Richard Brown

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.

I agree completely with the comments by Mr. Harrison. Additional benefits of being a member of the forum are that you can elect to receive notifications when someone replies in a thread you have started or commented in and you have the ability to see, at a glance, which threads you commented on have additional comments. It is also easier to go directly to new comments. Another big advantage is the messaging feature that members can use. We can message each other directly outside of the comments. All in all, it is much easier to use the forum and you gain the respect of others when you post as a member using your real name. There is more incentive to be accurate when you know that you will be held accountable among your peers if you provide incorrect information than if you are posting anonymously and won't suffer any consequences in the parliamentary community for providing incorrect information. Posting correct information and asking questions in your real name is an excellent way to gain respect in the parliamentary community and among your peers on the forum.

I disagree. The special rule of order supersedes the provision in RONR. If the special rule of order prohibiting staff members from speaking without being asked to speak by the assembly is suspended, then the staff member is thereby permitted to speak upon being recognized by the chair.... but not to participate in debate (unless the assembly interprets this rule as applying not just to speaking but to debate). Speaking at a meeting and speaking in debate are two different things and subject to different rules in RONR. A majority vote can permit a non-member to speak, but it requires a two thirds vote and suspension of the rules to permit a non member to speak in debate. It's not clear to me what the intent of this rule is, but I'm inclined to interpret it to mean speaking in the way of providing information or asking questions, but not speaking in debate. It's ultimately up to the assembly to interpret it. In this case, this is a special rule of order and I think it would require a two thirds vote to suspend it whether it is to permit the non member to just speak or to speak in debate. If a member.... or the chair... desires to suspend the rule, it should be made clear whether the rule is being suspended to permit the staff member to speak in debate or just to "speak" without having to be asked to speak.

Yes, it is permissible. It is sometimes frowned upon by others, but it is absolutely permissible. In some circles it is simply considered volunteering.

I agree with the responses by Joshua Katz and Bruce Lages as to which quorum requirement controls. I think the bylaw quorum requirement of 5% of the membership controls. As to the question 107 matter in Parliamentary Law raised by guest Zev, something with which i am very familiar, I do not see that as an issue here nor do I see it becoming one. The organization can, of course , amend its bylaws to require a fixed number of members for a quorum rather than a percentage of members, but unless that number is relatively low, that can present its own question 107 problem if the organizatonn starts losing members, something that happens pretty often. I See nothing wrong with a percentage of membership quorum requirement as long as the organization has an accurate membership roster and can easily determine the number of members necessary for a quorum. Some organizations use both a fixed number and a percentage, such as, "20 percent of the membership or 10 members, whichever is less".

Yes, that's quite possible. But, I believe the answer is the same: It is Secretary LJR's decision whether to comply. There could well be a very valid request for the information. I do not believe that the notes are "secret" and if the notes were taken on behalf of the society, even if using the secretary's own notebook and pen, the society could order the secretary to turn them over if push was to get to shove. In the meantime, the secretary can probably make the decision whether to turn them over or say, "Sorry, you'll have to wait for the minutes to come out (whether draft or approved).

There is nothing inappropriate about the request.... anyone can request just about anything. Whether you need to comply is a different matter. I think it is a judgment call for your to make. It is not at all an unusual request. Also, keep in mind, that many (most?) organizations distribute the draft minutes at some point between the meeting at which the minutes were taken and the meeting at which they are to be approved. Sometimes that distribution takes place almost immediately and sometimes it is the day of the meeting at which they will be approved. However, there is nothing secret about them... they just are not yet the official minutes. btw, we refer to them as draft minutes, not as "raw" or "unapproved" minutes, although that is probably just a difference in terminology. RONR uses the term "draft minutes".

Nosey, I join in with the request by Mr. Katz that you refrain from making substantial edits to your posts after they have been up for a few minutes. A few times in the past you have made MAJOR edits to your posts hours (or even a day) after posting them and after several of us have responded. When you delete key parts of your posts, it makes the answers which follow seem nonsensical and there is no factual background for new respondents to consider when responding. Please, do not do this. In your thread about "substantial compliance", you edited the entire background and basis of your question, namely that your organization's attorney said the organization was in "substantial compliance" with its bylaws. The posts that follow now seem nonsensical because they refer to details which you came back and edited out. Please do not do that. The forum administrators imposed new restrictions on our ability to edit posts several months ago because of abuses like this. I am afraid it it continues, they will remove our ability to edit altogether. The edit feature is intended to be used to make minor corrections or add detail inadvertently omitted..... not to drastically delete key facts or to change a post to the point that new posters can't figure out what the previous responses are referring to. btw, one of the features of this forum is the ability of people searching for help to be able to find, read and rely on questions already asked and answered. When you essentially delete your own question, nothing else in the thread makes sense and it is basically useless to others looking for answers.

The language on pages 488-499 regarding "Periodic Partial Change in Board Membership" does tend to lend support to Mr. Gerber's position: EFFECT OF PERIODIC PARTIAL CHANGE IN BOARD MEMBERSHIP. In cases where a board is constituted so that a specified portion of its membership is chosen periodically (as, for example, where one third of the board is [page 489] elected annually for three-year terms), it becomes, in effect, a new board each time such a group assumes board membership. Consequently, when the outgoing portion of the board vacates membership, all matters temporarily but not finally disposed of (see pp. 90–91), except those that remain in the hands of a committee to which they have been referred, fall to the ground under provision (c) on page 237. (See also p. 502, l. 26 to p. 503, l. 2, regarding the continuity of matters that have been referred to a special committee appointed by the board.) If the board is one that elects its own officers or appoints standing committees, it chooses new officers and committees as soon as the new board members have taken up their duties, just as if the entire board membership had changed. The individual replacement of persons who may occasionally vacate board membership at other times, however, does not have these effects. FWIW, I have attended meetings of organizations at which the newly elected president takes the gavel and takes over the meeting smack in the middle of the meeting as soon as elected. RONR does state that elections take effect immediately unless there is a bylaw provision to the contrary. Intriguing situation. We must keep in mind, too, that it appears this might be a public body subject to superior state or local laws. The original post did refer to the "upcoming town board meeting".

This is a matter of bylaws interpretation, which we cannot do for you. Each organization must interpret its own bylaws. Keep checking back, though, as someone might have some useful advice on this situation. btw, a bylaw interpretation on something like this is usually done by way of a member raising a point of order that, in your case, that a member who attended only eight meetings is not eligible for elected office. The chair rules whether the point of order is well taken. The ruling of the chair can be appealed to the assembly, which has the final word. It takes a majority vote to overrule the decision of the chair. That is how you get a resolution on those types of issues.... but you should then amend the bylaws so that the issue is clear for the future.

It did not solve my problem with not being able to edit posts. Just now the system would not let me edit a post so I had to post that information as a separate new comment.

The system is still not letting me edit posts. Just a moment ago I had to make my "edit' in the form of a new post.

Supplement to my answer immediately above since the system won't let me edit the post: If a member objects to the assembly actually acting on a motion to purchase the lawn mower, a member may raise a point of order once the motion is made that a motion to actually purchase the lawnmower is out of order as it exceeds the scope of the notice. The chair would rule whether the point of order is well taken. His ruling can then be appealed to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overrule the decision of the chair.

Based on that language in the notice (or call) of the special meeting, I agree with Josh Martin that a vote on a motion to purchase the lawn mower was probably in order. I do think it would have been better for the notice to have said that a motion to purchase the lawn mower would be considered, but I don't think saying that is necessary.

Please quote EXACTLY, word for word, what the call for the special meeting says about its purpose. Don't paraphrase. Also, don't be surprised if this post gets moved to the general discussion forum. That is where it actually belongs. This section of the forum is actually for more advanced discussions among experienced parliamentarians.

It is ultimately up to the members of your organization to interpret its own bylaws. We cannot do that for you. However, my opinion is that unless the bylaws require that the service on the board be immediately prior to election, then service on the board for a full term at any time in the past would satisfy the requirement.

If this organization is Incorporated, such as a nonprofit corporation, you might check your State's Corporation statutes. Such statutes sometimes contain Provisions permitting members to inspect the corporation's records.

Yes, absolutely, unless you have a customized rule to the contrary. A member of the nominating committee may also be the committee's official nominee for a position.

Unless you have some special Rule of Order to the contrary, you say "I move that". . . , such as, "I move that we paint the clubhouse red". Or, "I move that we donate $1,000 to the American Red Cross". That's it. You use the words " I move that . . . "

You elect a secretary Pro Tem to take minutes for the rest of the meeting. This can usually be done by unanimous consent by you as chair asking if there is any objection to Mr. Smith serving as secretary pro-tem in the absence of the regular secretary.

I just now had the same problem that I had a few days ago with editing a post. The system would not let me edit a comment that I had just posted moments earlier. The last time it happened, logging out and back into the website seemed to solve the problem (along with restarting my computer). This time, however, neither logging out of and back into the website or restarting my computer solved the problem. I wound up posting my "edit" as a new post immediately below the one I had been trying to edit.

For some reason, the system is again not letting me edit a post, so I am adding this qualification to the response to Atul Kapur which I posted immediately above: I'm going to hedge a bit on my statement above. Although i do still believe that the officer in question is eligible to serve another full term in office, I feel compelled to point out that there is a difference in the language used in the sample bylaw provision on pages 574-575 of RONR and the language posted by Guest Erika as being in her organization's bylaws. I see how the provision in Guest Erika's bylaws could reasonably be interpreted to prohibit an officer from serving for ANY period of time in excess of two full terms in office. I think that ultimately this is a matter of bylaws interpretation even though the rule in RONR about serving more or less than half a term is quite clear.

I agree with the above response by Dr. Kapur. I wanted to post the same thing myself, but decided it was too much typing and copying and pasting to do on my cell phone, which I was using at the time. I figured someone would come along and post the correct information. I should have figured Dr. Kapur (or Josh Martin!) would be the one to do it! However, it is still ultimately a matter of bylaws interpretation, but the rule in RONR seems pretty clear. I agree that based on RONR and what we have been told that the officer is eligible to serve another full term.

I don't understand why you think anyone is being mean. The page citation (page 400) for the definition of a majority is mentioned in the answer to FAQ # 4, the link to which Mr. Huynh provided in the second response to your question. Perhaps our answers seem cryptic because the definition is so simple and short, consisting of only three words: "More than half". Did you look up the citation at the bottom of the answer to FAQ 4? It's explained on page 400 with a mention also on page 4. btw, some of the things we say to each other (keep in mind many of us are personal friends) are often private jokes or making reference to a thread in the past that got confusing.

Guest Roxanne, what do you find vague about the term "majority"? The definition is about a simple as a definition can be. It means, simply, more than half. Less than half is not a majority and exactly half is not a majority. But any figure or amount more than half is a majority. What do you find vague or confusing or hard to understand about that?