Richard Brown

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.

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.