Richard Brown

First, have a nominating committee that really tries to get people to agree to serve. Second, ask for nominations from the floor. People might be nominated and might accept. Just knowing that someone else wants a person to serve is sometimes all it takes for that person to agree to serve. Third, if the vote is by ballot (and it must be by ballot if the bylaws require it), write-in candidates are permitted. Even a vote of 1 to 0 might be enough to elect a write in candidate. Nominations and elections are covered in RONR in Section 46 on pages 430-446.

Have you considered having the president (or the appointing officer) make the committee appointments, letting the committees meet and do their thing, and then, at the next meeting, ratifying the appointment of the committee members and also any action the committees might have taken in the interim? This might not follow the letter of RONR, but it is what I would suggest. Edited to add: Keep in mind that doing that is a bit of a risky procedure as there is no guarantee that the assembly will ratify the appointments.

Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, a regular majority vote (and a two thirds vote) is based on the number of members present and voting. So, assuming for the sake of this discussion your information is correct about one member not being able to vote on money issues, a majority vote of the remaining five members is what is required. If all five vote, it would take a vote of 3 to 2. But, not all members have to be present or vote. A vote of 3 to 1 or 2 to 1 and even a vote of 1 to 0 would all constitute a majority vote. BTW, unless your bylaws specify that a majority of the board is 51 percent, you are not calculating a majority correctly. A majority is simply "More than half". Period. Not 51 percent or 50 percent plus one, but simply "more than half". A majority of 200 is 101. But if you require 51 percent, you would need 102. But that is the wrong answer.

I have the same understanding as Mr.Merritt and share his question as to whether the clock on amending already adopted amendments (insertions) starts over when the main motion (along with the already adopted amendments) is postponed to the next session. I gather from the language on page 188 that debate is renewed when a motion is postponed to another day, but I don't see where anything says definitively that an amendment already adopted by inserting language can be stricken (struck?) out at the meeting to which it was postponed by an ordinary majority vote without suspending the rules.

Even if a person is not a member of the organization, he may be given the right to attend meetings, to attend executive sessions, to debate, to make motions, etc.... but not the right to vote (absent authorization in the bylaws). Any such restriction would have to be in your bylaws. Some of those rights, such as the right to attend meetings, may be granted by majority vote. However, the right to actually participate in debate requires a suspension of the rules and a two thirds vote. That can all be accomplished by unanimous consent or by the adoption of a motion or a special rule of order. If it is intended that this person have the right to participate in debate, I would suggest that whatever motion or rule is adopted be done by at least a two thirds vote. See the footnote on page 263 regarding suspending the rules to permit a non-member to participate in debate: "In contrast, the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate." The other "rights" that can be granted to this person, sch as the right to attend meetings, can be done by majority vote. See Official Interpretation 2006-13 (and 2006-12). The Board is generally subservient to the general membership and is subject to the orders of the membership. The membership can generally countermand decisions of the board, but this is dependent on the authority given the board in your bylaws. http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13 In your case, I think the general membership might have the power to impose restrictions on what someone who is not a board member can do. I also think it rather unlikely in most cases that the membership would do so.

If the vote was close, or it is believed it was close and the issue is of great importance, I would suggest ratifying the adoption of the motion in question at the next meeting... making sure that this "acting" member does not vote. He can be granted the right to participate in all other ways... speaking in debate and even making motions... but he cannot be given the right to vote. See page 124 for the Motion to Ratify. Some of our members may take the position that the motion to ratify would not be appropriate unless the adoption of the motion was clearly null and void and has been so declared by the chair, but it is my opinion that it can properly be used when there is doubt as to whether the questionable motion was properly adopted. The decision on whether to use the motion to ratify is ultimately up to your organization. If a member raises a point of order that the previously "adopted" motion has never been declared null and void and that the motion to ratify if out of order, the chair can rule on whether the point of order is well taken. The chair's ruling is then subject to an appeal. It requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling of the chair. The ruling is sustained on a tie vote. Ultimately, if the membership wants to ratify the adoption of the prior motion, it can do so. Edited to add: My use of the word "membership" in the above paragraph is intended to refer to the membership of the board, which I understand is the body involved. If this issue winds up before the general membership, then the term, of course, would refer to the general membership.

Guest Rowan, you might also take not of this language from page 251: The only exceptions to the rule that a point of order must be made at the time of the breach arise in connection with breaches that are of a continuing nature, in which case a point of order can be made at any time during the continuance of the breach. Instances of this kind occur when: a) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with the bylaws (or constitution) of the organization or assembly,* b) a main motion has been adopted that conflicts with a main motion previously adopted and still in force, unless the subsequently adopted motion was adopted by the vote required to rescind or amend the previously adopted motion, c) any action has been taken in violation of applicable procedural rules prescribed by federal, state, or local law, d) any action has been taken in violation of a fundamental principle of parliamentary law (p. 263), or e) any action has been taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees, a rule in the bylaws requiring a vote to be taken by ballot, or a rule protecting a basic right of an individual member (pp. 263–64). In all such cases, it is never too late to raise a point of order since any action so taken is null and void.

Read the part of my response that I added a minute or so after the first part of the post. Here it is:

It depends on how close the vote was. If the vote of this member could have affected the result, the outcome of the vote can be set aside on a point of order that a vote was cast by someone not entitled to vote and that vote could have affected the outcome. Edited to add: If the outcome could have been affected by the vote of someone not entitled to vote, this constitutes a continuing breach and may be raised at any time as long as the breach continues. See page 263 regarding violations of fundamental principles of parliamentary procedure law.

While I agree completely with the previous answers, I'm curious about something. Exactly how many board members are going to be out of the country? You first make reference to "A board member" and they you say "they will be out of the country". So, are you referring to one board member or more than one? Or will the entire board, except for this member, be out of the country?

I share Mr. Merritt's concern on that point. The motion, as amended, no longer proposes to do what the original mover intended. To my way of thinking, the motion has become a different question.

Larry, I'm not aware of anything else, but the statement on page 393 seems clear enough all by itself: REFRAINING FROM SPEAKING AGAINST ONE'S OWN MOTION. In debate, the maker of a motion, while he can vote against it, is not allowed to speak against his own motion. He need not speak at all, but if he does he is obliged to take a favorable position. If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion (pp. 295–97). As for a reason, the one provided by Dr. Kapur seems reasonable enough. It's good enough for me!

Guest JGreenfield, despite my first post in this thread (actually the first response to the original question), I actually agree with you. To me, the language on page 499 regarding who can call a committee meeting is quite clear and it is clear to me that it applies only to the first meeting of the committee. However, I have "given in" to the rather adamant view by at least one and maybe two members of the authorship team that the quoted provision on page 499 is intended to mean that any two committee members may call a meeting of the committee any time that the chairman fails to do so.... not just for the first meeting. Most of the other regular posters on this forum seem to have adopted that view as well. At a minimum, I hope that the authorship team will clarify that provision in the 12th edition. I just don't think the language on page 99 says what the authorship team seems intend it to mean.

LOL!!! Weldon, I do have thoughts on it, but since you and I discussed it at the AIP Annual Session in New Orleans about ten days ago, I figured I would hold off and see what others have to say first. I didn't want my comments to influence others. My thoughts now are pretty much what they were then.... and the same as your thoughts. Although it seems there should be an easier way, if RONR is going to be followed without suspending the rules (which would require a two thirds vote), I think your suggestion of having the motion withdrawn seems like the best option I've heard so far. I'm still hoping someone chimes in with a good solution that we haven't thought of to simply strip off the objectionable amendment.

I disagree somewhat with guest Zev. Based on my reading of what transpired, I believe what the president did was inappropriate and that he exceeded his authority. Perhaps it was just a breach of protocol, but I believe it was inappropriate and a usurpation of the authority of the committee which was handling the matter. I think the best way to resolve it might be to have a private conversation with the president and to ask him to withdraw his proposal and to submit it instead to the committee and await the committee's action. He can explain to the rest of the board that his submission was premature. I would not make a big deal about it, especially not publicly. Edited to add: upon rereading the original post, it is not clear whether this matter was actually referred to the bylaws committee for action or even whether there was any discussion about the committee doing it. If that is the case, then I think it probably was appropriate for the president to have submitted the recommendations on his own, but those recommendations should perhaps be referred to the bylaws committee for review before the board takes action on them.

Agreeing with Steve Britton, minutes may be amended at any time, even years after the fact, by using the motion to amend something previously adopted. Also, there is no limit on the number of times they may be amended.

Guest Joseph, while I agree completely with Mr. Mervosh, I think it is important to first decide if this matter is being brought back up at the same session. With most ordinary organizations which meet weekly, monthly or quarterly, each meeting is a separate session. However, with some governmental bodies, especially state legislatures, a session lasts many days, maybe even weeks or months. Apparently, based on your post, this "county board" is likely a public body of some kind. If so, you should determine from your clerk or county attorney whether each meeting of the board is considered a separate session or if a session lasts for, perhaps, for a year or more.... even perhaps four years from election to election.

The way I read the original post, no point of order was ever made. Instead, the person who was objecting made a motion to set aside the previous approval and then a motion to approve it again..

I agree, Bruce. I think requesting that the motion be restated could be handled either as a request for information or as a parliamentary inquiry. "Mr. Chairman, what is the pending motion?"

For openers, there is no rule in RONR (the newest edition of Robert's Rules of Order) requiring seven days notice for approval of a budget or, for that matter, for anything else. The member is mistaken. He was entitled to make a motion to rescind or amend the previous approval of the budget, but, without previous notice, that motion would require a two thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. If this is a board, the term "majority of the entire membership" would refer to the membership of the board, not of the entire organization. Technically, this was not a "reconsideration" of the adoption of the budget as a motion to reconsider would most likely have had to be made on the same day that the budget was approved. It looks to me like this was treated as a motion to rescind the previous adoption and then a motion to approve it again. You are correct that the minutes of the previous meeting should not be changed. Personally, I would treat what happened as a motion to rescind the previous approval of the budget and then a motion to approve it again, but, as a practical matter, you could also probably treat it as motion to ratify the previous adoption. I don't think it actually hurts anything to call it a reconsideration, as you did, even though that is not the proper term for it, because it does also seem to reflect what happened (even though reconsideration was out of order). Apparently, nobody raised a point of order that a motion to reconsider was out of order. If the member never called it a motion to reconsider but called it a motion to rescind, then treat it as a motion to rescind. That would have been the proper motion to accomplish what he was trying to do... even though he was mistaken in thinking that it required seven days' advance notice. Do your own rules perhaps require seven days' notice? RONR does not. I would say that the important thing is that the minutes reflect that, regardless of what you call it, the budget was again approved. Stay tuned. Others may have different ideas on how you should treat this in the minutes.

Can you elaborate a bit? Are there not even seven members or is it that there are seven or more but due to absences there is never a quorum? Also, how are the members of this group chosen? Are they a board of directors (or executive board)l? A committee? Why can't the vacancies be filled?

It's the type thing, especially in a small board meeting, that would usually be handled by unanimous consent. The member who stepped away would ask if the motion can be repeated, the chair will ask if there is any objection, and if not, it will be repeated. Repeating the highlights of the discussion is another matter. I suppose, however, if there is no objection, someone could also provide what that person sees as the highlights of the discussion. A member could also move to suspend the rules and have the motion repeated. Doing so requires a two thirds vote. As far as the actual wording of the motion itself, however, it should be repeated by the chair when he "puts" the motion to a vote after debate has ended. A motion is usually stated three times: When the mover makes the motion, when the chair "states the motion" to open debate, and again after debate when the chair "puts" the motion to a vote. Edited to add: If you object to either the motion being repeated or to the discussion being summarized, you should raise a point of order that the motion has already been stated and that it is an imposition on the other members to make them have to sit through a summation of the debate that has taken place. I cannot point to a specific prohibition in RONR, however. Edited again to add: The closest thing in RONR I can find that is close to being on point is in the section on "Reading Papers" on pages 298-299. This seems like the key provision on page 299. I have bolded what seems to be the key provision: When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and, if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it. Except as just stated, no member has the right to have anything read without permission of the assembly. But whenever any member requests that a document that is before the assembly be read—obviously for information and not for delay—and no one objects, the chair normally should direct that it be read. If there is an objection, a majority vote is required to order that it be read. If a member was absent from the hall when the paper under consideration was read—even though absent on duty—he cannot insist on its being read again; in this case, the convenience of the assembly is more important than that of a single member. (Emphasis added).

Ken, more information might be beneficial. For example, what does the chair do with these motions that are brought up but are not on the agenda? How does he handle them? Also, in order for a board member to debate a motion that is on the agenda, must he sign up in advance to speak? Finally, are you referring to board members having to sign up to speak or to non-board members who are sitting in on the meeting? Edited to add: like Joshua Katz, I know that Florida has some state statutes dealing with meetings of homeowner associations. I suggest you or an attorney review those statutes.

Yes, you should have (and approve) minutes of those meetings even though a quorum was not present. The meetings were held even though not much was done. The minutes from those meetings should still reflect that the meetings were called to order but were adjourned due to lack of a quorum.

My copy, which is the Bicentennial Edition, has a prefatory note by Henry M. Robert III and an introduction by Mrs. G. Frederick Norman, President of the National Association of Parliamentarians and has a copyright date of 1975 by Irvington Publishers, Inc. It also shows a previous copyright by The Century Company in 1923 and a copyright renewal by Mrs. Isabel H. Robert in 1953. Mine also says this edition is dedicated "to The National Association of Parliamentarians, who have encouraged its publication". I guess the question at hand is whether these new copyrights start the copyright clock running from scratch. I don't know. Do any of you?