Richard Brown

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.

"Please join me to this request" is the phrase used by U.S. Supreme Court Justices? It isn't even grammatically correct. I've read lots of Supreme Court opinions and I don't think I've ever seen that phrase. "Please join me IN this request", perhaps, but not "Please join me to this request". Note: Despite the fact that the phrase/sentence is grammatically incorrect and borderline nonsensical, I do think we understand that the intent is to ask others to "join me IN this request".

Guest Cheryl, EXACTLY what do your bylaws say about the vice president and president, at least with regard to how one becomes president, the vice president automatically becoming president, etc. There may be pertinent language in the section on officers and/or elections. Please quote exactly, don't paraphrase. Also, is this person to be elected at the regular annual elections, or is he being elected prior to the regular elections to fill the vacancy in the office of the vice president?

A member does not need to be present in order to be nominated from the floor. In addition, RONR says nothing about a letter of intent, so you are on your own as far as interpreting your own rules regarding such a letter. However, it is a good idea to make sure that someone is willing to serve if elected before placing his name in nomination. It is not required by RONR, but it is advisable.

Thanks, JJ. I thought there was another applicable section (the one you cited) but couldn't find it at the time.

All of the nominations, at least in the eyes of just about everyone at your typical meeting. How can you compare the relative attributes of Candidate A with the other candidates until after they have been nominated?

Based on the first three paragraphs of Section 61 on Discipline, starting on page 643, I don't think it is necessary to have a "do not do stuff that makes us look bad" clause in the bylaws. I think the last sentence of the third paragraph is telling: "In any society, behavior of this nature is a serious offense properly subject to disciplinary action, whether the bylaws make mention of it or not." Note: That provision might not apply if your bylaws make clear that ONLY the enumerated offenses are grounds for discipline.

The problem is that they are not all identified until nominations are closed. And the average person will think it is rather stupid to have to re-open nominations just for the purpose of debating the nominations that have just been made. And they probably don't even realize that nominations can be re-opened for that purpose. The logical time to debate them is immediately after nominations are closed.

If the rule is that nominees can be discussed and debated only while nominations are open and pending, and not after all nominations have been made and nominations closed, it is a rule that just doesn't make much sense. It is impossible to compare the relative strengths and attributes of the nominees, such as their experience, until after ALL nominations have been made.... and you don't know that all nominations have been made until nominations are closed. THEN you can compare their experience, etc. I agree that the 12th edition should address this issue. If the authorship team is going to stick to what appears to be the position that nominees can be discussed and debated only before nominations are closed, then it should say so clearly.... much more clearly than RONR does now. But, it makes much more sense to me to allow debate on the nominations to take place after all nominations have been made. Edited to add: I agree with Dr. Stackpole's position and hope that the 12th edition will provide that nominees/candidates can be debated after nominations are closed and prior to voting.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh, but will point out that I think it is important to note that, according to your post, your bylaws require that the minutes be published in the newsletter. A bylaw provision supersedes anything in RONR. Based on your post, the board MUST publish the minutes in the newsletter. Caveat: Does the quoted bylaw provision apply to board meeting minutes, general membership meeting minutes, or both? You need to read the bylaws carefully to determine which body that provision applies to.

Bjones, if your organization will be using a nominating committee, and if she hasn't already been nominated, you and others can talk to the members of the nominating committee and explain the situation to them and urge them not to nominate her. Of course, unless your bylaws prohibit it, she could be nominated from the floor by one of her supporters. I agree with JJ that the best thing is probably to discuss the situation privately with the other members outside of a meeting context.

I suspect that JJ intended to say that "a special Rule of Order could permit dropping a nominee from the ballot . . . . "

You referred to your group as a Civic committee and also made reference to a sunshine state and Public Access. Is this committee considered a public body under your state law? If it is, as GWCTD pointed out, you should perhaps consult with an attorney as you need to comply with your state's sunshine or open meetings law. Other than that, your committee can probably decide for itself what to release as RONR provides no specific guidance on that point.

Guest Juanita, the recommended language can be found at this link to the main website:. http://robertsrules.com/authority.html

Most of us on this forum will strongly recommend that you use that language or similar language adopting RONR or some other parliamentary manual as your parliamentary Authority. Without adopting some manual as your parliamentary authority, you have no authority and meetings can become rather chaotic with different members having different ideas of what should be the proper procedure in a given situation. I'm on my cell phone, so I hope that someone will post a link to the currently suggested wording from the current edition of RONR

Agreeing with Chris Harrison and JJ, I see nothing wrong with it. If a member does have a problem with it, he can voice his objection and the club can then determine how to deal with it. Personally, I have a problem with people who want to belong to an organization but don't want the other members to know how to get in touch with them. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. At any rate, RONR has nothing to say about it.

Does "BOE" refer to a Board of Education? If so, and if it is considered a public body under the law, your agenda procedures may well be controlled by state law, local ordinance, or your own special Rules of Order. All of those would supersede RONR.

I agree with Mr. Katz. Your bylaws probably state when the new officers take over. If not, according to RONR, the elections take effect immediately. It is quite common, though, for the outgoing officers to serve through the end of the election meeting and for the new officers to take over upon adjournment.

I'm not sure why we are having all of this discussion about a two-thirds vote, other than to show that the president's math is wrong, because the guidelines / bylaws as quoted by the OP say that "if the vote is not unanimous, the position goes back to the home groups for further nominations". The rule seems to me to be quite clear that the vote must be unanimous in order to avoid further nominations. So, where does all of this 2/3 vote business come from?

Who will be doing the electing? The board or the general membership? Do the elections take place at a board meeting or at a general membership meeting? What, exactly, do your bylaws say about the annual meeting and when the elections shall take place? Please quote the bylaw provision exactly.

I agree. I think the bylaw provision supersedes the RONR provisions on removal from office. I'm not quite sure what you mean by the "term provision" statement, but I agree that the bylaw provision provides an alternative to the process in Chapter XX of RONR and thus supersedes RONR in that regard.

Perhaps you intended to say "no GUESTS are permitted to attend. . . " rather than "no members are permitted to attend. . . "

For more information on allowing non-members to attend and speak at meetings, you might read the section titled "Public Session" on pages 96-97.

You have the 12th edition? Please tell me where I can get one! Perhaps you meant to say "RONR (11th ed.)" instead of "RONR 12"??

Nothing in RONR requires it. Such a requirement would have to be in your own rules or bylaws.