Richard Brown

Good question! If they do, and if the vice president is supposed to succeed to the office of president in the event of a vacancy, they should be talking about filling the position of Vice President rather than president because the vice president is automatically the new president.

I agree with the answer by Josh Martin. In addition, I will say that the nominating committee can possibly nominate whoever it wants to, but it is the board which must approve the eligibility of this individual. Based on what we have been told, I do not think his name should be on the ballot. If he is elected, I think his election would be void and should be set aside on a point of order that he is ineligible to serve.

Guest Sara, I am still at a loss as to the basis for the claim that the adopted items aren't in effect yet. Is the claim that adopted motions don't take effect until all other motions on the agenda have been adopted? If that is the theory, it is hogwash. An adopted motion becomes effective the instant it is adopted.

No, it is absolutely not correct. The items that were adopted at the meeting are in full force and effect. What rationale/excuse is being used to say they can't act on the items already adopted?

I agree. And I agree with this as well. I believe Mr. Martin and GWCTD are saying essentially the same thing on this point.

I agree, and would add that if the issue of accepting your resignation could not have been acted upon due to absence of a quorum, then even if the resignation was put in front of the proper body, if that body did not have the required quorum to act upon it, I would take the position that it still has not been acted upon and can still be withdrawn. I don't think that just putting it in front of the body is sufficient if that body did not have the authority to act on it due to lack of a quorum. Others might disagree, so stay tuned.

Whew. My reading of your bylaws, unfortunately, is that neither previous notice nor the exact text of proposed bylaw amendments is required for your organization to adopt bylaw amendments. Your procedures for amending the bylaws supersede the provisions in RONR. I think you have a poorly thought out provision on bylaw amendments, but it is what it is. It is ultimately up to your organization itself to interpret your amendment provisions since they differ so much from the standard procedure in RONR. If you believe that the procedure required by your bylaws was not followed, you can raise a point of order at the next meeting (or at any future meeting) that the required procedure for adopting bylaw amendments was not followed and that the amendments are null and void. The president rules on the point of order. I think we know how she would likely rule. However, any member can appeal from her ruling. The appeal requires a second and is debatable, subject to special limits. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The decision of the assembly is final.

Is this booster club required by some rule, such as a superior school regulation, to accept as a member everyone who wants to join? If not, the club absolutely has the right to discipline its members and to impose discipline possibly even up to and including expulsion. The question is what procedure must you follow and what are the limits of discipline you can impose. At an absolute minimum, you have the right to adopt a motion of censure against the member in question.

Would I be correct in assuming that you meant to say "not even the board knows what's going on"?

Guest ESA, we really need more information. Please elaborate.

If this group considers that the withdrawn motion was then referred to a committee, so be it, but according to RONR once the motion was withdrawn it no longer existed and there was nothing to refer to a committee. However, another member could make a motion to refer the subject matter to a committee, but the motion itself was dead and could not be referred. A new motion to do the same thing at the same meeting would have been out of order. Obviously this group was not following proper procedure, so if they want to consider that the motion got referred to a committee, so be it. They are going to do what they want to do anyway. I guess I'm ultimately supporting the conclusion that Atul Kapur came to, even though it is not parliamentary proper and it's based on the fact that this group wasn't following proper procedure to start with. Referring the matter/motion to a committee appears what they wanted to do and thought they were doing.

Is this outgoing board member term limited out? Or did she just decide not to run again? If she is term limited, she is not eligible to serve another term. However, depending on the wording of your bylaws regarding length of terms, and whether they say an officer continues to serve until his successor is elected, she might be able to continue to serve until such time as someone is elected to the position.

Like Chris Harrison, I believe more information would be helpful, particularly the information requested by Mr. Harrison as to what, if any, the relationship is between the original motion and the adopted motion. Is it possible that the adopted motion was some form of amendment or substitute to the original motion? Or did it deal with an entirely different subject? Also, what happened to the original motion? Was it adopted? Defeated? Just fell by the wayside? Something else?

The role of the parliamentarian is described in the 11th edition of RONR on pages 465-467. It's really too much to copy and paste here. This is one of those situations where you really need a copy of the book. The role of a parliamentarian at a convention is covered on pages 608-609.

No. Any such "clarification" would have to be an actual bylaw amendment and would have to go through the regular process for amending the bylaws. Unless your bylaws provide otherwise, there is no method for "fast tracking" or "short cutting" "clarifying" amendments.

I see nothing improper about the assembly voting to allow the statement to be read, but the treasurer could have just as easily... perhaps more easily..... simply asked a member to read it on his behalf. Technically, having someone read the statement could be considered "reading papers" which is usually done by unanimous consent. Any member can object to having a paper read, in which case a majority vote is required in order to read the paper.

The smiley face emoticon shows up on my laptop, but not on my cellphone. I've seen this happen before.

I agree, but I get the impression from the statement above in the original post that the "topic" was indeed pending as as a motion and was the pending business at the time Borax made his "request" for a roll call vote. But, if that "topic" was not actually pending as a main motion, and if no other motion was pending, then a motion for a roll call vote would indeed be considered a main motion and would be debatable, etc. The actual parliamentary situation existing at that time is rather vague.

Regardless of whether it puts them in some kind of breach of the bylaw requirement to elect the chairman at this meeting, they are perfectly free to adjourn any time there is a majority vote to adjourn. They can't be kept in a meeting against their will.

"Mr. Chairman, I move for a roll call vote". It requires a second, is not debatable but can be amended. It requires a majority vote for adoption. RONR (11th ed.) pages 283-284.

I agree, although I think it would more likely be a custom rather than a rule. I have found that boards frequently defer to the chair on issues such as this. Edited to add: I do agree with the others, though, that no rule in RONR gives the chair such Authority

While I agree with Dr. Stackpole's response, I have a question for gust Vic: does this organization have a custom of allowing non-board members to sit in on board meetings? If so, that custom / policy should probably be continued until formally changed by the adoption of a rule. I have found that it is quite common for associations to have an Unwritten custom of allowing Association members to attend board meetings. Regardless of whether the organization has a custom regarding guests attending and/or speaking at board meetings, it might be advisable to adopt a written policy regarding guests attending board meetings. Guest Vic should also keep in mind that the membership itself can probably adopt a Special Rule of Order or even amend the bylaws to establish a policy of whether and under what conditions guests may attend and speak at board meetings. The membership itself most likely has the ultimate say in this situation.

Yes, unless a member raises a point of order first. Hopefully, though, the chairman of committee B, knowing that his committee has no business proposing such a motion, will not even attempt it. I guess, though, that if the committee has directed him to make the motion on behalf of the committee, he might be in a bit of a pickle. I suppose he could make a parliamentary inquiry of the chair, asking if a motion on that subject from Committee B would be in order. But, the response to a parliamentary inquiry is not a ruling. So, I suppose, even if the chair replies that it would not be in order, and Committee B chairman nonetheless proceeds to make the motion on behalf of the committee as directed by the committee, the chair and other members will have been tipped off that the motion is out of order and any member (or the chair) can then raise the point of order.

I believe the recommendation coming from Committee B would be out of order and that your statement above correctly summarizes how it should be handled. I suppose other actions might be in order, such as a motion to discharge Committee A from considering the matter and assigning it to Committee B. And I suppose a motion to suspend the rules and permit Committee B to submit a proposal (motion) on the subject might also be possible. It seems to me, though, that the two best options are the ones you suggested.

Agreeing with the previous answers, the minutes are a record of what was DONE at a meeting, not what was SAID. However, if the assembly decides that it wants something of that nature included in the minutes, it has several ways of doing so: 1. By adopting a motion to include it in the minutes before the meeting adjourns. 2. By unanimous consent at that meeting 3. By means of a correction to the minutes at the time of their approval 4. By amending the minutes later to include the exchange 5. By adopting a special rule of order that the minutes of all meetings shall contain all "questions and answers".... or whatever.