Richard Brown

Nothing in RONR permits this member to vote unless he is physically present at the meeting. Any exception would have to be found in your own bylaws or rules.

I agree. That is a tactic that several of my political activist friends and I use at city council meetings. We find a way to see to it that one of us is last or near last on the sign-in sheet if signing in is necessary. If signing in isn't necessary, we just wait until it appears everyone else has spoken or until we hear someone else say something that we want to rebut. Even if you have signed in to speak, you can always "pass" when they call your name.

I think we need more information in order to know exactly what is going on and who is appearing and speaking before which bodies. It's rather confusing. Perhaps I am differing from my colleagues, but it is my understanding that at some type of public city council (or city council committee meeting), during the public comment portion of the meeting, an individual is standing up to address the body and is falsely claiming to be representing a neighborhood association and falsely stating the position of the association. I see nothing wrong with a person who IS a legitimate representative of the association asking to be recognized and stating, in effect, "My name is John Smith. I am the president of the Amazing Heights neighborhood association. The gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago about our association is not a member of our association, is not authorized to speak on behalf of our association, and has misrepresented what our official position is. Our official position is as follows: We support the planting of Palm trees along the median of Palm Drive."

I agree. Although preferential voting might be most often used in mail voting, it can be and sometimes is used with in-person voting in order to avoid having to do repeat balloting.

Actually, at the conclusion of giving his report, the chairman of the bylaws committee should have moved, on behalf of the committee, for the adoption of the amendments. Since it is a committee recommendation, no second is necessary. The committee chairman may also speak in debate in favor of the propieed amendments. he does not lose that right by virtue of being chairman of the committee.

That constitutes a regular "majority vote". But, what exactly is YOUR requirement? Majority vote? Majority of the members present? Majority of the entire membership? A two-thirds vote? A vote of two thirds of the members present? A vote of two thirds of the entire membership? The answer to all of those is different. The motion passes if the requirement is simply an unqualified "majority vote". But, not if it is any of the other five requirements I mentioned.

I agree with all of the previous answers, but especially with the response by Josh Martin. The two most common methods of controlling who is voting in situations such as you describe is to require voting members (or delegates) to sit up front and guests in the back and/or to use voting cards. It is quite common for guests to be required to sit in a separate section in the back of the room.

The board is possibly in violation of the bylaws, but that does not, in and of itself, cause the board's actions in meeting with management companies, voting to select one, and raising your dues to become null and void. It would, however, give rise to possible disciplinary action against the responsible board members (such as the secretary) for failing to make the relevant documents available.

That is a legal question, not a parliamentary one, and is outside the scope of this forum. If you are incorporated, you are quite likely subject to state (and/or federal tax laws) regarding the distribution of assets of an entity which is being dissolved.

Then go by the language I quoted from page 440.

guest Leizl, does the following provision from page 440 answer your question? "When voting for multiple offices by a single ballot, the members are not able to take the result for one office into account when voting for another office. For this reason, a candidate is never deemed elected to more than one office by a single ballot unless the motion or rules governing the election specifically provide for such simultaneous election. When there is no such provision, a candidate who receives a majority for more than one office on a single ballot must, if present, choose which one of the offices he will accept; if he is absent, the assembly decides by vote the office to be assigned to him. The assembly then ballots again to fill the other office(s). (The assembly is free, however, to elect the same person to another office on a subsequent ballot, unless the bylaws prohibit a person from holding both offices simultaneously.) "

I concur with Mr. Katz. What happens on Facebook or outside of a meeting is not a matter of parliamentary procedure and not addressed by RONR. As to the president's "directive" that nominating petitions be submitted only to him, based on what you have quoted, he does not have the authority to demand this. If the bylaws direct that those petitions be delivered to the secretary, then that is what should be done. I also concur that based on these circumstances, it might be reasonable to also honor those petitions which were submitted to the president based on his directive.

What do your bylaws say about meetings? Also, are you referring to a regular meeting or to a special meeting? Your bylaws (or a standing rule or special rule of order) should specify when your regular meetings should be held. You cannot have special meetings at all unless there is a provision in the bylaws for them. Such a provision should specify who can call one, the amount and type notice required, etc. Check your bylaws carefully for the provisions on meetings and special meetings. I bet your answer will be found there.

A few of you who were there get together and come up with the best draft that you can of what transpired at that meeting and ask that it be approved as the minutes of the meeting. Submit it in the form of minutes just as the secretary normally would. There is no requirement that only the Secretary's version can be used, but it would perhaps be nice if the secretary could be in the group. Keep in mind that minutes should be a record of what was done, not what was said. Do not attempt to summarize discussion. A record of what motions were adopted and who was elected to what office are the main things you need to try to include. It will be subject to correction just as the secretary's proposed minutes would be and can also be corrected in the future by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

I see on Amazon.com that a Kindle version of the 11th edition of RONR is due to be released on September 4, 2018, and that pre-orders are being accepted now. I know a Kindle version of the 11th edition was available briefly several years ago, but the pagination was different from the printed and CD-ROM versions, making it hard to provide accurate citations, other than to section numbers. A new version of RONR in Brief is also scheduled for release on the same date. Can someone on the authorship team provide us with some more information on the new Kindle version, particularly whether the page numbers will match the pagination of the hard copy of RONR and the CD-ROM version? Any other pertinent information would also be appreciated! My thanks to Caryn Ann Harlos for bringing this to my attention.

The entire membership does not need to be present, but you must have a quorum present. Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, it is a majority of the entire membership. In your case that is 26 members. However, to adopt a special rule of order without notice requires the vote of a majority of the entire membership.... also 26 members. So, if you have 26 members at the meeting, all 26 of them would have to vote YES on adopting the special rule. If you have 40 members present, you would still need 26 YES votes to adopt the special rule of order. You would need 26 YES votes regardless of how many members are present.

I agree with the previous answers and direct The Fessor to chapter XX of RONR on discipline as some of my colleagues did. Since I doubt that The Fessor has a copy of RONR and may not be likely to go buy one (although I strongly encourage him to to so), and since he seems to think we may be joking when we say "Call the police", here is a copy and paste of what RONR says on pages 648-649 about removing someone from a meeting if he refuses to leave after having been properly directed to leave: "If a person—whether a member of the assembly or not—refuses to obey the order of proper authority to leave the hall during a meeting, the chair should take necessary measures to see that the order is enforced, but should be guided by a judicious appraisal of the situation. The chair can appoint a committee to escort the offender to the door, or the sergeant-at-arms—if there is one—can be asked to do this. If those who are assigned that task are unable to persuade the offender [page 649] to leave, it is usually preferable that he be removed by police—who may, however, be reluctant to intervene unless representatives of the organization are prepared to press charges. The sergeant-at-arms or the members of the appointed committee themselves may attempt to remove the offender from the hall, using the minimum force necessary. Such a step should generally be taken only as a last resort, since there may be adverse legal consequences; and a person who would refuse to leave upon legitimate request may be the type most likely to bring suit, even if with little justification. In cases where possibly serious annoyance by hostile persons is anticipated—in some mass meetings, for example—it may be advisable to arrange in advance for the presence of police or guards from a security service agency. " Note to The Fessor: The above provision is applicable once the "offender", whether a member or non-member, has been properly ordered to leave but refuses. Keep in mind that the chair alone can order a non-member to leave, but only the assembly can order a member to leave.

Agreeing with Mr. Huynh, this is what RONR says on page 500: "COMMITTEE PROCEDURE. In small committees, the chairman usually acts as secretary, but in large ones and many standing committees, a secretary may be chosen to keep a brief memorandum in the nature of minutes for the use of the committee.

I agree and I agree with the other responses. If the previous notice is general, there should be more latitude to introduce a slightly different motion that is still within the scope of the original notice. But, if the exact language of the intended motion is given, there is less wiggle room... and maybe none at all. But, as others suggested, the motion can be introduced as originally noticed and then an amendment moved which is still within the scope of notice. As Mr. Katz said in the post immediately above mine, the same member who moved (introduced) the original motion can also introduce the proposed amendment and can do so almost immediately as he has the right to speak first on his motion.

I suppose you could, but why? Edited to add: you could also ask those who don't like it to leave.. or someone could talk to him privately and tell him that it makes one or two members nervous and asked if he would mind leaving his gun in the car.

I agree with GWCTD and was about to say the same thing. There is actually no motion "to table". If it was desired to lay the motion on the table, the motion was used improperly. If it was desired to postpone the matter until the next meeting, that would also be improper unless the next meeting was going to occur within a quarterly time interval. Since a motion which has been laid on the table dies if not taken up at the next meeting, and with that meeting being within a quarterly time interval, I would say that the motion has probably died and may simply be renewed (reintroduced) at the next meeting. See RONR page 214 lines 19 through 28. It appears to me in this case that the motion was used more in the nature of a motion to postpone indefinitely, which killed the motion for the session. Edited to add: I suggest that you and your members get a copy of RONR or RONR In Brief and learn the differences between the Motions to postpone to a definite time, postpone indefinitely, and lay on the table.

Agreeing with Tim Wynn, the answer to your question about how the vacancies should be be filled will probably be determined by your bylaws. If not, and if the sections in RONR referenced by Mr. Wynn do not help, Let us know.

I have to agree with GWCTD on this one. In my experience, organizations routinely "approve" officer and committee reports just because they think it is the proper thing to do. They don't feel "right" just moving on to the next report without approving the one just given.

Guest Bill, This is the reason RONR says that committee reports and officers reports (including the treasurer's report) should normally not be "approved". Unless the report contains recommendations for some kind of action, the person making the report makes his report, the chair thinks him for his report and then moves on to the next report. The report, if a written report, is simply placed on file. If a report contains a recommendation for some specific action, the motion to take the action recommended in the report can be made at that time or held until New Business. There are lengthy provisions in RONR as to how to deal with various types of reports. Rule of thumb: Do not "approve" reports. Just hear them (or read them), thank the person presenting it, and call on the next report. When a report is "approved" by the assembly, it leads to just the type problem you are having. This is one your organization will probably have to sort out for itself. Edited to add: btw, there does not need to be a formal vote on "approving" or "adopting" a report. It is usually done by unanimous consent with no actual vote taken. The proper way of doing that is for the chair to say, when there is some need to approve or adopt a report or a recommendation contained in the report, "If there is no objection, the report (or motion) is approved (or adopted)".

There is nothing in your bylaws saying something along the lines of "The Board shall have general supervision of the affairs of the Society between its business meetings"? It will probably be in the section of the bylaws dealing with the Board.