak in debate or to make motions. My own local unit of NAP has adopted a Special Rule of Order permitting the parliamentarian to participate the same as other members.

That wording is a bit awkward, though, and I think I would change it to read "I move that effective the ___________ day of ____________, 2019. . . . " Edited to add: you make a motion by saying "I move that", not "I motion that" or "I make a motion that . . . ." Edited again to add: what you are asking is really a legal question, not a parliamentary one, so it might be wise to check with an attorney licensed to practice in your state.

yes, I think so, but keep in mind that you don't need to change it in the bylaws unless the current bylaws refer to that person or position as the executive director.

And I think the same thing would apply if the organization is incorporated and the title Executive Director is used anywhere in the Articles of Incorporation.

Well, it might help to refer those folks to pages 482-483 of RONR which make it plain that the board is subordinate to the membership unless your bylaws clearly provide otherwise. You might also refer them to Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13 on this website. Here is a link to the first one. The second one is right below it. http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

No rule in RONR prohibits it. However, I doubt that your bylaws provide for an "acting" treasurer (or for any other officer to serve in an "acting" capacity". A person either is or is not an officer. However, if your president is elected as treasurer in addition to being president, he can always submit a resignation as treasurer once a suitable candidate is found. However, that person must be appointed or elected to fill the newly created vacancy in the treasurer's position according to the procedures set out in your bylaws. The same thing goes for the president "serving as" treasurer. The elected treasurer remains the treasurer until his term expires or he submits a resignation which is accepted or he is removed form office. There is nothing wrong, however, with someone else... even the president... assisting the treasurer in the performance of his duties. I can't tell from your post exactly what it is your organization has in mind doing. I don't know if you want to know if it is possible form someone to assist the treasurer or if you are asking if the president can actually be elected to both positions (he can unless your bylaws or some other superior rule prohibits it)

The bottom line, guest JCT, is that because of the extensive disciplinary proceedings procedures set out in your own by laws and rules, the procedures on discipline in RONR are rendered inapplicable. Your own procedures supersede those in RONR. It is up to your organization to interpret its rules. We cannot do that for you.

I agree with the response by Mr Mervosh but I have a question. Why did the board name an interim president? Did you not have a vice president who should have automatically become president?

What exactly are you asking us? Whether animations nominations from the floor must be permitted? If that's your question, then I agree with Mr. Katz that your rules, which would trump RONR, do not seem to provide for additional nominations from the floor or by petition or by any other means for officers. It may well require a bylaw amendment to provide for some means of making additional nominations. I also share the concern of Mr. Katz that the rules you posted might indeed permit the board to reject nominees from the nominating committee. That provision could use some clarification.