Richard Brown

And if there is a tie vote, the amendment fails. If there are no other amendments, the minutes are approved.

Agreeing with previous responses, the chair should simply declare the minutes approved if no corrections are adopted. Assuming that the third member is not present, and the other two cannot agree on a correction, then the minutes as read or distributed by the secretary should be declared approved. Edited to add: The following language from the bottom of page 354 and the top of 355 is pertinent: "After any proposed corrections have been disposed of, and when there is no response to the chair's inquiry, "Are [page 355] there any corrections [or "further corrections"] to the minutes?" the chair says, "There being no corrections [or "no further corrections"] to the minutes, the minutes stand [or "are"] approved [or "approved as read," or "approved as corrected"]." The minutes are thus approved without any formal vote, even if a motion for their approval has been made. The only proper way to object to the approval of the secretary's draft of the minutes is to offer a correction to it. It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval." (Emphasis added)

I would be VERY concerned about a rule worded the way that one is. I interpret that provision as requiring the vote of three fourths of the ENTIRE MEMBERSHIP. That can be awfully hard to obtain. That rule means that if you have 100 members, you must have 75 yes votes to remove an officer, not just 3/4 of those present and voting. That's an almost impossible requirement in most organizations. Are you sure that's what you want? Can you even get 75 percent of your members to go to a meeting? Maybe others view the rule as harmless, but I view it as perhaps impossible to obtain.

Are these procedures for short cutting normal meeting procedures spelled out in your bylaws? There is probably a way, through the adoption of various motions involving suspending the rules, to accomplish some of what you want, but I'm not able to think at the moment of just how you would do that. I think that to accomplish what you really want to do will require amending your bylaws. However, if enough of your members agree, you can always adopt a Special Rule of Order limiting debate at meetings. Also, at any given meeting, a motion limiting debate can be adopted. Either method would require a two-thirds vote and adopting a special ruler water rule of order would also require previous notice. Edited to add: of course, a motion for the previous question can also be adopted on each motion being considered if a two-thirds vote to adopt it can be obtained.

Yes, by use of the motion to rescind or amend something previously adopted. It requires a majority vote if previous notice is given, but requires a two-thirds Vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership without previous notice. Previous notice means notice given in the call of the meeting or given verbally at the previous meeting.

RONR provides that the chair should almost always ask for the negative vote after calling for the yeas. The chair does not ask for abstentions. Here is the pertinent language from pages 44-45 of the current 11th edition of RONR: " The vote on a motion is normally taken by voice (or viva voce),* unless, under certain conditions, it is taken by rising or—sometimes in committees, or in small boards, or other very small assemblies—by a show of hands. In putting [page 45] the question by any of these methods, the chair calls first for the affirmative vote, and all who wish to vote in favor of the motion so indicate in the manner specified; then he calls for the negative vote. The chair must always call for the negative vote, no matter how nearly unanimous the affirmative vote may appear, except that this rule is commonly relaxed in the case of noncontroversial motions of a complimentary or courtesy nature; but even in such a case, if any member objects, the chair must call for the negative vote. A further exception arises when the negative vote is intrinsically irrelevant, as, for example, when "a vote of one fifth of the members present" is required, and the number who have voted in the affirmative is clearly greater than one fifth of those present (see p. 403). The chair should not call for abstentions in taking a vote, since the number of members who respond to such a call is meaningless. To "abstain" means not to vote at all, and a member who makes no response if "abstentions" are called for abstains just as much as one who responds to that effect (see also p. 407). "

Yes.

It would help if you would quote the EXACT language from the parent's organization's constitution, bylaws or other rule which states specifically that upon being chartered, an affiliate organization is deemed to have adopted the standard bylaws provided by the parent organization. Also quote the language about the parent organization being the only body that can amend an affiliate's constitution or bylaws. Edited to add: I just read the "standard" constitution provided by Rotary International and also the "standard" bylaws. The constitution does indeed say that it can be amended only by the parent body (I believe that is Rotary International). The bylaws, on the other hand, can be amended by the local affiliate. I'm still curious, though, as to what provision is in the parent organization's constitution and bylaws that states, in essence, that by applying ror and accepting a charter, the local affiliate is deemed to have adopted the standard constitution and also the standard bylaws.

Agreeing with Gary Tesser, I do not understand what our guest is asking.

I think such a motion would be in order but others might disagree. It is a close call. The question is whether the new motion presents substantially the same motion as was presented before. I am on my cell phone and do not have RONR are with me at the moment to give you a citation. It would have been better perhaps to have tried to amend the original motion to either substitute $300 for $500 or to create a blank, but that is not absolutely required. A ruling of the chair as to whether the new motion is or is not in order can of course be appealed to the assembly. Just a few days ago there was a very similar issue discussed at great length in this forum. Our regular posters were somewhat divided as to whether the new motion constituted a substantially different motion from the first one. Note: if a point of order that the new motion is out of water is sustained, a member could move to suspend the rules so as to allow the new motion. Doing so would require a two-thirds vote.

I suggest you either offer dancing girls (or guys) and free beer at your annual meeting or you amend your by-laws to provide for a lower quorum. Or prohibit voting by mail. Your analysis of the situation where you do not have a quorum present but 20 or more people may submit mail-in ballots is correct. Unless you amend your bylaws, you must have 15 members present in order to have a quorum and conduct business (except for the four things you can do in the absence of a quorum).

Did you read the language at the bottom of page 104 and top of 105? Such a motion is clearly in order when made for the purpose I set out, namely to prevent the Board from going against the wishes of the membership. Here's the applicable language: "A motion whose only effect is to propose that the assembly refrain from doing something should not be offered if the same result can be accomplished by offering no motion at all. It is incorrect, for example, to move "that no response be made" to a request for a contribution to a fund, or "that [page 105] our delegates be given no instructions," unless some purpose would be served by adoption of such a motion. This could be the case, for example, if the membership of an organization wishes to make certain that a subordinate body, such as its executive board, will not take such action at a later date, or if the motion expresses an opinion or reason as to why no action should be taken. " (Emphasis added) That is exactly the example I used.

Guest Jean, I agree with Dr. Stackpole. However, your question sounds suspiciously like you are referring to a public body. If so, look first to the rules of that body and to any applicable state law. It is quite common for public bodies such as city councils to have what is called an "agenda meeting" to discuss and/or determine what will be on the agenda. As Dr. Stackpole pointed out, such a meeting is not required (or even mentioned) in RONR. But, your organization has great latitude in adopting its own rules regarding how the agenda is prepared.

Alexis I agree with the first paragraph of your answer but not with the second paragraph concerning mail ballots. I agree that voting by mail is not permitted unless authorized in the bylaws. However, RONR does not say that mail ballots cannot be mixed with the ballots of those who vote in person. RONR says they SHOULD NOT be mixed but does not say they CANNOT be mixed. The election will still be valid even if mail ballots and in-person ballots are mixed together. It is not an either/or situation. Mixing mail ballots with in-person ballots is problematic because those who vote by mail may not be voting on precisely the same issues or for precisely the same candidates as those who are present at the meeting and voting in person. I agree that mail ballots do not count towards the quorum unless the bylaws or controlling state law provide otherwise. Edited to add: See "Absentee Voting" on pages 423-424.

It appears that you have your own rules or customs which differ from the rules in RONR. RONR provides that the secretary takes the minutes and signs them before they are approved. In any event, the person who actually took the minutes should normally sign them. If the secretary also signs them after the board approves them and that is your custom or rule, then of course you may continue to do so. Based on those additional facts, I agree with Mr. Martin's comment above .

I can envision situations where I believe it would be in order. An example would be if the membership is hearing rumors that the board, which is authorized to act between meetings, is planning to adopt a resolution to enter a float in the parade but the membership does not want to enter a float in the parade. The membership could adopt a motion to not enter a float in the parade. The board within would then be prohibited from adopting a motion to enter the float. As an alternative, the membership could probably adopt a motion directing the board not to enter a float in the parade.

I'm not sure what Rocco is asking, but if the bylaws say that directors must be elected and must be unit owners then they must be elected and must be unit owners. It makes a big difference whether the bylaws say there shall be seven directors or there may be seven directors. There is a big difference. In any event, the provisions of the bylaws must be complied with. I really don't understand the question about amending the bylaws.

I'm curious as to why you think that moving to ratify the motions improperly adopted would not be a proper method of dealing with them. btw, a motion to ratify could be adopted by a majority vote, couldn't it? Everyone would not have to be in agreement, but just a majority of those voting at a proper meeting. I don't understand why you believe it is necessary... or better.... to have them declared null and void at one meeting and then have to re-introduce them at another meeting. Based on the language at the bottom of page 124, a motion to ratify is in order when a motion was adopted at a special meeting but was not listed in the call of the meeting. From page 124: "The motion to ratify (also called approve or confirm) is an incidental main motion that is used to confirm or make valid an action already taken that cannot become valid until approved by the assembly. Cases where the procedure of ratification is applicable include: • action improperly taken at a regular or properly called meeting at which no quorum was present; • action taken at a special meeting with regard to business not mentioned in the call of that meeting; • action taken by officers, committees, delegates, or subordinate bodies in excess of their instructions or authority; [page 125] • action taken by a local unit that requires approval of the state or national organization; or • action taken by a state or national society subject to approval by its constituent units."

I have the same question as SaintCad: Do the bylaws require that nominations pass through this committee? What exactly do the bylaws say about nominations?

I agree with SaintCad's statement, but I'm not sure it answers the question. I interpret new member Figuy's post as meaning the president arbitrarily disbanded the committee, rather than "discharging" the committee by taking the matter the committee was studying away from it. However, the president, acting alone, does not have the authority to either dissolve (disband) the committee or to take away from it whatever matter was referred to it. Only the board can do either of those things.

Alex I have learned that when a member of the public wants to do something unusual at a council meeting, such as a slideshow or a PowerPoint presentation, it is usually best to talk to the council Clerk or or the chairman or another council member in advance to explain what you want to do and try to get a tentative okay in advance. Putting on a PowerPoint presentation may require so much extra set up time in the middle of the council meeting that they will deny your request unless they are prepared for it in advance.

Alex, if you are a member of the public, you have very few if any rights. You will have only those rights that the council or its rules or state law Grant to members of the public. Everything in Robert's Rules of Order deals with members of the body that is meeting. You are not a member of the body that is meeting. You will have only whatever rights are granted to members of the public who are appearing before the council. My guess is that you will probably be entirely at the mercy of the council. But yes, check to see what rights their rules and stste law grant to members of the public.

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws. The answer depends on the exact wording of your bylaws. In my opinion, when a society has different classes of membership, all of the members have all rights of membership except for those rights specifically denied to a specific class. To say that members have only the rights specifically granted would mean that even your class A members do not have the right to make motions or to debate because the bylaws don't specifically grant them those rights. . Stay tuned. This topic comes up from time to time. Other members might disagree. As to your question No 2 regarding when a motion must be questioned, it must be objected to by a timely point of order made immediately at the time of the breach or it is waived. The reasons for the motion, however, such as the reasons for the change in classifications, are properly the subject of the debate on the motion.

Perhaps. And it does seem like a good way to make the request. But, you do understand that this is a town council meeting and guest Alex is a member of the public and not a council member, right? And that the RONR provision you mentioned refers to members of the body that is meeting.

That is something entirely up to your council.