Richard Brown

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.

Yes, they do.

George, that is what I was about to say in response the the question by Godelfan. The assembly can probably direct the committee to meet on (or before) a certain date and time. Also, the appointing power can probably replace the chair if the chair is neglecting his duties. RONR provides a somewhat similar procedure for reporting to the assembly that the committee is being obstructed in its work. It simply cannot be said that the committee is helpless to do its work if the chairman doesn't call a meeting on the timetable that some two members might prefer. There are remedies. I read the provisions on page 499 and those on 501 as applying to distinctly different fact situations. I still believe only the chair can call subsequent committee meetings when the committee itself has not scheduled the next meeting. I don't know what the authorship team intended by using the language it did on pages 499 and 501, but I don't think any two members should be allowed to call subsequent committee meetings unless something in RONR expressly says so..... and it doesn't right now.

George and Dan: How do you reconcile the language on page 499 at lines 19-25 with the language on page 501 at lines 29-34? The language on page 499 is in a paragraph clearly dealing with the INITIAL meeting after a new committee is formed. There might not even be a chairman selected at that time, thus the language allowing any two members to call the first meeting. The language on page 501, on the other hand, is clearly dealing with subsequent meetings after the initial meeting. That section says it is up to the chairman to call future meetings unless the committee itself set the next meeting date. Debbie's situation clearly falls into the second category.... it is a subsequent meeting, not the initial meeting.

Kim, I disagree. The quote you provided from page 499 about any two members being able to call a meeting of the committee is referring to the FIRST meeting of a committee. Page 501 at lines 28 - 34 covers subsequent meetings. That provision, quoted below, seems to make it plain that subsequent meetings of the committee must be called by the chair unless the committee itself sets the date for its next meeting. The is no provision in RONR for two committee members to call subsequent committee meetings after the initial meeting. From page 501: "ADJOURNMENT; PROVISION FOR FUTURE MEETINGS. When a committee intends to reconvene, it can simply adjourn, or adjourn to meet at a later time. In the first case—when it adjourns without appointing a time for another meeting—the next meeting is held at the call of the chairman, who must ensure that reasonable notice of its time and place is sent to every committee member (see p. 499"

No. You have an incomplete election and should vote again.

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