Richard Brown

Perhaps Guest PresidentM has left us and is never to return unless another parliamentary question arises. However, I do not understand the situation and have the same questions as godelfan.

There is nothing in RONR that prohibits or restricts gifts. However, as Dr Stackpole hinted, gifts from individual members could conceivably create the appearance of a conflict if the board is asked to approve something which a particular member who gave a gift wants. If, on the other hand, the membership takes up a collection rather than giving individual gifts, that might be less problematic.

I'm afraid the answer to your question depends more on the exact wording of the notices and your state's open meetings (sunshine) laws than RONR. It also strikes me as a judgment call as to whether what was done was proper.

No rule in RONR requires it.

That might apply unless this school board is a public body subject to the state's open meetings laws . Those laws generally protect the public and limit what can be done without prior notice to the public.

Agreeing with Mr Huynh, special meetings can be called only by the people authorized to do so in your bylaws.

Unless you have a specialized rule to the contrary, abstentions, blank ballots, and people who do not vote do not count. A blank ballot is an abstention An abstention is not a vote. Your interpretation is correct according to RONR .

Guest Watson, can you quote exactly what your bylaws say about selecting the recipient? An exact quote, please, not a paraphrase.

Perhaps. I reread the initial post. I took the second sentence to mean that there are no fixed terms and that members serve until replaced. But, a later sentence does make reference to terms expiring . In retrospect, you are probably correct.

I agree that it would probably be best to fill all of the vacancies at the same time if that can be done, but I don't see it as being a necessity. Let's not forget, however, that the committee members do not serve fixed terms but serve indefinitely until they are replaced. There are no naturally occurring vacancies. They all all occur only by death or resignation.

I agree with mr. Mervosh. I believe the assembly can delegate the task of selecting a recipient to the committee. It is equivalent, in my mind, to establishing a committee with power to carry out its recommendations.

The organization can adopt a special rule of order granting members of the board and/or the organization the right to attend executive committee meetings. An exception is often provided for executive sessions. A similar rule can be adopted granting organization members the right to attend board meetings.

My take is a bit different from Mr. Goldsworthy's. If the committee is supposed to be a certain size and has vacancies, those vacancies should be filled as soon as possible. It seems to me that should take priority over replacing existing members. However, I'm not aware of a rule in RONR that actually requires it. Check your own rules, ordinances and applicable state law. I read guest Thomas' original post as saying the members don't serve fixed terms and they don't have regular elections, but rather just replace members from time to time. I view filling vacancies as more important than replacing existing members.

At the NAP eNAP electronic unit online meeting Monday night a few of us were apparently snoozing and a few seconds too late (in the opinion of the chair) with shouting (well, typing, actually) "Appeal" and "I appeal from the decision of the chair". He ruled our multiple points of order and attempts to appeal out of order as being untimely by a few seconds. It all ended well because the motion we were trying to defeat through some parliamentary maneuvering wound up being voted down anyway in the end. It was all an unplanned but excellent exercise and lesson on what motions are in order after the previous question on all pending questions had been ordered and a vote on the first of two questions under the order had been taken but the vote on the second question had not actually started and the question had not yet been put to the assembly. And it was most definitely a good lesson on the importance of TIMELY points of order and appeals. Speak first, then look it up. You snooze, you lose. And suffer the consequences.

I agree Mr Huynh, but I don't know that I agree with your interpretation of your bylaws. I hasten to add, however, that we do not interpret bylaws on this forum. Only your organization can do that. My opinion really doesn't count except for suggesting that you reconsider your position. We don't know the purpose of your organization or its permanent endowment fund or the usual manner of funding it. I question whether that fund should really be considered funds of the organization. Putting money in that fund seems rather similar to making a donation to a charity, a relief fund or college fund. If all organization funds must remain in the control of the organization, you could never pay any bills or donate money to anything. That bylaw provision seems rather strange to me and perhaps needs to be interpreted by the organization as to whether it is intended to prevent donations to the permanent endowment fund. The normal way of doing that is for a member (or you) to raise a point of order that the transfer violates the bylaws and is prohibited. You can rule on it or submit it to assembly for a decision. If you rule on it, your ruling can be appealed to the assembly. It requires a majority vote to overrule your decision.

Comparing a couple of minor spelling and typographical errors to a completely nonsensical paragraph is like comparing exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph to going on a killing rampage. I guess, though, that a couple of you are so perfect that you have never made such mistakes and that you certainly won't make any in this forum in the future. ?

The President (or the chair) usually makes me initial ruling on the meaning of a bylaw provision if a point of order is raised or if he raises such a point on his own, but such a ruling is always subject to an appeal to the assembly. The assembly has the final word.

I wonder if guest Kantor's departmental meetings are really meetings of a deliberative assembly in the sense contemplated by RONR and if the rules in RONR really apply. . . .

Unless the President or the assembly rules that it was not a valid meeting, the majority vote of the committee is the decision of the committee. The committee chairman has no veto power and has only one vote, just like all the other members. When you miss a meeting, it is no different than a regular committee member missing a meeting. Edited to add: you said this meeting was a continuation of the previous meeting. Please explain.

Was the election at which the secretary was elected president a special election to fill the vacancy or was it a regular election? Based on the wording of your first two posts, I had assumed it was a special election. However, I realize now that it was probably a regular election. If it was a regular election, why was there not an election for secretary ? What do your bylaws say about the duties of the vice president and a vacancy in the office of President? Had the President's term expired when this election took place?

Reading a paper is reading a paper regardless of whose paper it is or what it says or why it is being read.

No rule in RONR prohibits a person from holding more than one office at once, but it is generally not a good idea for the same person to serve as president and secretary at the same time. It is hard to effectively do both jobs at the same time. If your organization is.incorporated, state law might prohibit it. Do your bylaws address dual office holding? As to your President dying in office, why didn't your vice president become president automatically? That is the primary role of a vice president. . . To automatically become president in the event of a vacancy in the office of President. That is the rule in RONR unless your bylaws provide otherwise. What do your bylaws say about it? It may be that your "former" vice president is actually now president and that the supposed election of the secretary (or anyone else) as president violates your bylaws and is null and void.

If this is a public body of some sort, it might be subject to state or local laws regarding an obligation to vote except, perhaps, where a member must recuse himself due to a conflict. Such provisions are not all that unusual. Any such laws would take precedence over RONR.

I don't understand what is going on, either.