Richard Brown

Try Pages 92 and 576

Yes.

I'm concerned about your chairman publishing an incorrect version of the bylaws. At a meeting, someone should move to have the published bylaws corrected to reflect the true text of the amendment. Also, the chair may be subject to discipline and even removal from office due to his actions. You might look at chapter XX in RONR, which contains 26 pages on discipline.

The answer will be found in your bylaws. What do your bylaws say about special meetings? Special meetings are not allowed unless provided for in the by-laws. Edited to add: RONR contains no rule pertaining to how long a meeting can last.

It's called Old Fashioned politicking. Unless your own rules prohibit it, there's nothing in RONR that prohibits it.

Several months ago a Kindle version of RONR and RONR in Brief was listed as being available on Amazon. Edited to add: the Kindle version of RONR in Brief is still showing as available on Amazon with a "ship" date of March 26th, 2019. A Kindle version of RONR is no longer showing up as available.

Paul, if you are determined to leave the fact that the motion failed or died for lack of a second in the minutes, I gave you the suggested wording in a post above which you just quoted from. However, if you are going to amend that statement anyway just to change the language, why not just delete that reference to it failing altogether? RONR says it should not be in the minutes. It's your call. We have told you what the rule is. But, by majority vote, your assembly can put pretty much whatever it wants to in the minutes.

The answer depends at least in part on what your own bylaws and rules say about amending policies and enacting new policies. It also depends on whether these "policies" are in the nature of standing rules or special Rules of Order. Can you be more specific as to the exact nature of these policies and also tell us what your own by laws and rules say about enacting and amending policies? Be sure to mention any requirement for previous notice. Please quote those provisions verbatim, don't paraphrase. The degree to which a proposed policy or policy change can be amended on the floor depends upon the requirements of your rules and the exact nature of any proposed amendments from the floor. RONR does not require previous notice to enact or amend standing rules. Adopting or amending special Rules of Order requires either previous notice and a two-thirds Vote or, without previous notice, the vote of a majority of the entire membership. Providing us with more information will enable us to help you better. Edited to add: although amending ordinary standing rules does not require previous notice, giving previous notice of an amendment lowers the vote threshold to a majority vote. Without previous notice, amending a standing rule requires a 2/3 vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. See pages 15-18 and also page 306 of RONR.

FWIW, I note that the "rule" is expressed more explicitly by General Robert in Parliamentary Law. The following passage, in my opinion, is worded more emphatically than the "should" rule in RONR. From page 301 of Parliamentary Law: Ordinarily, no motion should be made to accept the report of an officer. If recommendations are made, a motion should be made to refer them to a committee, or a resolution may be offered in conformity with the recommendation. In no case does the officer make a motion relating to his own report, whereas the chairman of a committee is the one who should make the motion to dispose of the committee's report. (Emphasis added).

I will note, for what it's worth, that Guest Paul is not as clear as he could be that it was the motion to postpone which failed to receive a second and not the original main motion. I interpret his post to mean that the motion to postpone failed to receive a second. If it was the main motion that failed to receive a second, then I agree that it should be in the minutes if it failed due to lack of a second.

The motion that failed to receive a second was the motion to postpone, which is not a main motion. It is a subsidiary motion, not a main motion. It does not go in the minutes if it failed to receive a second.

User, your question is a legal one, not a parliamentary one. Legal questions are beyond the scope of this forum. From a parliamentary standpoint, however, the officer who "lost" the property might be subject to censure or disciplinary action and/or removal from office.

Since the motion failed due to lack of a second, it should not be in the minutes at all. But, if you are going to leave it in the minutes anyway, I would say that "The motion failed (or died) due to lack of a second". But, again, it should not be in the minutes at all. Even though this is a board of less than 12 members, does it follow the small board rules? And are motions normally seconded? Even if the board utilizes the small board rules and the chair was in error by declaring that the motion failed for lack of a second, his erroneous ruling would have required a timely point of order to correct it. If no one raised a timely point of order, then his ruling stands and the motion failed due to lack of a second.

Yes, but it would require a two thirds vote because of the suspension of the rules. If this is the adoption of a bylaws Amendment or a bylaws revision rather than the adoption of the original bylaws, it would likely require a two-thirds vote anyway, depending upon the organization's bylaws. See page 266.

I agree with Dr Stackpole in part and disagree with him in part. The disagreement is minor. I agree that in order for the special meeting to approve the minutes of a previous meeting, notice of that must be included in the call of the meeting. The point that I have a minor disagreement is that RONR consistently and repeatedly speaks of "approving" the minutes, not "adopting" the minutes. It does not once refer to"adopting" the minutes. Therefore, I think the notice should include a statement that one of the purposes of the meeting is to approve the minutes of the specified previous meeting.

Here is a tip that should make a huge difference when searching the Forum. Once you enter the search terms that you are looking for, in the section right below where you entered the search terms, you have an option for system to search for "any of the Search terms" or for "all of the Search terms". The default setting is for the system to search for "any of your Search terms". However, using that default setting is going to get you way too many responses, most of which are not at all relevant. Therefore, before actually running the search, select the option for the system to look for results that include "all of your Search terms". Try that and let us know if it works better! Note: you have to change that setting every time you search. If there is a way to change the default setting, I have not found it.

How do you get "No" for an answer? Nothing prohibits the trustee from being elected to a full term after the expiration of the unexpired term. I am assuming, as did Chris Harrison and Joshua Katz, that the original poster is referring to being elected to a full term after first completing the unexpired term. If the original poster, Jim Anderson is talking about electing the member to a full term before he completes the unexpired term, then that is a different situation and I would agree with your answer. @Jim Anderson can you clarify what you have in mind? Are you referring to being elected to a full term after first completing the unexpired term or are you referring to being elected to a full term before completing the unexpired term?

The way I read the rule on pages 476-477 about officer's reports, it is more of a "should" rule than a "must" rule. Here is the text of the pertinent section: REPORTS OF EXECUTIVE OFFICERS. In addition to their annual reports, the president and vice-president from time to time may wish or need to report on their activities in connection with administrative duties. Such reports are usually for purposes of information only, but may sometimes contain recommendations calling for action by the assembly. In either case, the reports should generally conform to the rules [page 477] as to form, substance, and disposition that govern committee reports (51). Motions to adopt or implement any recommendations should be made from the floor by a member other than the reporting officer. I do agree with Mr. Katz that if an officer is also a committee chairman and is making a committee report, it is perfectly appropriate for him to make the motion for the recommended action on behalf of the committee. He is reporting in his capacity as a committee chairman, not as an officer.

The issue is not just handling any two offices simultaneously. The issue is serving as presiding officer and secretary at the same time. Did you read the entire thread I cited?

I actually mis-read Guest Linda's post and thought she was saying the group wants to follow Robert's Rules but that one member doesn't. I see now that I got it just backwards. But, I still think her group should formally adopt RONR, or, if they really don't like RONR,, then adopt some other parliamentary authority so that they can always look up a rule rather than to interpret everything on a whim and be subject to a presiding officer who does what he wants and nobody can point to a rule to say he's doing it wrong. A couple of possibilities that come to mind: First, this person might not actually know Robert's Rules that well and second, the group might unwittingly be pretty much following Robert's Rules without knowing it. And, I guess, a third possibility is that nobody else really knows what is in Robert's Rules so they are just afraid of it without knowing why. I do have a question for Guest Linda: What basis does your group use for deciding how to handle motions and what vote requirement is required? What about points of order? What about elections? Motions to postpone, close debate, etc? Appeals? Does the way things are handled depend on the whim of the presiding officer? Whatever.... if the group wants to keep doing what it has been doing, have at it. I have a hunch you are probably following Robert's Rules of Order and the common parliamentary law more than you realize.

The chair can always state that he is going to follow the rules in RONR (or whatever parliamentary authority he prefers) and can make his rulings based on that authority. If a member disagrees with the chair's decision, the member can appeal from the ruling of the chair (provided someone seconds his appeal). I agree with Dr. Stackpole that the best thing is for the organization to formally adopt RONR either by amending the bylaws or by adopting a special rule of order which specifies that RONR is the parliamentary authority. Suggested language for both methods is contained in RONR.

This what RONR says on page 17 about an organization which has not adopted a parliamentary authority: "Although it is unwise for an assembly or a society to attempt to function without formally adopted rules of order, a recognized parliamentary manual may be cited under such conditions as persuasive. Or, by being followed through long-established custom in an organization, a particular manual may acquire a status within the body similar to that of an adopted parliamentary authority." A parliamentary authority, such as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, may be adopted either in the bylaws or by way of a motion to adopt it as the parliamentary authority. Edited to add: Adopting a parliamentary authority by means of a motion would require the same vote as adopting a special rule of order. See page 15 of RONR.

For a rather lengthy discussion on the issue of whether the same person can serve as both chairman and secretary in an assembly, see the following thread. Although a member of the authorship team has opined that the answer is "yes", it does appear to be a matter of significant dispute... or at least lack of unanimity. I hope the next edition of RONR will clarify the issue with a more definitive statement than the current rule on pages 22 and 447. Regardless of whether it is permissible, I think all of the regulars on the forum will agree that trying to do so is a probably a very bad idea. Here's a link to the thread: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/7799-holding-two-seats/ Edited to add: I add that the corporation laws in some states appear to require at least a president and a secretary. Whether those laws permit one person to hold both positions is a legal question beyond the scope of this forum

A nomination does not require a second (unless your own rules require it), so it appears to me the person has been nominated and that there are no other nominees. However, you must still hold the election unless your bylaws contain a provision for the chair to declare a candidate elected if he is the sole nominee. Absent such a bylaw provision, you must hold the election. Nominations can always be re-opened and write in names must be permitted if the vote is by ballot unless prohibited by your bylaws. If your bylaws require election by ballot, a ballot vote must be taken even if there is only one nominee. Edited to add: See pages 431-432 in the 11th edition of RONR for more information

While I agree with the response above by GWCTD, I feel compelled to point out that what you described in the quote I posted above is a misuse of the motion to "Lay on the Table". It is a common misuse. What your assembly actually did, regardless of what it was called, was to adopt a motion to "postpone to a definite time". In RONR, there is no such thing as a motion to "table". The motion "Lay on the Table" is intended to set aside a pending matter temporarily in order to take up something that is more pressing. No definite time is set for taking it back up. It is usually with the intent of taking up the matter which was laid on the table later in the same session once the more pressing business has been taken care of. The motion to "Postpone to a definite time" is used when the intent is to postpone a pending item until a future definite date or time or to the next session. What it appears your organization actually did was to postpone the election until the next meeting. You might see FAQ # 12 on the main website for more information and for page references to RONR: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#12