Richard Brown

A motion cannot be postponed beyond the next regular meeting, so the answer to your question is generally yes, the motion must be heard at the next meeting (assuming that meeting is within a quarterly time interval). If it is desired to postpone the motion again at the next meeting, you may do so, over and over, meeting after meeting, but you cannot postpone it beyond the next meeting at any of those meetings. An alternative, if you think it needs to be postponed beyond the next meeting, is to refer the matter to a committee. Then the committee to which the matter has been referred can make its report when it has finished studying the issue, with certain restrictions that I won't go into now. That might be at the next meeting, the meeting after that, the meeting after that, etc.

Agreeing with my colleagues, the question is whether these "junior firefighters" are actually members. If they are members, and there is no restriction in the bylaws on their right to vote, then per RONR they are members and have the right to vote as the right to vote is a fundamental right of membership. Any restriction on that right would have to be in your bylaws. Just calling them "Junior Members (or Junior Firefghters)" does not, in and of itself... at least in my opinion... restrict any of their rights. A member is a member is a member, just as a rose is a rose is a rose, regardless of what color it might be called. I'm not a botanist, but I think a yellow rose is just as much a rose as a pink rose. And so it is with regular members (or whatever they are called) and Junior Members. Junior Members are still members with the right to vote unless the bylaws prohibit voting for Junior Members/Junior Firefighters. Ultimately this is probably a matter of bylaws interpretation. Interpreting your bylaws is something only your organization can do. We cannot do that for you. We can only tell you that per RONR a member is a member is a member... and they all have the same rights unless the bylaws restrict the rights for some of them.

Agreeing with all of the comments by my colleagues, you should hold a new election for the position which is (or will be) vacant. 1. The runner up does not automatically get the office. There must be another ballot for that office. 2. Nominations may be re-opened at any time prior to the actual election by a majority vote (or by unanimous consent). It is not too late to do it now unless you have already had the new election for that office. 3. Write in votes must be permitted. All of the above is based on the assumption that there is no contrary provision in your bylaws.

I'm not certain that I agree completely with Mr. Martin that your vice chair is now the chair and I urge you to check your governing documents. My concern is that you referred to this body as a "municipal board" and to the "chair" and not to the "president" as having resigned. Since you said this is a municipal board, it is likely considered a public body that is subject to various state laws as well as your city charter, local ordinances, and special rules of order. You may not have actual bylaws. Somewhere in your governing documents there is likely a provision for what happens in the event of a vacancy in the office of the chairman of this board. RONR is clear that in the event of a vacancy (by resignation or otherwise) in the office of the president, the vice president automatically becomes president the moment the vacancy occurs unless the bylaws provide otherwise. However, that provision in RONR, found on page 575, says that it is applicable to a vacancy in the office of the president. I am not convinced that it is applicable to a vacancy in the office of the chairmanship of a board. RONR is silent on that point. I see the analogy, certainly. But the language on page 575 of RONR speaks only to the office of the president. Here is that provision: The method of filling vacancies may also be provided (cf. pp. 467–68). Unless the bylaws clearly provide otherwise, notice of filling a vacancy in office must always be given to the members of the body that will elect the person to fill it. If the bylaws are silent as to the method of filling a vacancy in the specific case of the presidency, the vice-president or first vice-president automatically becomes president for the remainder of the term, and the vacancy to be filled arises in the vice-presidency or lowest-ranking vice-presidency; if another method of filling a vacancy in the presidency is desired, it must be prescribed and specified as applying to the office of president in particular. (Emphasis added) I'm therefore not entirely certain that in the case of the resignation of the "chair" of your municipal board that the "vice chair" automatically becomes "chair". In fact, based on the fact that RONR refers to the "specific case of the presidency", it can certainly be argued that the vice chair does not automatically become chairman in the event of the resignation of the chairman in the case of your municipal board. Ultimately, this seems to me to be a matter of interpreting your own governing documents and rules, something we cannot do. I do agree with Mr. Martin that an appeal of the vice chair's ruling that he is now the chairman and that an election of a new chair is out of order is certainly appropriate. I suggest that you and your fellow board members study carefully the provisions in RONR for appealing from a ruling of the chair. Note: FWIW, I also do not see a provision in RONR that a committee vice chairman automatically becomes chairman in the event of the death or resignation of the chairman. Perhaps the rule as to a vice president automatically becoming president in the event the president resigns is equally applicable to the chair of a board and a committee chair, but it does not expressly say so. I'm curious as to what others think.

Guest Matt, I agree with the response by Bruce Lages, but would add that if your bylaws require that the vote be by ballot, a ballot vote must be taken and cannot be waived even if there is only one nominee.

Are you confident that Guest Ellen knows what "PL" is?

I agree with Mr. Mervosh and with the others who have said that this "hearing" SHOULD be conducted in executive session. However, I am not at all convinced that all of the rules in Chapter XX RONR regarding "trials" and in particular the rule regarding conducting trials in executive session are applicable in this particular situation with this particular organization based on its customized bylaw provisions regarding discipline or "preferring charges". I am also not convinced that the RONR rule requiring trials to be conducted in executive session, even if applicable, is a rule which cannot be suspended or that its breach would cause any discipline imposed in such a hearing to be null and void. The rule requiring trials to be held in executive session does not appear to be a fundamental principle of parliamentary law. I tend to agree with Mr. Katz that the only parliamentary remedy for any such a breach would be censure or discipline against those responsible for its violation. And, of course, whatever legal action the accused might want to pursue for damages for loss of reputation, etc... which is something beyond the scope of this forum. If there is a provision in RONR to the effect that a hearing of the sort contemplated by this organization's rules MUST be conducted in executive session and that the rule is not suspendable and that its violation renders any discipline imposed null and void, I welcome a citation. I just don't see where this is a rule that cannot be suspended.

I would avoid any requirement that members actually "receive" notice. That is asking for trouble. Nowhere is that practice recommended in RONR. I would require, instead, that notice be "sent" or "given" a certain number of days in advance. See, for example, the recommended language on page 5 and pages 581-582 of RONR. Edited to add: See the following language on page 89: When notice is required to be sent, unless a different standard is specified that requirement is met if written notice is sent to each member either: a) by postal mail to the member's last known address; or b) by a form of electronic communication, such as e-mail or fax, by which the member has agreed to receive notice. If you want to permit notices to be sent via email, text message or other electronic means without a member first having to consent to it, just add a provision to the effect that "notices may be sent via email" or words to that effect. Of course, then you get into the issue of having to insure, as best you can, that members provide the organization with the email address or cell phone number that they want used for electronic notifications. In addition, you may have members who do not utilize email or cell phones. Thus the RONR recommendation that electronic communications be used only for those members who have agreed to receive such notice.... and have provided an email address.

I would treat it as unfinished business to come up at the appropriate point in the next meeting prior to the introduction of new business. But, if folks want to treat it as new business instead, have at it. I wouldn't get into the weeds with it.

And if this "notice" is for action expected to be taken at a special meeting, I would say it is definitely deficient. But, as for an "agenda item"... which really isn't required unless you have a customized rule requiring it.... it seems fine to me.

I think the authorship team has been working on the 12th edition for several months now... maybe even over a year... and that most of us expect it to come out some time around 2020, give or take a year or so.

I'm not going to be nearly as critical of the practice as guest Zev was, especially not without knowing more. There might well be some very good reasons for what the chair is doing. For example, just yesterday I was watching a live feed of a meeting of a 17-member national board of directors being chaired by one of the most skilled presiding officers I have had the pleasure of watching and working with. Although it was hard to tell from the video feed what the chair was able to observe from his vantage point, it appeared to me then and has appeared to me on at least one other occasion when I watched one of these meetings that once a motion is introduced, several board members might raise their hands seeking recognition. At some point, usually after the first speaker, this chairman will sometimes announce the names and speaking order of the next few members he intends to recognize. I don't know if he is basing this on the order in which he sees them raise their hands, or randomly, or because he already knows in advance who is going to speak in favor of and against the motion and he intends to call on those who are pro and con in alternating order as suggested by RONR. However, whatever his reasoning or methodology, it seems to work extremely well and without any complaints from the members. He does not always announce their names in advance, and in fact he usually does not, but when he does do it it seems to work well. There are at least a couple of other members of this forum who are familiar with the organization I am referring to and its chairman. One is a current member and one is a past member of this board . Perhaps one of them can provide a little more insight into this presiding officer's methodology and how well it works. Although I question the need for it, I think a special rule of "codifying" the practice could be drafted if that is truly what the assembly wants to do. It would be helpful if you can provide a little more information as to how you think the chair is determining this particular speaking order.

If RONR is your parliamentary authority, only the chair can make rulings on points of order unless you have a customized WRITTEN Special Rule of Order or a bylaw provision to the contrary. Anybody can raise a point of order and object to almost anything for almost any reason, but that doesn't mean the objection (point of order) is well taken or should be sustained. It is the chair who makes those decisions, subject to an appeal to the assembly, unless you have a written rule to the contrary. The Grand Poobah of the Royal Order of the Entire Universe can make an objection, but it is the presiding officer of the meeting... the chair... who makes rulings. The Grand Poobah has no special powers in RONR. He is simply another member.... if he is a member at all. He may wear a glittery hat or even a crown, but if he isn't the presiding officer, he is there either as a regular member or a guest. If he is so considered so powerful that the chair cowers in his presence and members are afraid to appeal a ruling, well, that is something you and your organization have to work out for yourselves. I haven't yet seen anything to make me believe the point of order was well taken or that the motion was properly declared invalid by someone with the authority to do so, but there is apparently much to this situation that we don't know.

We need more than that. On what basis was the motion supposedly out of order? Did it violate the bylaws in some way? btw, you still haven't told us what a "Regional Phylacter" is and what role he/she/it plays in this. It is usually the chair... the presiding officer... who makes rulings, and those rulings are almost always subject to appeal to the assembly.

Well, a motion that was previously adopted CAN be ruled null and void under certain circumstances. We need more information as to just what happened and why it was ruled out of order when passed. The circumstances under which a previously adopted motion can be ruled invalid are very limited. Please give us some more information, particularly the reason the motion was supposedly out of order and who made the ruling and whether the ruling was appealed to the assembly. Edited to add: What is a "Regional Phylacter"????

I agree completely with Dr. Kapur and am posting this response only to provide a link (and quote) to the provision in RONR on signing the minutes. It's on page 471: "THE SIGNATURE. Minutes should be signed by the secretary and can also be signed, if the assembly wishes, by the president. The words Respectfully submitted—although occasionally used—represent an older practice that is not essential in signing the minutes." And then there is this on page 476: "When the minutes are approved, the word Approved, with the secretary's initials and the date, should be written below them"

I agree with the previous comments, and especially with the observation by Mr. Merritt that having an odd number of members on a board or committee, such as 5 rather than 4, can make it easier to obtain a quorum. I do occasionally hear laymen say that there should be an odd number of members on a board or committee. Whenever I ask them for their reasoning, it seems to be based primarily on their erroneous presumption that tie votes should be avoided and that a tie vote somehow leaves things in limbo. Apparently a lot of people just don't understand that a motion fails on a tie vote.

I'm not sure I understand the question/situation. Do I understand correctly that there is a motion to refer a certain matter to a certain committee and someone desires to amend the motion to refer to send the matter to a different committee rather than the one originally proposed? If that's the situation, it seems in order to me, provided it isn't a matter which should be referred to a standing committee. Also, had the matter already been referred to a committee that had already started work on the matter? if so, that presents a problem because that first committee must be discharged from further consideration of the referred motion/matter. A motion to discharge a committee can be subject to a special vote requirement. More information on this situation would be helpful.

Unless your rules provide otherwise, a resignation must be submitted in writing or made orally in a meeting. It is up to your organization to determine is a statement that "I quit" in an email exchange is sufficient. Such statements are often made impulsively in anger. However, again, unless your rules provide otherwise, whether made in writing or orally in a meeting, a resignation is a request to be excused from a duty and does not become effective until accepted by the assembly (or whichever body is authorized to accept resignations. Some organizations authorize the president to accept resignations and some organizations provide that a resignation is effective upon receipt. But, if RONR is your parliamentary and you have no other rule on the subject, a resignation must be accepted. Frequently the person who intended to resign has a change of heart, either on his own or because of pressure from other members, and wishes to rescind he resignation. That is permissible as long as the assembly has not taken action on it.

Perhaps this passage on page 456 of the 11th edition of RONR will be helpful. It's in a section on "Suggestions for Inexperienced Presiding Officers": "The president should never be technical or more strict than is necessary for the good of the meeting. Good judgment is essential; the assembly may be of such a nature, through its unfamiliarity with parliamentary usage and its peaceable disposition, that strict enforcement of the rules, instead of assisting, would greatly hinder business. But in large assemblies where there is much work to be done, and especially where there is likelihood of trouble, the only safe course is to require a strict observance of the rules." It seems to me that this might be applicable in your particular situation. There is no need to be more formal than is necessary to peaceably and amicably accomplish the business of the society. I do agree with the others, however, that since disagreements do inevitably occur, it is wise for the chair, at least, to have a working knowledge of RONR and to always have a copy available. RONR In Brief can be very handy in providing guidance on basic procedure, but it is not nearly as helpful as "The Right Book".... RONR... when disputes arise.

Larry, supplementing my post immediately above, I want to clarify something. If your bylaws require the vote of a majority of the members present or a majority of the entire membership, the word "membership" in that sense refers to the membership of the body which is voting. That may or may not be the general membership. If your bylaws require the vote of a majority of the entire board in order to pass a motion, and you have a 15 member board, then, in that case, it would require 8 yes votes in order for the board to adopt something. However, unless your bylaws clearly specify something different, a majority vote is a majority of the votes cast, ignoring blanks and abstentions. It would normally mean simply more yes votes than no votes, regardless of abstentions, blanks, and absences.

A majority is more than half. it is not 51% or 50% plus one. It means simply "more than half" . A majority vote is more than half of the votes cast, ignoring abstentions and the blanks. A motion is adopted and a person is elected to office if it receives more than half of the votes cast unless your bylaws or some other rule provides for a different threshold, such as a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the members present or a vote of a majority of the entire membership. Assuming a quorum was present, a vote of 6 to 4 is absolutely a majority vote. You ignore absent members as well as abstentions and blank ballots if it is a ballot vote. BTW, an abstention is not a vote. To the contrary it is a refusal to vote. Edited to add: For more information, you might review Frequently Asked Questions # 4, 5 and 6 on the main page of the forum: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#4 For still more information, see pages 400-407 in RONR re "Bases for Determining a Voting Result". Also, fwiw, it is not usually necessary to do complicated math in determining whether a majority vote has been achieved. A majority vote on a motion means simply that the motion received more "Yes" votes than "No" votes. No need to do complicated math (except, possibly, in those cases where the vote of a majority of the members present or the vote of a majority of the entire membership is necessary).

For starters, please explain to us what you mean by a "president at large". That is a term that is foreign to us and is not even mentioned in RONR. I honestly have no idea what you mean by the term. It is very doubtful that the "president at large" automatically becomes president, but we need to know more about what you are talking about. Usually the vice president automatically becomes president upon the death of the president or a vacancy in the officer of the president. Do you have a vice president? What do your bylaws say about a vacancy in the office of the president? Do they say the vice president becomes president?

Duplicate post I initially thought this was the same post as the one you posted two or three minutes earlier, but i see that the wording is slightly different. We still need to know more about just who and what this "president at large" is and how one becomes a "president at large". Note: It is very confusing to our members when you have two almost identical posts pending at the same time. It might help if you ask one of the moderators to delete one of them.

It seems to me that whatever salaries are approved should be specifically noted in the minutes, otherwise there is no official record of what the official salaries are supposed to be. The usual way of doing that is to specify the salary in a motion. I do not believe that just specifying a range is sufficient or that a statement that the salary is within the amount budgeted is sufficient. The actual salary needs to be noted somewhere, even if it is only in the contract of employment.