Richard Brown

I agree that if the society desires to do away with this opening ceremony permanently, it should vote to do so by means of a motion made during new business.

But can they do it at this meeting without giving previous notice that there might be a vacancy to fill? That directors term is not expiring this year. His election as vice president would, perhaps, create the vacancy. I'm still not sure exactly what the makeup of this board is. For example, whether the officers are even considered members of the board. I think we need more information.

I'm not sure I understand exactly what is going on. Guest Linda, is the president's term expiring at the annual meeting? If so, why are you trying to recall him when his term will be ending automatically? If he has another year to serve, then the recall makes sense. However, if you are recalling him before his term is up, and if you expect to fill that vacancy at the annual meeting, previous notice of the fact that there might be a special election for President (or for vice president, if he will be assuming the presidency) probably needs to be given to the members. The same thing goes for filling the vacancy in the director's position for the director who might be recalled. Edited to add: I am assuming that you do not have a special provision in your bylaws for filling vacancies. If you do, then those procedures would take precedence.

What EXACTLY do your bylaws say about this? Please quote exactly, don't paraphrase.

I agree with JJ. Neither RONR nor any other parliamentary authority that I am familiar with prohibits private discussions among members outside of s meeting .... unless the members engaging in those discussions think that they can make decisions in those discussions that are binding on the organization. Note: if this is a "public body" of some sort, there might be statutory restrictions in your state's open meetings laws (sunshine laws) that prohibit some discussions of this sort.

Your best bet is probably just to Google the terms.

Is the approval of the parent group required before the by laws go into effect?

Guest Dayle, if voting is by ballot, members should also be allowed to write in votes for people who have not been nominated.

I agree with JJ that this might be a matter of interpreting your bylaws. However, according to RONR, it is one member, one vote. If both spouses are members, they would both be entitled to vote. RONR does not treat people who are married or living in the same household differently from other members. Your bylaws however, might do so.

I don't quite follow your post, but here are the basics: If the motion failed to pass, it was defeated. There should be no need to vote again just to deny unless there's some procedure in place we don't know about. If RONR is your parliamentary authority, when the motion was defeated, It defeated and that's that.....for now. However, the motion can be renewed, that is, brought up again, at any future session. You don't need "grounds" to bring it up again. It can be brought up again by any member for any reason. It is up to your organization to decide which church group to pay the most attention to. Note: if this neighborhood board is considered a public body, then you might need to abide by whatever procedures are in place in your state's open meetings or Sunshine laws. I suspect there are statutes or regulations in place regarding your procedures that we don't know about. Edited to add: after rereading your post, I think I do follow it, but my answer remains the same.

Todd, see Pages 400 - 404 of the 11th edition of RONR for more information on voting and voting thresholds, etc.

In my opinion, the provision is ambiguous and it is up to the society itself to interpret the meaning of that provision. My initial impression, after first reading the provision, was that guest Todd is correct and the requirement is for a vote of 3/4 of the members present. However, upon further reflection, I think my judgment was too hasty and I tend to agree with Mr. Katz. The default definition in RONR is that a 3/4 vote of the members means 3/4 of those present and voting. In order to require that the vote be a vote of three-fourths of the members present, the bylaws must be clear and unambiguous. The provision should read "by a vote of three-fourths of the members present" if that is what is intended. Saying "by a three-fourths vote of the members present" is not the same thing and creates the ambiguity. I am on my cell phone now, but as soon as I get on a computer I will post a link or the actual verbage from RONR regarding vote thresholds. That is, unless someone else posts it first. The difference in terminology is very subtle, but it is very important and has important ramifications.

Todd, please quote EXACTLY, verbatim, what your bylaws say about that vote requirement. Don't paraphrase, quote exactly.

Yes.

A roll call of members is not required by RONR, but as a practical matter, you will have to somehow identify who the voting members are. Sometimes this is done simply by segregating the seating areas with the guests being seated separately from the members. Your organization can determine how to accomplish this, just as with ascertaining whether a quorum is present. As to the 75% vote requirement, exactly what do the bylaws say about that requirement? Is it 75% of the vote? 75% of the members present? 75% of the total membership? Unless your bylaws specify otherwise, it would be based only on the members voting.

I agree with Joshua Katz. The policy that requires a 6-month waiting period conflicts with the bylaws. I also agree with Joshua's answers to your specific questions and to the point he made in his final paragraph.

Yes, somebody could raise a point of order that there is a five-minute rule (or custom), but I believe the point would not be well taken and should be ruded as not well taken by the chair. The five-minute rule has been explicitly repealed. Since no parliamentary Authority has been adopted, I suppose you could say there is no rule in place, but it could also be said that the common parliamentary law applies. I do, however, understand the point you are making and I see how it could be argued either way. It is a very good point and is almost persuasive. Almost, but not quite.

Yes, I would think so.

I agree and think this sums it up very well.

I agree with Mr. Honemann. That has pretty much been my position throughout this thread, but I wanted to follow the discussion and JJ's arguments before weighing in again. I just don't see how following a certain practice because it is mandated by a rule makes it a custom in the sense used in RONR. Is there a need to continue the practice as if it is a rule if the written rule is rescinded? I think not. Edited to add: I also agree with the comments by Josh Martin in his post immediately above. Since it appears on a separate page, I will respond to it in a new post below.

What do your bylaws say about how the committee is populated in the beginning?

It's also a good subject for clarification and elaboration in the 12th edition of RONR !!

Because RONR is quite clear that not all members ex-officio are treated the same.

I agree with Mr. Novosielski's analysis. However, as Mr. Lages pointed out, I think this is ultimately a situation where the organization must interpret its own rule on the subject.

And they say, "Please join me TO this opinion", not "Please join me IN this opinion"? I just find that hard to believe. But, as I said in my post above, it probably doesn't matter that much because I personally believe the intent is clear, despite the grammatically incorrect statement. The real issue is what the presiding officer and members of the organization believe in interpreting this rather strangely worded rule and whether they believe the supposedly concurring responses comply with the rule.