Richard Brown

I don't see what the number of days in a year or leap year has to do with anything. A year is from certain date in one year until the same date in the following year, regardless of whether that year has 365 days or 366 days. It's the same with months. A month isn't necessarily 30 days. It may contain as few as 28 days or as many as 31 days. Someone who serves from February 15th until March 15th of a non leap year has served one month just the same as the person who serves from March 15th to April 15th. They have both served one month, even though one of those months contained only 28 days and the other month contained 31 days. I would say in the scenaro presented by the original poster, both candidates served exactly half a term in their first two years and that neither candidate served more than half a term in the first two years In office. Each of those first two years was exactly half a term according to the information we have been given. Serving just one more minute than half a term would make a difference, but we have not been told that that is what happened. Therefore, it is my opinion that candidate B has served exactly one and a half terms and that he is therefore eligible for another full four-year term. However, this is ultimately a question of bylaws interpretation and it's up to this Association to determine for itself whether the first two years of either person's term constitutes more than half a term.

Although the president should not serve on the nominating committee nor appoint its members. In fact, according to RONR, he should really have nothing to do with it. Other officers, however, are free to serve on the nominating committee. See, for example, the following language on page 433: Designation of the Nominating Committee. The nominating committee should be elected by the organization wherever possible, or else by its executive board. Although in organizing a new society it may be feasible for the chair to appoint the nominating committee, in an organized society the president should not appoint this committee or be a member of it—ex officio or otherwise. The bylaws may provide that "the President shall appoint all committees except the Nominating Committee . . ." and that "the President shall be ex officio a member of all committees except the Nominating Committee . . ."; the exception should not be omitted in either case. See also pages 456 and 579 for similar provisions.

Guest Abby, please post the exact wording of the bylaw provision regarding when your annual meeting should be held and the language regarding notice.. Quote exactly, don't paraphrase.

Yes, that is the proper way to challenge it. The presiding officer should first rule whether or not the point of order is well taken. Edited to add : Any member of the body which is meeting may raise the point of order. If it is a board meeting, it would have to be a board member. If it is a general membership meeting, it could be any member. The ruling of the chair on the point of order is appealable. It does not matter that it involves a bylaw interpretation. The appeal is debatable, but subject to certain limits. For example, each member may speak only once, but the chair may speak twice, first in stating the reasons for his ruling and then he may speak again last. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The ruling of the chair is sustained on a tie vote. Regarding who should preside in the absence of the President and Vice President, RONR specifies that the secretary should call the meeting to order and a chairman Pro tem should then be elected ask the first order of business to preside for the rest of the meeting.. that is often handled by unanimous consent after someone, such as the secretary, asks if there is any objection to member X serving as chairman Pro tem for the remainder of the meeting. The president who was absent does not get to choose the person who will preside in his absence. If you are subject to different rules which require that the secretary preside throughout the meeting, then those rules would most likely take priority over RONR.

Well, as long as we are making fine distinctions, I'm going to make one also. Even in a situation where the assembly cannot properly ratify action illegally taken (authorized) by an email vote, the assembly may still ratify the action taken by the officers pursuant to the improperly adopted motion. Here is what I think would be a proper example: assume that there has been a wind storm and a tree fell on the clubhouse roof and is causing a serious leak. Telephonic meetings and email votes are not authorized by the bylaws.. The board nonetheless conducts an emergency telephonic meeting or email vote authorizing the president and Treasurer to spend up to $1,000 to remove the tree and repair the roof. Pursuant to that presumed authorization, the president hires a contractor to remove the tree and repair the roof and the treasurer writes the contractor a check for $1,000 for the work performed. A few days later a member starts complaining that the Club paid too much money and that neither the work nor the payment was properly authorized. Perhaps the member thinks his brother-in-law could have done the work for only $500. Since the board had no power to authorize the expenditure by means of the illegal telephone or email vote, that decision of the board cannot be ratified. However, due to the provisions of RONR, the individual actions of the president in hiring the contractor and the treasurer in writing the check for $1,000 may be ratified. It is a fine distinction, but a distinction nonetheless.

The problem with me not being to edit posts seems to have rectified itself and is no longer a problem, at least for now. Logging out of the forum and then re-starting my computer and logging back in seems to have cleared up the problem. It is an issue which has occurred several times over the past few weeks, but was especially bad on the day I started this discussion. Thanks, Shmuel.

Based on RONR yes, the chair was correct. Any member could have actually moved that the motion be adopted. The person who gives notice of a motion does not need to be the person who actually moves that the motion be adopted. Although nothing in RONR requires the chair to ask if someone else wants to make the motion, there is nothing inappropriate about the chair doing so. It is not much different from the chair asking if there is a second to a motion. However, I suspect you may have some unique bylaw Provision or special Rule of Order on the subject because of the way your post was worded. Any such bylaw provision or Special Rule of order would take priority over the provisions of RONR Edited to add: I am not aware of a provision in RONR which directly answers your question, but perhaps you can gain some insight from the following discussion from last year: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/32265-withdraw-noticed-bylaw-amendment/? I suspect the reason for the conclusion that any member may move on (make) a motion for which previous notice was given is that what is important is that the members know that the motion is going to (or likely to) come before the assembly at the next meeting. What matters is that the members have notice of the motion. It really doesn't matter who actually makes the motion. It might be that more than one member wanted to give notice of the same motion, but that would be repetitive. So, once a member gives notice of intent to introduce a motion at the next meeting, notice is effectively given and any other member may make the motion at the next meeting even if the member who originally gave notice of the motion has changed his mind and no longer wishes to have it considered.

I come down on the side of thinking that the residency rule we are discussing is in the nature of a qualification for holding the office. However, I see how it can be also reasonably be interpreted as a requirement for election rather than for holding the office. Ultimately, I agree with J.J., Mr. Katz and AFS1970 that this is ultimately a matter of bylaws interpretation, something only the organization itself can do. My opinion is the same with regard to the provision that says the chief " Shall be Connecticut Certified First Grade Firefighter II". Assuming that that is some kind of official certification, it seems to me that if the chief loses that certification, that he is no longer qualified to be chief. BTW, I do still maintain that if this provision is in the nature of a requirement or qualification for holding the office, and if the chief has moved outside the boundary of the area he is supposed to live in, he can be removed from office and the position be declared vacant based on a point of order and ruling by the chair and any appeal that might follow. That may or may not be what the majority of members want to happen, but whatever it is they want, i suggest they amend the bylaws forthwith to clarify the issue. There is a difference between a qualification requirement for being elected to an office and a qualification requirement for serving in that office.

Actually, RSW, Special Rules (of order) take priority over ordinary Rules of Order such as the rules in the Parliamentary Authority.

I think much too much emphasis is being placed on the fact that the bylaws say that officers, presumably including fire chief, may continue to serve until his successor is elected. If being a resident of the district is a requirement and qualification for holding office, and the chief ceases to meet that requirement, in my opinion he is no longer qualified to be Chief and the position may be declared vacant by the chair based upon a point of order being raised by a member in a meeting. The chair himself may raise the point of order and make the ruling. That ruling is, of course, subject to appeal to the assembly.

I agree. I think this post by Mr. Martin sums it up best.. Nothing in RONR requires that a chairman or officer or director be a member of the organization or of the board or committee on which (or for which) he serves.

I agree with the post immediately above by Joshua Katz and I agree with his questions and concerns about the original post. I'm having a hard time understanding the original post. The only thing I would add to Joshua's comment is that if this is a public body of some sort, such as a city council or a school board, the state open meetings law (Sunshine Law) might permit or require that certain Personnel matters be discussed only in executive session, but require that any actual votes on those items must be taken in open public session.

Guest Absent Secretary, please re-post your question by starting a new topic, which is the custom in this forum, rather than tacking your question onto an old thread. The instructions for starting a new topic are contained in the first (pinned) post in this forum with the title "Important: Read this first". Here is a link to it: https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

Thanks, Shmuel. I just logged out and back in. I'll try it again. If that doesn't work, I'll reboot my computer.

Is anyone else having a problem editing posts? In the past few minutes I have tried to edit two posts within minutes of making the posts but the system is not accepting the edit. It offers me the opportunity to edit, and lets me type the edit, but the edit won't post.

By virtue of this language at the bottom of page 404 and top of 405: A plurality vote is the largest number of votes to be given any candidate or proposition when three or more choices are [page 405] possible; the candidate or proposition receiving the largest number of votes has a plurality. A plurality that is not a majority never chooses a proposition or elects anyone to office except by virtue of a special rule previously adopted. If such a rule is to apply to the election of officers, it must be prescribed in the bylaws.

I'm trying to make a correction to my post above but the system isn't letting me do it. It requires a suspension of the rules or the adoption of a special rule of order to drop the candidate with the fewest votes from subsequent ballots. See the footnote on page 441 The system finally let me make the edits. I had to log out and back in and that seemed to fix the problem.

No, not according to the rules in RONR. Any such rule would have to be adopted by your organization as a special rule of order and would have to be in the bylaws if it is to apply to the election of officers. Yes, but you could adopt a motion by majority vote by suspending the rules or adopting a special rule of order that the candidate with the fewest votes be removed from the ballot for succeeding rounds of voting, but that candidate(s) would still remain eligible to be elected via write-in votes. To actually make him ineligible would have to be by virtue of a provision in your bylaws. Edited to also add: See the footnote on page 441 which reads as follows: "An organization could suspend the rules, or adopt a special rule of order, so that the nominee with the fewest votes is dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots in the expectation that voters will then confine their choice to the remaining nominees. Only a bylaws provision, however, could make the dropped nominee ineligible for election so as to render illegal any subsequent votes cast for that nominee. (See pp. 430–31.) "

Guest EBWB, are you referring to the same organization as Guest Karen? If not, please post your question by starting a new topic per the directions in the first pinned post that says "Important: Read this first".

You have actually asked several questions, or at least hit on several different subjects. I'll take two or three of them in order: Unless your bylaws require notice of Board meetings to be given to the entire Booster club, there is no requirement in RONR that anyone other than board members be notified of Board meetings. Do your bylaws contain a provision requiring that notice of board meetings be sent to all booster club members? This is more of a grey area. There is nothing in RONR that prohibits a group of members... including all members of the board... from gathering informally to discuss club affairs. As long as they don't actually conduct any club business at these gatherings.... adopting motions that are expected to be binding on the club, etc... they may well be within their rights in holding these "working sessions". I know it is not unusual for organizations to have this type of unofficial "meeting" for planning, discussing ideas, etc. Unless this organization is considered a public body, such as a city council, school board, planning commission, etc that is subject to your state's open meetings (sunshine) laws, there is no prohibition against some or all of the board members (or regular members) getting together to discuss club affairs. Merely having some or all of the members together does not make it an official "meeting" unless the organization is subject to the type open meetings law I mentioned above. If this is a school board, it might well be subject to such a law. That is a legal question, not a parliamentary question, and is outside the scope of this forum. If these "working sessions" are not actual official meetings of the board, there is no need to keep minutes, although it seems some kind of record would be beneficial.

@jstackpo you might be interested in this thread.

A regular contributor to this forum, Dr. John Stackpole, has written an excellent article about why co-presidents or co- anythings are a bad idea. Keep checking back. He will probably see this thread and chime in with a link to his article. Are you here @jstackpo ? I do not have RONR in front of me, but there is a sentence in it to the effect that co-chairs are generally a very bad idea. I think the same principle applies to co-presidents. Also, if the bylaws refer to "a president" or "the president", that seems to me a clear indication that a single individual for the office is contemplated. Edited to add: Here you go, from the top of page 176: "If the committee's task is heavy and will require some time to complete, it often is advisable to appoint a vice-chairman. The anomalous title "co-chairman" should be avoided, as it causes impossible dilemmas in attempts to share the functions of a single position.

I agree with Bruce Lages. I do not see the situation as being analogous to the assembly merely ratifying an appointment or nomination by the chair. I see this as more of an ordinary committee recommendation which, once it is before the assembly, is subject to amendment as well as being voted up or down as presented. If there are Provisions in your bylaws which provide otherwise, then your bylaws would control. I suppose that if this is the way it has been done for years and through the selection of many pastors, the procedure you want to follow could perhaps be looked upon as a custom. Ultimately, it may require a ruling on a point of order by the chair as to whether amendments are permissible and then an appeal of the ruling to the assembly. The decision of the assembly on the appeal is final. Although none of us on this forum are members of your congregation and we do not get to vote on this, I think you will find little support among our regular contributors for your position. I think the vast majority of us are of the opinion, based on RONR , that this is an ordinary main motion resulting from a committee recommendation and that it is subject to amendment as are all original main motions. We don't get to decide it, however. Your presiding officer and your assembly are the ones who will ultimately decide whether it is amendable.

John, are y0u sure about that citation? If so, how is it relevant? In my 11th edition, that citation has to do with adjourned meetings. The next session is regarding annual meetings. We have not been advised that this meeting is either of those. In fact, the original poster said it is a special meeting.

Since our purpose here is to help people, I really don't think it serves a purpose to get snarky or sarcastic. Guest Luke's question is actually a rather common one on this forum and it isn't unusual for guests to ask whether amendments can be prohibited and if so, how. There are numerous threads on the subject. In fact, there are methods to prohibit amendments or at least make them more difficult to adopt. For example, a motion or special rule of order can be adopted which prohibits amendments in certain circumstances, but it would require a two thirds vote for the adoption of such a rule. And such a special rule could itself be suspended by a two thirds vote.