Richard Brown

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?

Agreeing with the answer by Chris Harrison, you might also look at Official Interpretation 2006-12 (and 2006-13) on the main website for more information on the ability of an inferior body to reverse action taken by the membership (and vice-versa): http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

Yes, I edited my comment to add that provision at about the same time you were typing your comment!

A couple of questions: First, was this motion an actual proposed amendment to the constitution? Or was it a motion that someone or some group (the bylaws committee?) review the advisability of such an amendment to the constitution? Second, I'm curious as to why you say the motion should have required a 2/3 vote to pass "since it was presented to the department ahead of time". . . . What does being presented to the department (or to anyone or any group) ahead of time have to do with it? Does your constitution contain a provision that lessens the vote required to adopt an amendment to it if the amendment is presented to "the department" ahead of time? What vote is required if it is not presented ahead of time? That is certainly not a provision in RONR. The default rule in RONR is that proposed bylaw (or constitution) amendments require both previous notice AND a two thirds vote for adoption.* Presenting the proposed amendment ahead of time is an absolute requirement and does not lower the vote threshold unless a provision in your own constitution or bylaws contains it. That is quite different from, say, a motion to amend or rescind something previously adopted. Such a motion requires a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership if previous notice of the motion is not given, but can be adopted with a majority vote if previous notice is given. Perhaps you are thinking that a proposed bylaw amendment works the same way? It doesn't. A proposed bylaw amendment requires both previous notice and a two thirds vote unless the bylaws or constitution itself contains a contrary provision. *Edited to add: An alternative to a two thirds vote to amend the bylaws is the vote of a majority of the entire membership. See pages 581 and 592.

And be prepared to appeal from the ruling of the chair. You will need someone to second your appeal and then you need to be able to speak intelligently as to why the chair is wrong. It would help to have others lined up in advance to also speak in support of your position.

This is something that would have to be defined in your own bylaws. That is where you need to look for your answer. It is rather common for some organizations, especially statewide and national organizations, to have different classes of members and "members at large", i.e., members who do not belong to a local affiliate, chapter or unit. It is not addressed in RONR.

I have been searching for it for the past five or ten minutes and cannot find it, but I know it is repeated here VERY often and I believe it does exist somewhere in the book in some fashion. As to where, I don't yet know!

I would point out that the rule quoted by Guest Zev deals with a non member speaking IN DEBATE. Only a majority vote (or unanimous consent) is necessary to permit a non member to address the assembly if it is not in the nature of debate.

I agree with the answer by jstackpo but would add that such permission is frequently (usually?) granted by unanimous consent or even by the chair on his own initiative in the absence of an objection. It is usually handled rather informally and routinely, rather than going through the formality of a formal motion and a second, vote, etc.

I agree. That is the basis of my post several comments up suggesting that the vacancy in the presidency be filled first and then the vice president's vacancy. I didn't say so in so many words, but it was based on the customary manner of listing the officers in the bylaws and the procedure usually followed in electing them. The president is almost always listed first and is the officer usually elected first in elections.

I was just about to make a separate post saying the same thing. The bylaws need not give the board the specific authority to fill vacancies if it gives the board full power and authority to act between meetings of the membership.

My opinion on this issue is the same. I am not aware of any provision in RONR which indicates that the vice president vacancy should be filled twice rather than simply filling each vacancy once. As with most other elections in which the president is elected first, I believe the proper procedure would be to fill the vacancy in the presidency first and then the vice president. If there is some authority to the contrary, I hope someone will cite it.

I agree with the post by Mr Katz immediately above. I think the key is whether this is a board that we are discussing and whether it utilizes the small board rules in RONR which provide that the chair votes and participates just like every other member.

You certainly have not heard me say that. I stand by my original answer, which was the first response to your original post. My answer might be different depending upon the exact wording of the bylaws and whether the bylaws make plan that there shall not be a second vice president. I will add that any presiding officer who starts taking the position that his rulings are not appealable because his opinion is the only reasonable one is going to quickly become a very unpopular presiding officer who is viewed as dictatorial. It is much better to permit the appeal than to try to say, in essence, "I am right and you are wrong and you are so clearly wrong that I'm not even going to permit an appeal".