Richard Brown

Yep.

Yes. As Mr. Mervosh pointed out, the procedure is called "Filling Blanks". A blank is created and all suggestions are listed, much like all nominees are listed on a ballot. Once one of the suggestions receives a majority vote, the blank is filled with that name and then the original motion, with the blank filled in with the "winning" name, is voted on. You're confident EricR has a copy of RONR?

No, a motion and second are not needed in order to vote for the officers if it is something that the bylaws specify is to be done at a particular meeting.

Without reading the exact language of the relevant provision in the bylaws, I'm not ready to assume conclusively that the president must call a special meeting upon being petitioned to do so by one member. That does appear to be what CrystalDiamond said the bylaws say, but I want to see the exact wording. If that is the case, then any member can essentially demand a special meeting for the purpose of removing the president. But, what if the president refuses to call said special meeting? It still appears to take a special meeting to remove him, unless the members can avail themselves of the process described on page 653 of RONR. The final two options seem to be amending the bylaws to make it easier to remove the president or just do nothing and let him serve out his term. He can, of course, be the subject of motions of censure and of being removed from presiding at meetings per pages 651-653 in the meantime.

This is likely more complicated than might appear at first glance. I suggest you read your bylaws very carefully, looking for all provisions that might be applicable. You might find your answer there. Second, what do your bylaws say about terms of office? It might be easier to remove an officer from office without cause as set out on page 653, but that depends on the exact wording of your bylaws regarding terms of office. RONR has an entire chapter of 26 pages (Chapter XX) on discipline, including removal from office. However, since your own bylaws contain a provision on removal for cause, your own bylaw provision may supersede the provisions in RONR. You might look at FAQ # 20 for some information on removal from office: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20 Edited to add: Referring to a question above by Joshua Katz, are you sure that your president is the only person who can call a special meeting? Do you have a board? If so, can the board call a special meeting? What is the EXACT wording about a member petitioning the president to call a special meeting?

Ranked Ballots? What exactly is that? That is a term that does not appear in RONR. Are you perhaps talking about preferential voting? You might keep in mind that RONR prohibits preferential voting unless specifically authorized in the bylaws. As to using plurality voting, that also must be authorized in the bylaws. As to dropping the candidate with the fewest number of votes for the next round of balloting, RONR prohibits that, but an organization can adopt a special rule of order requiring it or can suspend the rules to permit the dropping of the candidate with the fewest number of votes. (page 441, text and footnote). However, the candidates may agree among themselves that the one with the fewest votes will voluntarily withdraw or that if there is a tie, they will decide by lot that one of them will withdraw. There are caveats that must be kept in mind though, such as the fact that only a bylaws provision can make a candidate who has withdrawn ineligible to serve if elected, which is something that can happen with write in ballots.

I think we have already answered this question. The president has no power to strip anyone of powers or rights conferred in the bylaws unless you have a bylaw provision expressly giving him that power. Edited to add: being the chief executive officer of the organization doesn't even come close to giving him such power.

Also, neither the president nor a board can strip an officer of duties or rights assigned to the officer in the bylaws, short of certain formal disciplinary procedures. It certainly cannot be done without a vote. The disciplinary procedures in RONR are very detailed and rather complicated.

RONR does not require the use of any kind of application by a nominating committee. If such a requirement exists, it must be in your own rules. The purpose of the nominating committee is for its members to use their own judgment in selecting the people who the committee is going to nominate. RONR contains no restrictions regarding nominating people for more than one position or nominating more than one person for a position. That is all wide open, subject only to your own rules.

Well, that's interesting! Just exactly what do they think would happen if there isn't a two thirds vote to change denominations or to stay the same?? Again, you don't vote on maintaining the status quo. You vote only on changing something. If the vote to change fails, then things stay the same.

Agreeing with Dr . Stackpole, a vote should be needed only in order to change something or do something new. Unless your bylaws provide otherwise , a vote should never be required to maintain the status quo.

To clarify what could be a misunderstanding about Dr. Stackpole's correct post, the other nominees for that particular office remain on the ballot. You do not repeat the election for those positions already filled.

I agree that your only options might be to remove the president or amend the bylaws to provide that the vice-president or someone authorized by the board can sign contracts. However, I think the issue of whether the Board can authorize the vice president and treasurer to sign contracts for this particular project is a legal question that is beyond the scope of this forum. I think it is important to pay attention to the precise wording of the relevant bylaw provision. It seems to me to say, rather clearly, that it is the board that must AUTHORIZE contracts. So, it seems to me that the president's signature may not be is not necessary in order for a contract to be authorized. The next question is whether the president's signature is actually required in order to have a binding contract. That is a legal question, not a parliamentary one. I also think the relevant bylaw provision could be read to mean that the president SHOULD sign all contracts, but that his signature isn't necessarily required in order for the organization to enter into an enforceable contract. So, this issue is also, in my opinion, a question of bylaws interpretation, something else that we on this forum cannot do for you. Only the members of your organization (and the courts) can interpret its bylaws.

I agree with Mr. Honemann's analysis, assuming we have the correct facts. I have a concern and a question about this business of amending the agenda to add the additional item. It's true that Mr. Tatara said, in his initial post IN THIS THREAD, that having the assembly take up this additional item will require amending the agenda and that doing so will require a two thirds vote. However, I'm not sure that procedure is exactly what the bylaws require. This thread seems inextricably tied to Mr. Tatara's earlier thread titled "Preface to a Motion" and originally posted on Tuesday, Nov 28. This thread is a follow up to that thread. In that thread, he made the following opening statement: "The constitution and bylaws (C&BL) of our religious assembly state that the agenda for the general assembly meeting must be set one week in advance by a council made up of leaders of each of the main boards that manage the church business. The C&BL further states : Any new business not on the agenda will be at the will of the Voters Assembly. If an assembly member wants to bring business forward that is not on the agenda, we believe the right way to do this is for the member to make a motion requesting that the assembly consider hearing new business that is not on the agenda." Saying that any new business not on the agenda will be at the will of the voters assembly is not exactly the same thing as saying the agenda must be amended. I believe I introduced the concept of amending the agenda in my response to Mr. Tatara in the other thread when I said, in effect, that as a practical matter, I would treat getting said permission as a motion to amend the agenda to add an additional item to it. However, I don't think it's ever been established that that is in fact the way this should be handled per the quote from the bylaws in the other thread. And, further complicating things, based on the bylaws quote in the other thread, what vote would be required to get the permission of the assembly to add the additional item? A majority vote or a two thirds vote? The applicable bylaw provision, as quoted above says, "Any new business not on the agenda will be at the will of the Voters Assembly". So, that brings up the question: What vote is required to obtain the permission of the assembly to add this item to the agenda? A two thirds vote or a majority vote? Here is a link to the other thread: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/31019-preface-to-a-motion/

You consider whether it's time to disband the organization. You can also make nominations from the floor and have write-in candidates. Often , when someone is actually nominated or elected, he will agree to serve.

Unless there is some rule to the contrary, I see absolutely nothing wrong with members contacting the president for information or consulting with him regarding the organization's affairs. There is certainly no rule in RONR that prohibits it . Members, including the president, can have all of the private conversations with each other about the organization that they want to have.

Weighing in only on two aspects of the original post and the responses by Joshua Katz and Greg Goodwiller, I thought Joshua's example of a motion to do something bad still being in order was appropriate. I thought it appropriately made the distinction between violating a substantive law and violating a procedural one. I've seen similar examples used in this forum many times. I also agree with Mr. Goodwiller's suggestion to consult with an attorney. The original post presents as many or more legal questions as parliamentary ones. I was a bit taken by surprise by Mr. Gerber's response and am still trying to digest it all. I'm thinking maybe Mr. Gerber misunderstood the point that Mr. Katz was trying to make regarding motions that violate substantive criminal laws being in order but motions that violate procedural laws being out of order. I think the original poster was taking the position that a motion would be out of order if it violates some substantive law. That position is not correct, or certainly is not necessarily correct. I think that is the point Mr. Katz was addressing. And I commend Mr. Katz for tackling the question in the first place. The original post by Mr. Tatara is a difficult one to fully respond to. I decided to pass on it initially because of the complex nature of it and not wanting to have to invest the time at that moment that a full answer would require.

Agreeing with Mr. Marin and Mr. Honemann,"i would point out that another provision says the board shall be responsible for "making suggestions and recommending programs". There would be no need for such language unless the membership has the power to adopt said suggestions.

I could use some provisions right about now. Would prefer bacon , but sure wouldn't turn down hot Krispy Kreme donuts!

Agreeing with StCad and Josh Martin, I think the "authority" of the president or chairman to permit guests to attend a meeting depends very much on custom and on how much the membership defers to the chairman in such matters. It is quite common for the membership to defer to the presiding officer to make decisions on such matters with the membership essentially consenting to it by unanimous consent. Any member certainly has the right to object.

Guest David, you might find this thread from 2012 somewhat enlightening:

Perhaps we don't have a clear understanding of what Mr. Tatara means when he speaks of a "preface to the motion". I took it to mean that he is wondering if the request to consider a motion not on the agenda should state the nature of the motion. I think it absolutely should and that is what I think I said. I never intended for anyone to take my comment as a suggestion that the motion actually be debated prior to its introduction. I took his question to be whether it is even appropriate to state the nature of the motion. I fully agree that a motion to amend the agenda, or a motion to have the assembly take up a motion not on the agenda is debatable and the debate is the time to give the reasons in support of the motion. I disagree with George Mervosh only in one limited way: I don't view this as a motion to suspend the rules because the rules of the organization already provide that a matter not on the agenda can be taken up with the consent of the assembly.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. As a practical matter, and for procedural purposes, I would be inclined to treat the request to take up a matter not on the agenda as a motion to amend the agenda. As such, I believe the matter to be taken up (or added to the agenda) should be specified. I'm confident there are also other ways of doing it.

Perhaps the answer to FAQ # 11 will be of help. If you still have questions, let us know. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#11

No. Unless you have some customized rule to the contrary, the immediate past president (or, I suppose, captain), is the last person to hold that office PRIOR TO the current occupant of the office. An officer such as president doesn't become a past president (or immediate past president) until he is no longer president.