Richard Brown

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.

Messrs Katz and Geiger are correct. The person who seconds a motion does not necessarily support the motion and may not only vote against the motion but may also speak against it in debate.

Hmmm. A few years ago I was "set straight" by Dan Honemann when I told a poster that an adjourned meeting is actually a continuation of the previous meeting. Dan pointed out pretty firmly that an adjourned meeting is a continuation of the same SESSION, but not of the same meeting. It is a separate meeting, just as the afternoon meeting at a convention is a separate meeting from the morning meeting, but it is a continuation of the same session. Or like the meeting on the second day is a separate meeting from the meeting on the first day. I've been careful to make the distinction ever since. That was long after the 11th edition came out, so what has changed? or what am I missing?

"Resolved, that the XYZ county executive committee does hereby censure Commissioner Wossname for her support of HB 123 in the state legislature which contravenes some of our core beliefs".

I agree. The NAP basic membership exam is not that difficult. Note, however, that there are actually two versions of the test: The original version based on RONR and consisting of 100 questions from a study bank of 300 questions, and a newer test based on RONR In Brief. The current default on the NAP home page is the new test version, but if you go to the bookstore you will see the study questions and answers for the original test as well. You can choose which test you want to take. The study questions for the new test are also on the website.

If you re-read the original post, you will see that the parliamentarian has been hired to PRESIDE at the meeting (or to conduct the meeting), something not all that unusual and is even referenced in RONR. (The original post actually says the parliamentarian is hired to conduct the meeting. I presume by that he means that the parliamentarian is hired to preside at the meeting. A little clarification would be helpful). See, for example, the following language from page 453: In certain instances in an ordinary society—for example, if an adjourned meeting or a special meeting (9) must deal with a problem that has intensely divided the organization—it may be that such a meeting can accomplish more under the chairmanship of an invited nonmember who is skilled in presiding. (Sometimes this may be a professional presiding officer.) If the president and vice-president(s) do not object, the assembly, by majority vote, can adopt such an arrangement for all or part of a session. Alternatively, the rules may be suspended to authorize [page 454] it, even over the objection of the president or a vice-president. Cf. pages 652–53.

Hiring a professional parliamentarian to assist individuals or factions at conventions and annual meetings it is not unusual. I believe one of our PRP members has written rather extensively about it. @J. J., can you point Mr. Phillips in the right direction?

For help in understanding RONR, I recommend Robert's Rules For Dummies by C. Alan Jennings. It is not a parliamentary authority and should not be considered or cited as one, but it is rather a book about RONR and can be a tremendous help in understanding some of its more complex provisions. It is currently in its Third Edition. It is written in easy to understand layman's language and i recommend it highly.

I agree with Mr. Katz that unless telephone voting is authorized in your bylaws or by some superior rule, such as state law, it is not permitted and a motion adopted by means of a telephone vote is null and void and is not subject to being ratified. However, even if the motion is not subject to being ratified, such as would be the case if the "meeting" was held without proper notice or by means of a telephone conference, and if the motion authorized the officers to take certain action, the society may nonetheless ratify the actions of the officers in reliance of the motion, even if the motion itself cannot be ratified. Example: A windstorm or tornado came through last night and caused a tree to fall through the roof, exposing the inside of the building to the elements. Your bylaws require five days notice for a special meeting. But, because of the urgency of the situation, your board (or the membership) holds an "emergency" telephonic meeting with only four hours notice and votes to authorize the president and treasurer to spend up to $2,000 to have the tree removed and make temporary repairs, such as a "blue tarp", to prevent further damage until the roof can be properly repaired. Because the "telephonic meeting" was unauthorized and held without proper notice, the motion adopted at the so-called meeting cannot be ratified. However, the assembly MAY ratify the actions of the president and the treasurer in spending up to $2,000 to remove the tree and make temporary repairs.

I don't know what you mean about a member refusing to "hold his vote". What does that mean? Do you mean "can he refuse to cast his vote"? Please explain.

1. I think you handled it very well. 2. RONR has very little to say about recording devices being used in meetings. At one point on page 265 it says a rule about the use of recording devices would be in the nature of a standing rule which can be suspended with a majority vote. At another point it says on page 471 that a recording device can be of assistance to the secretary in preparing the minutes. Other than that, you're on your own.... and subject to whatever state laws or other superior rules might apply.

If the motion has already been adopted, and you are in the same meeting, a motion to reconsider should be moved by someone who voted on the prevailing side. If the motion was adopted at a previous session, any member can move to amend something previously adopted. It requires a majority vote if previous notice is given or, without notice, it 2/3 Vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. The person who made the original motion need not agree to the change and has no more say than any other member once the motion is in the hands of the assembly or has been adopted.

Huh??? It's either the same session or a subsequent session. There is no such thing as a subsequent session being a part of the previous session. A motion cannot be renewed at the same session as the one in which it was rejected. It may, however, be renewed at any subsequent session (not just at the next session).

Um, not exactly. A motion cannot be renewed at the same session at which it was originally proposed. It can be renewed only at a subsequent session. RONR pages 88 and 336.

Why would the original vote on the motion have required a two-thirds vote to pass?

What is all of this 2/3 business? The motion is simply introduced again as a new motion and should require the same vote to be adopted that any other motion would, presumably, a majority vote. Although making the same motion again at a future meeting may be referred to as renewing the motion, it is essentially simply making the motion again. Nothing is being reconsidered. It requires an ordinary majority vote unless for some reason it requires a two-thirds vote for adoption, such as a bylaw Amendment.

Agreeing with the others, the assembly should not be approving the treasurer's report. That is a no no. The chair should thank him for his report and then move on to the next item of business. The report itself should be placed on file or turned over to the Auditors for audit. It is the report of the Auditors which should ultimately be approved. Edited to add: the auditor's report, depending on the complexity of the transactions, does not need to be anything formal or fancy. It could consist of one or two members who review the treasurer's report and bank statements on the spot and say yes, we have reviewed the treasurer's report and find it to be in order.

Show her the statement from the introduction to RONR that Tom Coronite posted, along with the state law directing that the rules in RONR be followed. Or show her this thread.

Addressing only one point for now, the rule in RONR prohibiting interruptions and motions during voting applies only after voting is actually in progress, after the first vote is cast. It does not apply while preparing to vote.

Correct.

I interpret the bylaw provision the same way JJ does, namely, that the society sets dues by way of motion... standing rule or otherwise. It does not require a bylaw amendment. The only question is whether the standing rule provision for automatic 3 percent dues increases annually violates the bylaws. In my opinion, it does not. The bylaws call for the membership to set the annual dues, not necessarily to set them annually. I think they complied with the bylaws.

Guest MYC, perhaps I'm just missing something, but I believe more information would be helpful. For example, what exactly is this "Commission Board"? Is it some type of public body? If so, your question might covered by superior state and local laws governing the "commission board" and its meetings. It will also help if you can provide a bit more information regarding what you mean by "revisit" the topic at a later meeting. Discussion for the sake of discussion, without a motion to actually do or adopt something, is usually prohibited absent a suspension of the rules or a special rule of order permitting it. However, public bodies are often subject to state law provisions regarding public comment.

Joshua, I was actually responding to transpower but somehow failed to quote the post that I was responding to and the system would not let me edit to add it at the top of my post

@Transpower, Why do you believe this rule violates the bylaws? Don't you agree that this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation which is for the society to do? Edited to add: Aw, shucks. I had intended to quote transpower but forgot to do it and now the system won't let me add it. I was responding to Transpower's quote above

I tend to agree. I also agree that what was done was probably not anticipated by the drafters, but I see no clear requirement that a change in the annual dues must be voted on separately each year. Ultimately, this is probably a matter of bylaws interpretation which the organization itself must do.