Richard Brown

In what way was a quorum not present?

You should fill all of the positions required by your bylaws. RONR provides only that every assembly must have a presiding officer and a Clerk or secretary. However, the requirements of your bylaws will trump whatever is in RONR.

I did not read the actual bylaws but I interpret the provision posted by the original poster as meaning the chairman must call a meeting upon the petition of 12 members. Ultimately it is a question of bylaws interpretation, but, to me, that is the only interpretation that makes sense.

I suppose, depending on the situation, if the board or membership must approve new members, it might be possible to delay any new member approvals until after the bylaws are amended.

Good catch. We know Cindy was talking about a committee in the original post almost a year ago. We don't know whether guest Lisa is referring to a committee with her question about bringing the motion back up again.

And you "renew" the motion by simply making the motion again.

Yes, the minutes should reflect who is actually presiding. The minutes should reflect whether the regular chairman and secretary are present, who called the meeting to order, and, if the meeting was turned over to someone else to preside for the rest of (or part of) the meeting, that should also be reflected in the minutes. A statement such as, "Without objection, the Chairman (or Chairman pro-tem) turned the chair over to Member X who presided for the remainder of the meeting as Chairman pro-tem." (Others may suggest better wording, but you get the point).

The Motion for "The Previous Question", but it cannot be made while the person is actually speaking. It requires a second and a two thirds vote in order to stop debate. One person alone cannot stop debate.

There are also the simplified "Small Board Rules" in RONR for use by boards of no more than about a dozen members. I just glanced over "Rosenberg's Rules". Thank you for the citation. I had never heard of them. They are clearly designed for public bodies which must allow public input and are quite simple. But that very simplicity leads to problems and questions. I'll use just one example, which happens to be the very first of Rosenberg's "rules" that I looked at, his rule about the agenda. It says simply that " Formal meetings normally have a written, often published agenda. Informal meetings may have only an oral or understood agenda. In either case, the meeting is governed by the agenda and the agenda constitutes the body’s agreed-upon roadmap for the meeting. Note that Rosenberg's rule says NOTHING about whether an agenda is actually necessary, who prepares it, how one is adopted, whether (and how) it can be amended, etc. It just assumes that there is an agenda that somehow magically appears. That is the sort of detail (or lack of detail) that causes problems in meetings. RONR covers the issue of agenda quite thoroughly, probably addressing the vast majority of questions that will arise over the adoption and use of an agenda. RONR adopts devotes pages to the subject. Rosenberg devotes one paragraph to it. Brevity is nice, but it leaves a lot of questions unanswered! Thus this query by the original poster! As to the public comment at the meetings of this public body, I suspect very strongly that it is dictated by state law or the council's own rules. That is usually the case with public bodies.

Your president has only such power to appoint people to positions that the bylaws grant him. Do they grant him the power to make the appointments he has been making? If not, then he has no authority to make them. Also, if those positions are elective positions and are currently filled by members elected to them, it is highly doubtful that anyone can be appointed to them, even temporarily, until there is an actual vacancy. If you have officers who you believe are not properly fulfilling their duties, you might take a look at FAQ # 20 on the main website: http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 If you can provide us with more details, we might be able to help you more.

Huh??? Care to try that one again? 😉

Guest BaCall, please explain exactly what you mean, or what you are doing, when you say " Whenever I rise to respond on an item of agenda business, I am cut off and prohibited from speaking." In what way are you "responding" to an item of agenda business? What else is happening at the instant you "rise to respond..."? And in what way and by whom are you being interrupted and prohibited from speaking?

Guest BaCall, for questions like that, you really need a copy of RONR: http://robertsrules.com/book.html. It's about $18 retail, but can be ordered from Amazon from around $12. It is indispensable for anything beyond the most basic rules. As you will be able to see from the excerpt I'm about to post below, the question you asked is actually addressed in several different sections of the book. In the spirit of the Christmas season, I'm going to do something I don't usually do and quote from a rather lengthy section of the book. As you can see, the quoted section refers the reader to several other sections for further explanation. That's why you need the book. The Right Book. Not any ol' book about Robert's Rules of Order or parliamentary procedure. There are lots of knockoff books that are not the real thing. Here is what RONR says in general about interruptions on pages 383-385: (The numbers in parentheses without p or pp are to whole sections of the book). "Interruption of a Member Assigned the Floor When a member has been assigned the floor and has begun to speak—unless he begins to discuss a subject when no motion is pending or speaks longer in debate than the rules of the assembly allow—he cannot be interrupted by another member or by the chair except for one of the following [page 384] purposes, and then only when the urgency of the situation justifies it: a) a Call for the Orders of the Day (18) when they are not being conformed to, b ) the raising of a question of privilege (19), c) a Point of Order or the calling of the member who has the floor to order (23, 61)—or the chair's calling this member's attention to the fact that he is failing to observe the rules of speaking (pp. 645–46), d) a call for a separate vote on one or more of a set of independent resolutions on different subjects, or a divisible set of amendments, that have been offered by a single motion (pp. 110, 274–75), e) a request or inquiry (32, 33) that requires an immediate response; or, in certain special circumstances, these additional purposes: f) an Appeal (24), g) an Objection to the Consideration of a Question (26), or h) a Division of the Assembly (29). After a member has been assigned the floor but before he has begun to speak, it is in order to take any of the steps listed above, and also, if there may be no other opportunity, to rise for the purpose of: a) giving notice of intent to introduce a motion requiring such notice (pp. 121–24); or b ) making a motion to Reconsider (37) or to Reconsider and Enter on the Minutes (pp. 332–35). If an interruption occurs for any of the reasons listed above, the member who had the floor does not lose it, [page 385] although he takes his seat while the interrupting matter is being attended to. As soon as the interruption has been disposed of, the chair directs him to rise and proceed by saying, for example, "Mr. Lewis has the floor." If a member presenting a committee report or other document to the assembly hands it to the secretary or a reading clerk to be read, the member does not thereby yield the floor, but has it again when the reading is finished. When a member has risen to claim the floor or has been assigned the floor, it is out of order for another to call out a motion to adjourn, or a motion to lay the pending question on the table. If someone does so, or if calls of "Question!" are made, it is the duty of the chair to obtain order and protect the rights of the member who is entitled to the floor."

Agreeing with the previous posters, it makes a difference as to exactly what the situation is and what is going on, who has the floor and what you are trying to do at the moment of interruption and what the reason is for the interruption. And who is doing the interrupting. It is something we simply cannot generalize about.

Yes, but certain interuptions are permitted. It depends on the circumstances. Can you be more specific about the situation you are concerned about?

All that is needed, really, is for a couple of members to show up, call the meeting to order and then set an adjourned meeting for whatever date and time has been agreed to in advance and then adjourn. Setting an adjourned meeting is one of the few things that can be done in the absence of a quorum.

I agree with the post immediately above by Josh Martin. I don't think anything in RONR contemplates "approval voting" in which members may vote for as many candidates as they want to regardless of the number of positions to be filled.

That's not what RONR says or even implies.

Oh, I am. I would take the position that RONR "In Brief" is the parliamentary authority. I've been thinking about this since the NAP convention in September. Josh suggested just about the same language I have been contemplating. To be safe, though, I suppose even stronger language could be used, such as saying "except for the next to last paragraph on page 7". Edited to change "last paragraph" to "next to last paragraph" on page 7. Sigh. . .

Jimmy, your issue is legal, not parliamentary. I'm afraid we can't help you with that.

Do your bylaws authorize committees to meet by telephone? That is what I think you should do, even though Mr. Honemann seems to be of a contrary opinion. I am basing my opinion on the clear statement in RONR that a candidate nominated by a nominating committee may withdraw. The language in RONR is clear and unambiguous. The committee should meet again only if there is time to do so. Perhaps that can be done by telephone or by all members agreeing to a new report as RONR permits. But, if you decide to leave the name on the ballot, I think the membership should be made aware that the candidate has asked that his (or her) name be withdrawn. RONR does not require that, but it seems to me to be the appropriate thing to do. It's true that if that candidate is elected, he might well decide to go ahead and serve, but it is also true that if he will not serve if elected, then you have an incomplete election and/or a vacancy and must have a new election or follow whatever procedure is required by your bylaws for resolving an incomplete election.

Then what about the provisions on pages 435 and 441? In the case of the page 435 reference, the nomination being referred to by RONR is being made by the nominating committee, but the book clearly says a nominee in such a case may withdraw.

Hmmm. I'm afraid that I reluctantly disagree with.... or at least express serious reservations with... Dr. Stackpole's statement that a nominee may withdraw only with the permission of the assembly. I base this opinion on two separate provisions in RONR which indicate clearly... to me, at least... that a nominee MAY in fact voluntarily withdraw as a candidate. Nothing is said in either provision indicating that the permission of the assembly is required. I am bolding what I see as the key statement in each section. The first is lines 4 - 8 on page 435, regarding nominating committees, which reads as follows: "A nominating committee is automatically discharged when its report is formally presented to the assembly, although if one of the nominees withdraws before the election, the committee is revived and should meet immediately to agree upon another nomination if there is time." The second provision is on page 441 at lines 1 - 8: "Whichever one of the preceding methods of election is used, if any office remains unfilled after the first ballot, as may happen if there are more than two nominees, the balloting is repeated for that office as many times as necessary to obtain a majority vote for a single candidate. When repeated balloting for an office is necessary, individuals are never removed from candidacy on the next ballot unless they voluntarily withdraw—which they are not obligated to do. . . ." Neither provision makes any reference to the permission of the assembly being required in order for a nominee (or candidate) to withdraw his candidacy. As to Dr. Stackpole's analogy to withdrawing a name from nomination being equivalent to withdrawing a motion once it has been stated by the chair, I suggest that it is not a good analogy primarily because that in the case of the report of a nominating committee (as is the case here), we have no evidence that the chair has actually stated that those particular names are "in nomination". At this point, we have only a committee report. I submit that withdrawing from a nomination (or at least withdrawing from a nomination by a nominating committee that is only a report of a committee) is not at all equivalent to requiring the permission of the assembly to withdraw a motion once it has been stated by the chair. There have been many discussions in this forum about whether a member may "decline" a nomination or withdraw his name from nomination, but the two provisions I quoted from RONR seem to say quite clearly that a candidate (or nominee) may, in fact, withdraw voluntarily.

No, not unless you have some superior rule that requires it. For example, public bodies such as city councils and school boards in some jurisdictions might be required by state or local law to make them available.

😉. I know the feeling. I'm a bit bothered, too, by a book telling me I can't adopt it even if I want to and that if I do it anyway I have actually adopted something else that I had absolutely no intention of adopting!