Richard Brown

I agree with Mr. Goldsworthy. Your proposed change is just asking for trouble.

Yes. Adopted motions become effective immediately unless there is a rule to the contrary or the motion itself specifies a later date

Unless you have a rule to the contrary, at a meeting any member can move to amend the agenda to add something to it. RONR does not require previous notice except in certain limited circumstances.

I understand there are conversion programs available that might let you run it on a Mac (or maybe an iPad). Perhaps somebody with more expertise will weigh in. I'm using it on my Windows laptop. I know somebody who I believe has done it (or at least tried to). I will follow up with him.

A standing rule? I agree that a special rule of order would be sufficient and almost said so in my comment, but a standing rule? That rule, if not in the bylaws, would would have to be in the special rules of order, wouldn't it?

If your organization is incorporated, check your state's nonprofit corporation laws for any applicable provisions regarding access to the corporate records by the members.

. . . Unless your bylaws grant non board members the right to attend board meetings.

No, they do not, but, the meeting does need a quorum.

What "small handbook" are you referring to? The 716 page "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised 11th Edition" is the most in depth book you will find. It is the current official edition of Robert's Rules of Order and is what we in this forum base our answers on. http://robertsrules.com/book.html

This is perhaps more of a legal issue than it is a parliamentary one, but it seems to me that once the third Union ratified the referendum it became a done deal and that one Union cannot arbitrarily undo the deal by rescinding its previous approval. It seems to me like it is in the nature of a contract that has been accepted. It's sort of like someone wanting to change his vote after an election is over.

Yes. At the next meeting the motion can be renewed, I.e., made again just as if it had never been made

I agree. . I would also add that there might be school or university rules of some type that grant faculty and administration advisors the right to attend and / or participate in meetings of student organizations. Any such rules would trump the provisions of RONR.

I think that depending on state law, the organization's bylaws and other rules, and on the wording of the proxy, a proxy could perhaps be used for more than just voting. However, since the use of proxies is outside the scope of RONR, I believe giving advice on the legal effect of a proxy is beyond the scope of this forum. I believe that an attorney should be consulted on that issue. A proxy is actually a form of a power of attorney. Although proxies are normally used solely for voting and Quorum purposes, I don't know that they are necessarily limited to that.

The chair cannot unilaterally declare that an adopted bylaw Amendment is suddenly unadopted or deemed stricken. If it has already been adopted, it must be removed by a vote of the assembly. That can be done by unanimous consent with or without a formal motion having been made. The point is that only the assembly can remove it, not the chair.

You need to follow your bylaws. If the bylaws say that the board should approve the form, then the board should approve the form. Your original question seemed to indicate that someone had applied for membership but was rejected. Now you seem to be asking a different question. I am not sure what the situation is. However, we cannot interpret your bylaws for you. That is something only your organization can do

I assume from your post that new members must first be approved by the board. If that is the case, a person cannot become a member without being approved in the appropriate manner. Unless your bylaws prohibit it, perhaps the prospective member can reapply or the application can be resubmitted. You need to follow whatever procedure your own rules set out for becoming a member.

If this is a corporation of some kind, your state's corporation laws might contain controlling provisions that trump the rules in RONR.

OK, i'll take the first bite at this. As to Q1, I believe the rule can be suspended. I also believe that the assembly could adopt a special rule of order permitting motions to limit debate in committees. Q2: Not applicable as I believe the rule can be suspended. Q2b: I do not see the rule as protecting a minority of a particular size (or any minority, for that matter), so I believe it can be suspended with the traditional two thirds vote.

Or maybe he's using voice to text on a smartphone that isn't so smart.

You said the vote is an electronic vote. If that electronic vote is a secret vote, like a secret ballot, then the president votes along with everyone else unless your bylaws provide otherwise. The reason for that is that if the vote is by secret ballot, the president's choice is unknown to the assembly, thus preserving the appearance of impartiality. He does not vote twice. When the vote is not by secret ballot, RONR provides that the presiding officer does not vote except when his vote will affect the outcome, such as to break a tie, create a tie (which causes a motion to fail), to make a two thirds vote or to defeat a two thirds vote. If your bylaws provide otherwise, they control. If there is a tie vote on a motion,the motion fails. If there is a tie in an election, the result is an incomplete election (nobody is elected) and you vote again until someone wins a majority (or whatever percentage is required).

Mr. Mervosh is correct. And if the chair rules the point of order well taken, that amounts to an automatic, immediate removal from office. Whatever the ruling of the chair might be, it can be appealed to the assembly. It takes a majority vote to overrule the ruling of the chair.

I agree with Mr. Goldsworthy, but, as Mr. Mervosh correctly pointed out, there is a possibility that for some reason this person does not meet the qualifications in the bylaws and that is the reason for the chair's statement. We just don't know. The chair can rule someone not qualified for office only if that person fails to meet the qualifications in the bylaws. The personal feelings of the chair should never be a factor. If a presiding officer lets his personal feelings dictate what he does, he is subject to censure, discipline or removal from office. I suspect there is something going on here that we don't know about. What about it, Guest Butch? One more question: Did this really happen? And if so, was the person's name ultimately put in nomination? Keep in mind that unless your bylaws prohibit it, this person can still be elected as a write in candidate.

Which edition are you using? If you are using the only version of Robert's Rules available online, be advised that it is the 100 year old 4th edition that was published in 1915. We are now in the 11 edition. There have been quite a few changes in the text in the intervening 100 years. The provision that Dr. Stackpole quoted is in chapter VIII, section 25 "Suspend the Rules".

I agree. Not being eligible would be a legitimate reason for not allowing the nomination. I thought of that after I posted my comment but didn't go back and edit it because nothing in the original post indicated that to be the situation.

No. The chair does not have that power.