Richard Brown

No, it is not too late for your organization to investigate possible wrongdoing and to take disciplinary action against either past or present officers and members. See chapter XX of RONR, which is the chapter on discipline. It consists of 26 pages of quite detailed procedures.

Yes, it is out of order. See official interpretations 2006 - 12 + 2006 - 13, both of which give page references to RONR: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_12

The US House of Representatives has its own rules and defaults to Jefferson's manual as its parliamentary Authority on matters not covered by its own rules. It does not follow Robert's Rules of Order.

Another work-around is that the committee member in question can be removed from the committee. The procedure for doing that depends on how he was appointed/selected in the first place.

Not by any provision of the rules in RONR . If he is a member of the committee, he has a right to be given notice of all meetings and to attend and participate in all meetings of the committee.

Your understanding is correct. Guest Lavern needs to look to the rules of the U.S. House of Representatives for the answer to her question.

Newbie, I'm confused. I don't see any of the provisions you quoted in the bylaw provisions posted by Guest Sue Morrow (akd Guest Term Limits?). Are you in the same organization and referring to the same bylaws? Or are you referring to some other organization? If you are referring to another organization, please consider deleting your post (or editing it to say you have deleted it as being unresponsive, since we no longer have the ability to delete our posts). A post from out of the blue about another organization's bylaws serves only to confuse readers. We need to stick to the specifics of Guest Sue Morrow's organization and her question related to HER bylaws. A moderator might delete your post later, but for now, you can delete all text from it and replace it with a statement that you have deleted your post because it was off topic.

I'll just make two or three points here. First, there is nothing wrong with the president or anyone else asking the treasurer or any other officer to resign. Everybody is free to make such a request, including me here in New Orleans. The treasurer is free to ignore such requests. Do your bylaws grant the president the unilateral authority to remove other officers? I doubt it. So, did the treasurer actually submit his resignation? Was the resignation accepted? If not, he might still be the treasurer. What, if anything, do your bylaws say about resignations? If your bylaws are silent, or unless they contain a contrary provision, a resignation is not effective until accepted by the society. In addition to possible removal from office as mentioned by Mr. Huynh, your Society might wish to consider other disciplinary action against the president. It is all covered in chapter XX in RONR, the chapter on discipline consisting of 26 pages.

I imagine Guest Zev was referring to the card titled "13 Ranking Motions". It has the 13 ranking motions on one side and incidental and bring-back motions on the other side. It tells you whether the motion can interrupt a speaker, whether it requires a second, whether it is debatable, if it is amendable, the vote required for adoption and whether it can be reconsidered. I think the individual cards are $4 for non members. I personally highly recommend the gold colored Basic Information Leaflet. It is $2 for non members but cheap in bulk quantities. I keep one folded up in my wallet and have one in each of my briefcases and have one in my coat pocket for almost every meeting I go to. Use the private message feature to send me your address and I'll send you one for free. We give one to each guest and new member at our unit meetings and give one to each attendee at our workshops.

Yes, that is a definite possibility. Good point. A motion to amend the bylaws, for example, is probably something that requires previous notice per their bylaws.

It's ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. However my own opinion, for whatever its worth, is that the bylaw provision you quoted permits items to be added to the agenda at the meeting by the vote of a majority of the members in attendance. Assuming you have quoted your parliamentarian correctly, i disagree with his opinion. Your bylaws themselves contain that exception. If uncertainty about this provision remains, a ruling of the chair on a motion to add an item to the agenda could be appealed to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The decision of the assembly is final.

Guest William, your question is best addressed to an attorney or your city attorney or council chairman. Whether and to what extent members of the public may speak at meetings of public bodies, such as a city council, are almost certainly covered by the council's own rules and by your state's open meeting (sunshine) laws. However, per the rules in RONR, people who are not members of the body that is meeting have no rights whatsoever.... not even the "right" to be present, let alone to speak. This is an area almost certainly covered by your council's own rules and state law.

Here is the rule from page 33 of RONR: "MAKING A MOTION. To make a main motion, a member must obtain the floor, as explained above, when no other question is pending and when business of the kind represented by the motion is in order."

Thank you, JJ! I did not know that Parliamentary Law is available online.

Not directly for that reason, but RONR does contain provisions for the removal of officers. The ease with which you can do that depends on the exact wording in your bylaws. She also FAQ # 20 http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

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.