Richard Brown

Some additional information would be helpful. For example, is this organization a public body, such as a public school board, city council, or official commission of some sort? Are you referring to a standing or special committee of a private organization? RONR has nothing to say about public hearings as such. However, you might find this language from page 501 regarding committee hearings helpful. It's about all RONR has to say on the subject: When a committee is to make substantive recommendations or decisions on an important matter, it should give members of the society an opportunity to appear before it and present their views on the subject at a time scheduled by the committee. Such a meeting is usually called a hearing. During actual deliberations of the committee, only committee members have the right to be present. Note: Although the quoted text says "only committee members have the right to be present", the committee may permit others... even non-members of the organization... to be present or to testify. If this "organization" is a public body, the answer to your question will be found in the controlling state and/or local law and the body's own rules.

Mr. Novosielski is quite correct that the president has no authority to cancel a meeting unless your bylaws give him that authority. If enough members to constitute a quorum show up anyway, they can go ahead and have the meeting despite the president's attempted cancellation. However, as a practical matter, this sort of "cancellation" happens fairly often when it becomes obvious there will not be a quorum or when the reason for a special meeting no longer exists. Severe weather is often the reason for those types of "cancellations". The other members just willingly go along with the so-called cancellation and the meeting never happens. The risk is that enough members to constitute a quorum will show up and have the meeting anyway. Keep that in mind for future attempted "cancellations".

You might read up on "Previous Notice of Motions" on pages 121-124 of RONR. If it is your intent to have the Secretary give notice of your proposed motion, pay particular attention to the last paragraph which starts at the bottom of page 123 and continues through the top of page 124. Giving "previous notice" is a parliamentary term with specific meaning and requirements. It needs to be given in a particular manner. Based on your comments, I think you will benefit from reading all four pages. You might also benefit from reading up on the motion to "Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted" starting on page 305. Pay particular attention to the different vote requirements depending on whether previous notice is given. You might also read up on the definition of "majority of the entire membership" on pages 402-404. It does not mean a majority of those members present. It means a majority of all of the members of the organization, regardless of whether they are present.

I agree with Guest Zev. In fact, I typed the response below a few hours ago, but never posted it because I thought it was mostly repetitive and I didn't want to nit-pick or start a squabble over whether the guy temporarily fulfilling the duties of the treasurer can be called "acting treasurer". But, since that door has been opened. . . . Agreeing with both Mr. Katz and Mr. Martin, I agree that the one year board membership requirement appears to be a qualification for holding office and therefore cannot be waived or suspended. I also agree that the board can likely appoint a person to carry out the duties of the treasurer on a temporary basis. This will not make such a person treasurer (or even "acting treasurer") or an officer and will not give him a vote on the board by virtue of the appointment. It merely authorizes someone to carry out certain duties, such as writing checks, keeping up with the account balances, etc, until such time as a real treasurer is actually selected. I disagree only with Mr. Martin's statement that it would be inappropriate to refer to this person as "acting treasurer". In my opinion you can call him "acting treasurer", "acting bookkeeper", "grand financial wizard", "acting financial guru" or whatever term you want to use when referring to him, but, as both Mr. Katz and Mr. Martin pointed out, it does not create an official "acting treasurer" officer position. New officer positions can be created only in the bylaws unless the bylaws specifically grant the membership or the board the authority to create new officer positions. As long as everyone understands that calling this person the "acting treasurer" does not make him the official treasurer, temporary or otherwise, I see no problem with referring to him that way. In fact, it seems to me to be the most logical term to use. If someone can come up with a better title, go for it

You can do it any way you want to, but if you want to follow accepted custom and protocol, it is "God before Country". Prayer (invocation) first then the Pledge of Allegiance. It's also the way RONR says it should be done, as Dr. Stackpole stated. Here is the quote from page 360-361: Opening Ceremonies or Exercises. Opening ceremonies immediately after the meeting is called to order may include the Invocation (which, if offered, should always be placed first), the singing of the National Anthem, the reciting of the [page 361] Pledge of Allegiance to the flag, a ritual briefly recalling the objects or ideals of the organization, or the like.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski. Nothing in RONR restricts you in any way from posting or distributing draft minutes or approved minutes, except for the caveat that minutes of executive sessions of a board (or any other group) are to be made available only to the members of the group that was meeting unless that group specifically consents to the release of those minutes or to the release of certain information about what transpired at the meeting. The particular procedure to be followed is up to your organization.... RONR really provides no guidance on that point. Just be sure that draft minutes are clearly labeled DRAFT MINUTES and maybe contain a notation that they are not to be considered official minutes until they are approved by the board.

Guest Stephen, did anyone formally raise a point of order about the procedure violating your rules or customs? Did anyone appeal from the ruling of the chair? Those are frequently the two first and best steps to stopping improper or bullying actions from taking place. As we often say, "You snooze, you lose". In beaches of parliamentary, an immediate objection (point of order) must generally be raised. If you fail to complain at the time of the breach, it is generally considered waived.

Mr. Baxter, a motion to reconsider must almost always be made at the same meeting at which the original vote took place. It is almost always too late to do it at the next meeting. The only exception is a session lasting more than one day. However, if the original motion failed, it can be renewed (made again) at the next meeting. If the motion at issue was adopted, a motion to rescind or amend it can be made at the next meeting.

I'm a bit uncomfortable with the president, on his own, sending out proxy forms with his name already filled in as the proxy. I question whether he had the authority to do that without board (or membership) authorization. However, regardless of whether he had the authority to do it, it seems rather unseemly. If enough other members are upset about it, your members may want to consider a motion of censure against the president censuring him for his actions if he did did it without authorization. You have the right to do that regardless of whether any particular rule was violated if you consider it conduct unbecoming an officer or member of your society.

The secretary should record motions precisely as they are stated by the chair to the assembly at the time the motions are about to be voted on. If the chair is not doing that, and he should be doing it, then the motion should be recorded exactly as the maker stated the motion when he made it ( unless it was amended prior to being adopted). The secretary should not be editing or wordsmithing the motion.

I take it your general membership elects the board and then the board selects the officers from among the board members. Is that correct? is that what what your bylaws provide for? Better yet, please quote for us exactly what your bylaws say about how and when the officers are selected.

Maybe even much less useful! Proper decorum, being able to raise points of order and being able to appeal from the ruling of the chair are three of the key ingredients to ensuring that the rules are followed and that order is maintained.

As Mr. Katz has already said, we must know how there came to be too many members on the board and what your rules say about how board members are selected in order to tell you what we believe is the best way is to remedy the situation. The last person selected is possibly not a member of the board at all. To answer just your last question, yes, the bylaws can be amended to provide for a different number of board members, but it is most likely the membership, not the board, that would have to adopt such a bylaw amendment. Even with such an amendment, however, the question could still remain whether the "extra" member was validly elected/selected in the first place. Authorizing an additional member in the bylaws does not automatically make the "extra" member a legitimate member. If he is not a legitimate member now, simply authorizing an additional member does not magically make him "legitimate". I agree with Mr. Katz that, at least for now, a point of order that one of the alleged "members" is not actually a member may be the best (or at least quickest) way to deal with it. If the membership really wants this person on the board, he can be elected once the additional seat is authorized. Bottom line: We need more information in order to give you a better answer.

I agree with Mr. Martin's position on this. In addition, we regularly advise visitors and new members who are complaining about their organization or its presiding officer not following proper procedure to be fully prepared when challenging the chair. We say, in essence, that you should wait for the right opportunity and have your ducks lined up. By that, we mean you should know exactly what your point of order is, you should be able to state it clearly and maybe point it out in RONR, and in the event you decide to appeal the ruling of the chair you need to know how (and when) to do it, you need someone who will quickly second your appeal, and, ideally, you need some fellow members who will speak in behalf of your position during the debate on the appeal. Since it often takes talking with fellow members and planning to pull that off, I would say that it is absolutely proper for you and a few fellow members to plan in advance and to be watching for the perfect opportunity to raise a point of order and to be ready to appeal from the ruling of the chair. In my opinion It is not unsavory to actually set up such a scenario by someone making a legitimate and non-dilatory motion to use as the basis for a point of order and appeal based on what you expect the chair's reaction to the motion (or the point of order) to be.

Normally the vice president automatically BECOMES president the instant the office becomes vacant. It is instantaneous and automatic. No other steps are necessary. It seems that your bylaws may provide differently. Exactly what do your bylaws say about a vacancy in the office of president?

Interesting question. I can see how the rule could be construed as creating an ambiguity, but I don't think it does. From my perspective, as a non-member, I believe the intent of the rule is simply to replace the "ten minutes per speech" rule in RONR with a "two minutes per speech" rule. If the rule was to be interpreted in the manner my friend Mr. Mervosh suggests, then it could also be interpreted to replace ALL of the rules in RONR limiting debate. It could mean, for example, that even the chair gets to debate every question twice for two minutes per speech. And that non-debatable motions in RONR have suddenly become debatable with two speeches of two minutes each regardless of whether RONR classifies the motion as a debatable motion. I think all of those interpretations are simply unreasonable. It seems to me that the intent of the rule is to simply change the ten minute rule in RONR to a Two minute rule. Ultimately, of course, it is up to this organization to interpret its own rules. It can do this with someone attempting to speak twice on an appeal and another member raising a point of order. The chair would make a ruling which will be binding unless it is appealed and overturned by the assembly.

I like Mr. Katz's version. It's shorter. And simpler. As in the KISS method.

The proper procedure under RONR would be for a motion to approve the agenda be made and seconded and then, once the adoption of the agenda is the pending item of business, a member would move to amend it.... exactly as any other motion would be processed. I suppose that some organizations might shortcut this procedure by the chair simply asking on his own once the meeting is called to order if there are any proposed changes to the agenda, but that is not proper. Approving (or adopting) the agenda is precisely like adopting any other motion. A member moves for adoption, someone seconds it, the chair states it (ideally), and then a member proposes her amendment and someone hopefully seconds it. Then the question is on the adoption of the proposed amendment. In your case, it would be the removal of the particular item. Once that is settled, the agenda itself can then be approved (unless there are further amendments). Most of that procedure is usually handled by unanimous consent.

I agree with Mr. Katz and was about to post the same thing. You might look at Official Interpretations 2006-12 and 2006-13 on the main website. Here is a link to 2006-12. 2006-13 is right below it: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

I think Thomas Jefferson said it very well in the following quote in his Manual of Parliamentary Practice: " It is much more material that that there should be a rule to go by, than what that rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker, or captiousness of the members." The reference to "the caprice of the Speaker" is a reference to the presiding officer... the Speaker of the House, in this case.... not to the person speaking in debate.

I agree with the post immediately above by Josh Martin. I have concerns about trying to create this ladies auxiliary as a "standing committee". I just don't think it's a good idea for a variety of reasons, but I don't know the intricacies and customs of your organization. I think creating a separate class of membership or a separate organization is a better way to go. I also agree with his suggestion that you talk to members of several other fire companies regarding their practices and experiences.

I agree with the previous responses but will add that if for some reason there must be a delay before a new Treasurer can be selected, the organization or perhaps it's board may authorize someone to temporarily carry on at least some of the duties of the treasurer, such as writing checks and making deposits and keeping the check register current. This person would essentially have some or maybe even all of the duties of the treasurer, but would not actually be the treasurer and would not be considered an officer.

I tend to agree with Mr.. Katz . Based on the facts as I understand them, I do not believe the board is under any obligation to even take up the matter unless this organization has a rule to the contrary. just because an item is listed on the agenda, does not mean that the assembly must take it up or even that a member must make a motion on it. If no one makes a motion when that item is reached, the chair should simply move on to the next item. Note: I do agree with Dr goodwiller that if the assembly wants to take up the matter but does not want to make a decision on the merits, it may simply vote to postpone the matter indefinitely.

I do not understand all of the confusion and concern about the motion to censure someone. I think its purpose and use is explained perfectly well on pages 125, 137, 344, 451 and 643 (including the footnote on page 643) of RONR.

Nosey, of course those things are wrong, but there is no such thing as "The RONR Police Department" that you can call when there is a breach of the rules. People have to pretty much follow the rules voluntarily. If they don't, then, PROVIDED YOU HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS WILLING TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, they can be disciplined, removed from office or expelled. If the membership itself isn't willing to insist that the rules be followed, there isn't much you can do about it other than (a) put up with it, (b) keep trying to convince others to join you, (c) leave the organization, or (d) consult an attorney and consider filing suit... something that is not very likely to enhance your popularity.