Richard Brown

I agree. As our old friend "Edgar Guest" used to say, "You count heads, not hats".

Thanks for jumping in so quickly, John! Your article, which you linked to, is a must read for anyone in an organization that has or is even thinking about co-chairs or co-anythings.

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, but I interpret the quoted provision to mean that it is important only that the person possess the qualifications at the time he actually takes office. That date appears to be January 1.

That depends on EXACTLY what your bylaws say and is ultimately a question your organization must decide for itself. RONR does not address that specific issue.

I agree with Mr. Huynh but would add that the board itself may agree to make the board minutes available to others such as general members. Also, unless the meeting was in executive session, individual board members are free to share the minutes, but other board members might frown on this. Edited to add: the rules in RONR do not prohibit sharing the minutes, but provide that only members of the body which was meeting have the RIGHT to see the minutes.

I don't understand. If the president is also elected to the position of secretary-treasurer, he will be holding two positions. If you are talking about splitting the combined position of secretary-treasurer into two separate positions, that would require a bylaws amendment if the current bylaws state that it is one position.

Not if the requirement is an ordinary "majority vote", as opposed to "a majority of the members present" or "a majority of the entire membership". If the requirement is an ordinary majority vote, it is based on the number of members voting, not the number present. A vote of 2 to1 is a majority vote. So is a vote of 1 to 0. It doesn't matter how many are present as long as you have a quorum.

Guest Kim, I don't quite understand the facts. Perhaps it is because your second sentence doesn't make much sense. Can you try to clarify.... and tell us what position this person currently holds and what position she wants to run for? What "both positions" are you referring to? I can tell you, though, without waiting for more information, that once a person resigns from a position, that person does not automatically get to "reclaim" the prior position. It's possible she can be re-elected to it or be appointed to it, but it is certainly not automatic.

Agreeing with the previous responses, I would add that this sort of thing is usually handled by unanimous consent, often by the chair stating "If there is no objection, we will allow Mr. Expert to address us for ten minutes regarding the upcoming Special Olympics." In my experience, it is rare for such things to be controversial or subject to debate. It is also quite customary for a chairman, maybe after obtaining general agreement from some other members, to invite someone to attend the meeting and to address the board, with the actual formal approval taking place by unanimous consent at the meeting.

I agree with Gary Novosielski's comments and will add that it is my firm opinion that when the bylaws restrict one or more of the basic rights of a class of membership, those members still have all rights of membership except for those specifically restricted . I also believe that conclusion is the correct conclusion when applying the principles of interpretation of bylaws to such a statement in the bylaws. Only those rights specifically mentioned are excluded. Ultimately, though, it is up to each organization to interpret its own bylaws. Edited to add: I also agree with all of the comments preceding Mr.Novosielski's first comment.

You have at least two more options for approving minutes when the next meeting is too far away. The first is to have the assembly, at some point prior to adjournment, authorize and appointment a special committee to approve the minutes of the meeting. The second option is to adopt a special rule of order providing for that to be done with all minutes. Frequenly, the board is authorized to approve minutes of general membership meetings.

Approval is done without a vote, but I don't believe Mr. Honemann said anything about unanimous consent. In fact, once there are no more corrections, the chair simply declares the minutes adopted. That's not the same thing as unanimous consent. In fact, even if a member objects, the chair should still declare the minutes approved unless another correction is proposed. That might be a strange concept for the average layman, but it is the rule in RONR. (The rule in the AIP Standard Code of Parliamentary Procedure appears to be slightly different, but we are discussing the rules in RONR).

Isn't that what Mr. Honemann said in the first response?

Just to be clear, all members of the body that met in executive session are entitled to see the minutes of the executive session regardless of whether they were in attendance at the meeting. Likewise, new members of the body that met are entitled to see executive session minutes even though they were not members at the time of the meeting.

Not necessarily. In small boards and committees of no more than about a dozen members, the rules are relaxed and the chairman may participate and vote the same as the other members. Edited to add: see FAQ #1 for more information: http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#1

Sounds as good as any other reason!

Only by means of the motion to reconsider the original vote. Said motion must be made by a member who voted on the prevailing side. However, the motion may be renewed (made again) at the next or any subsequent session just as if it had never been considered before.

Thanks, John! I did not have a link to it, but rather have it saved as a word document.

Dr. Stackpole sent it to me and has given me permission to share it with anyone i want to as long as i give him credit for it, which I do. That's good enough for me. You want a copy of it?

Nothing in RONR prohibits it.

Guest Nicole, you said you aren't necessarily asking whether co-representatives are a good idea. We have already hinted that we think it is NOT a good idea, but I'm going to go a step further. One of our regular posters, Dr. John Stackpole (JStackpo) published an article in the NAP magazine, the National Parliamentarian in the July 2009 issue titled "The Problems with Co-Anythings". If you will send me your email address, I will email you a copy of it. My email address is in the "About Me" section of my profile.

Guest Bob, are the bylaws you just quoted from your local unit bylaws or from the parent organization's bylaws? If the parent organization, what, exactly, do your local bylaws say about the officers?

I agree with Josh Martin and had been thinking the same thing.

Agreeing with the previous responses, there might well be a bylaw provision which says that certain members of the board must be male and also a separate provision regarding the qualifications to be Secretary and a provision which ssys the Secretary shall ex officio be a member of the board. If that is the case, per RONR, the more specific provision of the bylaws prevails over the more general provision. In my opinion, the specific provisions regarding the Secretary are the more specific and would control. In other words, the Secretary might well be an exception to the otherwise "all male" requirement. Ultimately, though, it is up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws.

RONR says nominations are debatable, but it actually provides precious little guidance as to how and when to go about debating said nominations. One can always hope that a future edition will provide some guidance on that issue.