Richard Brown

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.

I agree that this might be a slightly different situation than the original election (original vote), but I think the same principle applies. This is in essence a new election. Just as nominations can be reopened and candidates may announce they are withdrawing and the method of conducting the second election can all be changed prior to the new election (new vote), I believe that a bylaw amendment regarding the conduct of elections or qualifications for office adopted between the dates of the two elections takes effect immediately and applies to the new election. We might sometimes call it a "re-vote" or "second ballot" or some other term, but it is, in reality, a new election. The first election failed to produce a winner. RONR even says, at the bottom of page 439, that if a candidate fails to receive a majority vote on the first ballot, the chair is to declare "No election". Perhaps this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation, but based on the rules in RONR, it seems clear to me that the new bylaw provision applies to this new election.

I agree. I disagree somewhat with this statement, as I believe the board does have a right to review the bylaws, either itself or by means of a committee, with an eye toward making proposing recommended bylaw changes to the membership. It is not at all unusual for proposed bylaw amendments to originate with the board of directors.

Nope! You got it right. I misread your post. My apologies!

Ah, you are right, Tom. I misread his post thinking it said there is no such thing as a main motion to create a blank. Can I blame it on tired eyes that are still feeling the effects of the anesthesia from a colonoscopy and the small type on a cell phone? My apologies, Zev. I misread your post.

Oh? What about page 163 lines 5-11?

Or not, if it is the desire that the new bylaw provision apply to the new election. It is often the case that a proposed bylaw amendment is taken up by the assembly immediately prior to the elections at an annual meeting so that the amendment will apply to the soon to be conducted election

Are you referring to having co-chairs? Or to what amounts to a chairman and vice chairman? Or something altogether different?

I've had the problem several times. It seems to occur randomly. On at least one occasion, rebooting my computer did seem to help. On another occasion, it did not. Also, the problem seems to occur more often when I'm on my laptop than when using my cell phone. I posted about it in the section for comments about the Forum itself. Edited to add: you might want to add your own comment in that thread so that they powers-that-be see that it is an issue. BTW, I'm doing this on my cell phone

While I don't disagree at all with Dr. Stackpole's response, I believe we need more information in order to properly answer the question. For example, exactly what body is meeting? Is it a board meeting to which members of the community have been invited? Is it a community meeting at which some board members might appear for the purpose of providing information and answering questions? btw, you mention "board meeting" and "trustees" taking their seats. I assume the "trustees" you mentioned are the board members. If not, then we need to have that cleared up, too.

Huh? I think you two are talking past each other. Or maybe I don't follow what you are saying to each other. I agree with Gary Novosielski that ad hoc (special) committees can be created without specific authorization in the bylaws. It is standing committees, not special committees, that cannot be created without bylaws authorization if the bylaws name any standing committees. Special (ad hoc) committees can be created by the society unless prohibited by the bylaws.

Absent a superior rule to the contrary, people who are not members of the body which is meeting, in this case the board, have no right to speak whatsoever except by permission of the board. The board can generally set whatever limits and conditions it desires on such comments. That is sometimes handled by the adoption of a rule regarding comments by non-members and other times is handled on a case-by-case basis. Non-members can be permitted to speak with a majority vote or by unanimous consent. such requests are often handled by the chair without objection. Non-members may be granted the right to participate in debate by suspending the rules which requires a two-thirds vote. Note some state laws require that certain bodies, such as homeowner associations, permit people who are members of the association, but not of the board, and an opportunity to address the board at board meetings. Edited to add: non-members who violate the rules or cause a disturbance may be ejected upon order of the chair, but a member may object to the removal and require a vote. In such a case, the guest can be ejected by a majority vote.

I agree. That is my interpretation, too. I think it is describing a custom more than creating a rule. At most, I think maybe it is a "should" rule rather than a "must" rule.

In my opinion, that would create a standing rule since it has continuing effect until rescinded or amended. It makes no difference whether the person who made the motion introduced it as a standing rule. Such a rule could also be put in the bylaws, but the adoption of such a rule into the bylaws would require a specific bylaw amendment pursuant to your provisions for amending the bylaws. Yes, "pulling out" or compiling motions which are truly in the nature of standing rules and listing them as standing rules is generally a very good thing to do. Otherwise, they get "lost" in old minutes and are not readily available in a single document for members to refer to.

I believe the interpretation is actually 2006-18, not 2016-18. Also, the interpretation does not apply to a motion adopted in violation of the bylaws which creates a continuing breach. It is about the vote required to adopt a motion which exceeds the scope of notice and whether a point of order regarding the vote must be made at the time of the breach (it must). Here is a link to the official interpretation: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_18

I agree. Good point, Joshua. It would be what RONR calls a continuing breach.

If the vote was by secret ballot, as we are all presumably assuming to be the fact, how would you know whose votes to invalidate?

PRIOR to adjournment, while the meeting is still in progress, quite possibly. We would need to know more about just what your rules say. But after the meeting has adjourned, especially if any members have departed, it is improper and null and void pursuant to RONR. Can you tell us a bit more about how this business after adjournment happened?

Having just now read all of this thread for the first time, it seems clear to me that this is a matter of bylaws interpretation and that only the members of this organization can make that interpretation. One possible way of deciding the issue is for someone, at the next meeting, to raise a point of order that this general delegation of all of the chairman's duties to an "acting chairman" violates the bylaws and that matters may be delegated only on an individual case-by-case basis. The chair will rule on the point of order and the ruling of the chair can then be appealed to the assembly, whether that be the executive board or the general membership. It would require a majority vote to reverse the decision of the chair. It seems to me that MIGHT provide some sort of a solution short of disciplinary proceedings, but, as has already been pointed out, the chairman could continue to delegate matters individually, one by one, as they arise.

There is also the fact that a motion to "lay on the table" in RONR and a motion to "table" in the AIP Standard Code (AIPSC), are two drastically different motions. The motion in RONR lays the item aside temporarily. The motion in the AIPSC kills it, like the motion to postpone indefinitely in RONR. Therefore, knowing the precise context in which the motion (or the word) is being used is important. To say that something was "tabled", without further explanation, is quite ambiguous and confusing. Edited to add: Also, it is quite common for a motion to postpone to be incorrectly referred to as a motion to table, and when someone says something was tabled, that person actually means that it was postponed.

Just keep in mind folks, that some state corporation laws give a member, or at least a member of a board of directors, the right to have his dissent recorded in the minutes.

I agree with Reelsman. This what RONR says about it at the top of page 435: A nominating committee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the assembly, although if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, the committee is revived and should meet immediately to agree upon another nomination if there is time.

That is incorrect and is not the rule. Guest Zev, I believe you have made mistakenly quoted this provision before. It is not the correct procedure nor the correct rule for this situation. The provision you are referring to for declaring the chair vacant is found on page 651 at lines 24-26. However, that provision.... the ability to "declare the chair vacant"... applies ONLY to a chair who is "an appointed or elected chairman pro tem". It DOES NOT APPLY TO THE REGULAR PRESIDING OFFICER. In addition, the motion you incorrectly refer to requires only a majority vote, not a two thirds vote. The provision for removing the regular presiding officer from presiding is found on starting on page 652 at line 3 and continues on to page 653 at line 19. It requires a suspension of the rules and a two thirds vote. As provided on page 652 at lines 3-4, a motion to remove the regular presiding officer from presiding by declaring the chair vacant IS NOT IN ORDER. It is possible to remove the regular presiding officer from presiding during a meeting, but it is by virtue of the provisions on pages 652-653, not the provision you referred to on page 651. And it requires a two thirds vote.

Yes, there is a CD-ROM of the 11th edition available through the website and also from NAP (The National Association of Parliamentarians). It is designed for PC's, though, not MAC's. There may be conversion programs available. I have it and love it and use it daily. The search function makes all the difference in the world. Depending on who you order it from, the cost is about $65. I know that is the member price from NAP as I just ordered one or two on consignment for our upcoming Louisiana Association of Parliamentarians Biennial Meeting and Workshops, which is this weekend. Here is a link to the home page of this website where it is mentioned. You can follow the links for more information. http://www.robertsrules.com/

I don't know, but I have seen some of them, particularly one of the moderators, post comments to the effect that he has more respect for those who post using their real names. After he made that comment about a year ago, several posters (well, a few) who had been posting anonymously or using fictitious names "came out of the closet" and started posting using their real names. I believe that every one of them is glad they made the change. I know I am happy about it and have more respect for every one of them.