Richard Brown

Guest Susie, a couple of questions: First, what type of organization is this? In one of the threads (don't know if it's this one or the other one... that is the problem when you address the same subject in two different threads) you made a post in which you referred to politicians making statements. That makes me think this just might be a public body of some sort. Second question, can you please list the "agenda categories" that this organization goes by in its meetings?

Guest Susie/Guest Motions... I saw your other question which Don Honemann responded to. For the future, it is best if you stick with one thread for your question. You can answers our questions and clear up any misunderstandings without having to start a new thread. It is much easier for us to follow and to respond to you that way.

Agreeing with Mr. Katz, who posted about the same thing I was about to post, if you can give us more information, we can probably be a bit more helpful. As you probably see from the response by Mr. Katz, the only answer we can give you right now is, "it depends".

I agree with the previous posters but believe that, as a practical matter, having someone quickly move for the adoption of the previous question is probably the best solution unless the members are unusually knowledgeable about parliamentary procedure.. Although an objection to consideration of the question is tailor-made for a situation such as this, it must be moved immediately, before any debate, and most laymen are not knowledgeable enough to even know the motion exists, let alone how and when to use it. However, most everybody understands that the previous question can be used to stop debate and bring the motion to an immediate vote. If someone at the meeting is sharp enough and quick enough to make an objection to consideration of the question before debate begins, and if the chair is knowledgeable enough to know how to handle it, then go for it. Otherwise, just have someone move the previous question as quickly as possible.

Agreeing with both Mr. Harrison and Mr. Martin, RONR provides procedures for dealing with these types of issues, but it is first up to the membership to want to do something about it.

Just read the questions on this forum and see for yourself how often that issue comes up. If you really don't believe it's best to specify "the current edition" rather than a specific edition, I'm sure we can give you a bunch of reasons, but the main one that comes to mind is that organizations usually don't get around to updating their bylaws to specify the new edition and then when a problem comes up at a meeting, most of the members have only the current edition with them and nobody has the old edition which is their actual parliamentary authority. Nobody wants to have to remember to take the 11th edition to the meetings of the Atlantic City Windsurfers Assopciation, the 10th edition to the meetings of Audubon Society, the 9th edition to the meetings of the Irisn-American Society, the 4th edition to the meetings of the Boston Blacksmith Association, etc. In addition, most of the changes from edition to edition are clarifications and improvements, not drastic rule changes. The most significant change between the 10th and 11th editions, for example, was in Chapter XX on disciplinary procedures. Everyone I have talked with about those changes believes they are for the better and add clarity. Most of the other changes made clarifications which lead to better clarity, thus lessening confusion and arguments about the meaning of a rule. The list of reasons goes on and on. Why do you think it is better to specify a specific edition?

I think specifying a particular edition of RONR is a bad idea. In practice, that seems to cause many more problems than are caused by specifying "the current edition" as the Parliamentary Authority.

I agree with this statement by Mr. Martin. The exact wording of the bylaws could affect whether the term of the outgoing director has actually expired, but I don't think it makes any difference. I think the board can fill the vacancy with someone who will serve until the membership completes the election.

The bottom line is that you need to get your ducks lined up prior to the meeting. Your chances of success are much greater if you have been aboe to get other members to agree with your position and you have members lined up to second your appeal to and argue in favor of your point of order on the appeal. Going into it alone with the hope that you will convince everyone you are right is usually not the best strategy. You need AT LEAST one or two others who will openly support your position.

Organizations have the inherent right to go into executive session unless they are subject to some superior rule, such as a state statute, which limits that right. There is usually such a limitation for public bodies and sometimes homeowner associations.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole and Mr. Huynh, disciplinary matters, including the removal of officers, can be rather technical and complicated. RONR devotes 26 pages to the subject of discipline (and removal from office) in chapter XX in the 11th edition of RONR. btw, that edition significantly expanded the chapter on discipline, so be sure to use the 11th edition and not a prior edition. Those rules are too complicated for us to sum them up in brief snippets in this forum. Also, be sure to study carefully whatever your bylaws say about removal from office. If they mention the word "cause", that can make removal more difficult. Study your bylaws and study chapter XX of the current 11th edition of RONR. And start with FAQ # 20 as mentioned by Mr. Huynh.

It is quite common, and appropriate, for the chair to ask "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?" I would say it would be unusual, and probably not appropriate, for the chair to ALWAYS ask every member "For what purpose do you seek recognition"? It is, however, proper for the chair to ask members if they intend to speak for or against the pending motion so that he can alternate pro-and con speakers as much as possible as recommended by RONR.

i feel compelled to make a couple of points here. First, a Homeowner's Association is almost certainly not a "government body". It is a private organization, although quite likely incorporated and/or subject to state laws regarding corporations and/or homeowner associations. Second, although wrongfully depriving a member of the right to vote (or letting a non-member vote) is a serious offense and might constitute a continuing breach, it is what might be considered "harmless error" if the wrongfully excluded or included votes were not enough to change the outcome. For example, if a motion (or election) carries by a vote of 75 to 25, and it turns out that one or two votes were improperly excluded or one or two non-members were allowed to vote, those votes were not sufficient to affect the outcome. Therefore, the results of the vote would stand. If the motion passed by only one vote (or someone was elected by only one vote), that can be a completely different situation. The key is whether there were enough illegally excluded or included votes to affect the outcome. As to whether there might be legal recourse for a member deprived of his right to vote, that is a legal question which it outside the scope of this forum.

Agreeing in part with both Joshua Katz and J.J., the Republican National Convention does not use RONR. As Joshua said, I believe it uses the rules of the House of Representatives. Some of the committees, however, and perhaps the Republican National Committee, may use RONR. I think most state central committees use RONR as well. The Libertarian Party uses RONR at its convention as do most, if not all, state affiliates and the Libertarian National Committee. I do not know what parliamentary authority the Democrat National Convention uses. I agree with Josh Martin that the few changes in RONR from one edition to the next every ten years or so are so minor as to rarely cause a problem. It's a red herring. Not a real problem.

The assembly doesn't actually withdraw the motion, but the assembly can grant the mover permission to withdraw the motion once it has been stated by the chair and is the property of the assembly. See pages 295-296.

It depends on the situation and the authority of your officers or Union officials to take action outside of a meeting. I am sure that, at least with large unions, various union officials have executive responsibilities and are authorized to write letters and make other communications and decisions on behalf of the organization. If the question of whether to write a letter comes up during a meeting, it might well be appropriate for the assembly to either direct an officer to write the letter in question, leaving it up to the official to decide upon the exact wording in the letter unless the entire contents of the letter are included in the motion. It would also be appropriate for the assembly to require that the exact wording of the letter be approved by the assembly prior to sending it. Except in the most unusual of circumstances, it seems rather awkward and time consuming to require that the drafting of a letter be authorized in one meeting but that the letter not be mailed until the final wording can be approved at the next meeting. since most assemblies meet monthly, it seems to me that the one month delay between meetings could well be problematic. There is nothing in RONR that requires assembly approval of letters written on behalf of the organization. Except in the most unusual of circumstances it seems to me the president or some other officer has the authority in most organizations to conduct routine correspondence on behalf of the organization. Edited to add: what do your bylaws say about the authority of your Union Officers? Do any of them have the authority to manage the affairs of the organization or to be the official spokesman for the organization?

Agreeing with Mr. Lages, you as president can prepare your own draft of the minutes for approval. So can any other member, for that matter. Sometimes a bit of collaboration when working on the draft minutes can be helpful. If your notes and recollection are pretty complete, there is probably no need for it. But, if your notes and memory are sketchy, collaborating with one or two other members as you prepare your draft might be helpful. That draft is then treated just like it would be if the secretary had submitted it. It is still subject to being corrected by the assembly just as the secretary's draft would be.

Guest Brad, as is evident from the responses posted thus far, more information is needed as to what you mean by your question, " Can someone submit a new motion afterward that would contradict the just-taken vote? " If you can explain what you mean, perhaps we can be of more help.

I agree with both paragraphs. FWIW, the original poster, Guest Walter, referred to the committee as a "recommendations" committee, not a "resolutions" committee. Perhaps the terminology makes no difference, but I think we should stick with the term he used. With regard to biannual vs biennial, I agree that "biannual" is a confusing term. While I'm not at all l certain of this, I, too, believe the term is more often used for a meeting that occurs twice a year rather than every other year. The proper term for a meeting which occurs every other year is "biennial". Here is what I found with a brief Google search: "Biannual, Biennial, Semiannual. These words do not all mean the same thing. Biannual means "twice a year," as does semiannual, whereas biennial means "occurring every two years."

You have an incomplete election which should be completed as soon as possible, preferably at the next meeting. Depending on the wording in your bylaws about terms of office, the officers currently in office may well continue to serve until their successors are elected. What do your bylaws say? In addition, unless write-ins are prohibited in your bylaws, it is possible for the members to elect people to those offices as write-in candidates. A final option, depending upon the provisions in your bylaws, might be to treat the positions as vacant and to fill them through the vacancy filling provisions of your bylaws. The best thing, however, is that if the meeting must end without having someone elected, the unfilled positions should be treated as incomplete elections and should be completed at the next meeting. Edited to add: it is possible for someone to be elected to office as a write-in candidate with only one vote if that person is the only person receiving any votes.

Yes, not only is it possible, but it is probably the best thing that could have been done under the circumstances. Referring a matter to a committee it's the only way to keep a proposal alive from one session to the next when there is more than a quarterly time interval intervening between sessions. It is the only effective way to carry over an item from one convention to the next.

Join the forum and you won't have that problem. No captchas, ability to edit posts, notification when someone replies to a post, etc. And no salesman will call.

Thank you! I was typing (or using voice to text) on my cell phone and didn't catch that. Yes, that's what I meant!

This is entirely up to the board of directors or perhaps to the membership if the membership desires to direct that the minutes of the board meeting be read to the assembly. As a practical matter, it seems that it would be rather unlikely that the board minutes would have been completed if the board meeting took place only moments prior to the general membership meeting.

I agree with the response above by Mr. Martin, but would add that if this action was taken without a meeting, I do not think that a motion to reconsider would be appropriate unless this organization's own rules provide for the use of such a motion when action has been taken without a meeting. I agree that the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted is the proper motion to use to make a change in the third meeting date.