Richard Brown

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In my opinion, that would create a standing rule since it has continuing effect until rescinded or amended.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.

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.