Richard Brown

Adrianna, I'm not sure what the issue is, other than a flurry of emails between meetings. This does not appear to have taken place during a meeting of the student senate. Private communications between members outside of a meeting are not prohibited. However, taking binding ACTION on something outside of a meeting is strictly prohibited. Unless you have some bylaw provision or other governing document that authorizes action outside of a meeting, student senate decisions can be made only in a meeting of the student senate. Private communications are perfectly permissible, regardless of the time of day. It is perfectly proper for members (or even the president) of an organization to lobby other members on a particular point of view. He can base his position on whatever factors he chooses.. even the stage of the moon or a flip of a coin. However, if the communications become harassment, it might subject the sender to disciplinary action for conduct unbecoming a member or detrimental to the organization. Caveat: If the student senate is subject to your state's (or perhaps a university) open meetings (sunshine) law that prohibits communications between members outside of a properly noticed meeting, that will be a different matter. Such laws or rules supersede RONR. But, noting in RONR prohibits or limits such communications outside of a meeting. If you think the Senate President did not give members adequate time to respond, you can move that he be censured for his actions. It requires a second and a majority vote. It amounts simply to a slap on the wrist: "We don't like what you did". Do you think this is something worthy of trying to have him censured by the Senate and do you think you can get a majority vote to adopt it? Edited to add: I suppose you can also try to get him removed as president if you think it is that serious. Your own bylaws and governing documents probably spell out the procedure for that. Is it really that serious?

Yes. The motion to rescind something previously adopted requires a majority vote if previous notice has been given. Without previous notice, it requires a two-thirds vote or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. Edited to add: See Pages 305 - 310 of RONR

No, not outside of a meeting context, other than to say that official action of a society can be taken only at an official meeting unless your bylaws provide otherwise. However, like dr. Stackpole, this appears to me to be an office situation, not a meeting of a deliberative assembly. Edited to add: Robert's Rules of Order applies to deliberative assemblies, that is, clubs, organizations, non-profit associations, Etc. It does not apply to workplace office matters.

I think it is fine to say that the recommendation of the X committee, after debate and amendment, was adopted as amended and is attached hereto as exhibit A. Keep checking back, as others may disagree.

Guest Delilah: Can you tell me what on earth this provision in your bylaws means? What on earth does that provision mean? How does your Church interpret it? It makes no sense to me.

I suspect you are referring to what we would call a "Minutes Approval Committee". As you have already been told by a couple of people, including one of the principle authors of RONR, there is no prohibition against the president serving on a minutes approval committee. Your organization is free to put whatever people it wants to on it. Also, the reports you are referring to should normally be submitted in writing and filed with the secretary's records and not included in the minutes.... either verbatim or in summary.

This all assumes, of course, that the nominating committee itself, not someone else, came up with the names of the additional nominees.

Agreeing with jastackpo, if he is a voting member of the congregation or of whichever body will be voting, he probably has the right to vote.

H.J.?? Perhaps you mean J.J.? 😉

Bruce, I disagree. I don't read the quoted bylaw provision as requiring a "vote of two thirds of the members of the board". I read it as requiring a simple two thirds vote. I think the reference to "of the board" is simply to designate that it is the board, as opposed to the general membership, that must vote on the issue. Ultimately, perhaps this is a matter of bylaws interpretation as to whether the requirement is "a two thirds vote of the board" or "the vote of two thirds of the members of the board". I think a vote of 2 to 0 is sufficient for removal, provided a quorum is present. Edited to add: I do see how that provision can be interpreted either way.

Well, if it was treated as a motion to postpone, it SHOULD HAVE automatically come back before the assembly at the next meeting. As we know all too well, things don't always happen as they should. Apparently, it did not come back up at the next meeting. From the facts as stated by the OP, it is hard for me to tell exactly what happened. It appears they discussed one action plan (2017-2022) at the December meeting and laid it on the table or postponed it until the January meeting. At the January meeting, a different action item came up... with a different agenda number and for the years 2018-2023). So, I can't tell exactly what happened.

Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, the board is subservient to the membership and the membership has the final say. See Official Interpretation Nos 12 and 13 on the main website: http://www.robertsrules.com/interp_list.html#2006_13 Edited to add: Exactly what do your bylaws say about the power of the board? It is possible that your bylaws give the Board the exclusive authority to manage the affairs of the club. Without such an exclusive grant of authority, however, the membership may countermand actions of the Board. Pay particular to the vote required per Official Interpretation No 13 (cited above)

I don't know that it is necessary to announce anything, but there's certainly nothing wrong with making an announcement that the board has reconsidered the wisdom of two of the bylaw amendments and will not be bringing them up. However, as others have said, if notice has been given, any member may still move that one or both of the bylaw amendments be adopted. If that happens, and if there is a second, then just make the case during debate that the board believes these amendments should be redrafted and ask that they be defeated.

I agree with HHH but would suggest first discussing it privately with the chairman. The board itself certainly has the final say in the matter.

I think it is a close call, but I tend to agree with HHH & Joshua Katz. It is not clear to me that an offender was "named" in the sense that RONR considers discipline or such a breach of order that it should be entered in the minutes. I think it is best left out. See pages 471 and 646 re "naming" an offending member.

I think Dr. Stackpole says all that needs to be said in his excellent article on the subject. However, some of our members might know of additional reasons. Stay tuned.

That's not the way I interpret what happened. I interpret guest Julie's comment as indicating none of the three candidates voted, but the current president claims to have the right to vote to break a tie. However, as Mr Novosielski pointed out, in the case of a ballot vote, the president votes along with everyone else. Every member, including the candidates, has a right to vote in an election unless the bylaws specifically provide otherwise. Edited to add: Guest Julie, please clarify exactly what happened and weather the three candidates voted in the initial ballot.

I agree with Hieu that you need to follow whatever is required by your parent organization's bylaws. Do those bylaws prohibit having a separate Constitution and bylaws? My earlier answer was based on the rules in RONR. The rules in your parent organization's by-laws would supersede RONR .

The motion to lay on the table was not an appropriate motion under the circumstances. It seems obvious to me that the intent was to postpone the matter until the next meeting. It also appears to me that the assembly should have and did in fact treat the motion to table as a motion to postpone until the next meeting. As has already been pointed out, a motion which has been postponed comes up automatically at the appropriate time. There is no need to "take it from the table". It should come up automatically.

Only in the sense that it is permissible for an organization to have just a constitution, just by laws, or a constitution and by-laws. At one time, it was rather common for organizations to have both a constitution and by-laws. However, the trend in recent years has been to just have a single instrument entitled bylaws.

Two questions, guest Julie. First, was the election conducted by ballot? Second, exactly what do your bylaws say about the president voting? Please quote exactly, don't paraphrase. Edited to add: in an election, all members, including the candidates, should be entitled to vote unless you have a bylaw provision which prohibits it.

If the membership has already been sent notice of the proposed amendment to require 2/3 for a quorum, it is too late to change that to a majority for this upcoming meeting without giving new notice. Do you have time to give the notice required by your bylaws? If not, this change would not be permissible

The way I read that is that the quorum is currently 12. It is a 21 member board. A proposed bylaw amendment would change it to 2/3. Notice of that proposal has been given. Now some members believe 2/3 is too high and want to amend the proposed bylaw amendment on the floor to a majority. Would such a floor amendment be within the scope of notice and therefore permissible? I think not. The only number they could amend it is from the floor is 13. Or they can vote down the proposal and start over.

Huh? You've lost me. The board has 21 members. The current Quorum is 12. The proposed bylaw amendment would make it 2/3, which would be 14. A majority would be 11, Which is less than the current requirement of 12. Since the current requirement is 12, and the proposed requirement is 14, the only number in between those two which they could amend it to and stay within the scope of notice would be 13. The way I see it, they have three choices. Leave it at 12, adopt the proposed amendment to 14, or amend it at the meeting to 13.

What is the current quorum requirement? Amending the proposed bylaws amendment to anywhere between the current requirement and the proposed requirement would be "within the scope of notice" and would be in order.