Richard Brown

What do you mean when you asked if the second motion should have been "accepted"? Are you asking whether it should have been allowed on the floor or are you asking if it should have been adopted? Did the first motion provide, either directly or indirectly, that the "something" would be paid for if it cost money? For example, if the motion was to purchase something, that carries with it an implication that the something will be paid for. A little more information would be helpful.

Agreeing with Dr. Stackpole, it takes a majority vote to reopen nominations unless it is done by unanimous consent.

I agree with Messrs Honemann and Mervosh. I see no such limitation in RONR. Also. There are no "conditions" to this resignation. It is simply prospective, meaning it takes effect on a future date. Such resignations are quite common with elected officials, in business and in private voluntary societies. It makes for better planning and easier transitions.

A little more information would be helpful. But, based on what we have been told, tend to agree with Reverend Ed. I don't see anything wrong with submitting the letter of resignation by email. The issue is, unless your bylaws provide otherwise, a resignation does not become effective until it has been accepted or the society has had a reasonable opportunity to accept it. The mere act of submitting the resignation is not enough unless your bylaws specifically say that a resignation is effective when submitted. Also, a resignation may be withdrawn prior to being accepted or placed before the society.

Joejk, you said the"action was carried out". Does that mean that the society has already done what the motion proposed to do? If so, I would say it ought to be in the minutes as an act of the assembly or else the officers and/or members who carried out the act could wind up being personally responsible if it cost the society any money. As to whether members who were not at the meeting in question "should" vote, I remind you that members always have the right to abstain. It is an individual choice of each member.

It's one strange way to conduct an election and to count votes! BTW, neither you nor this article has told whether the rules specify exactly how many or what percentage of votes shall be deducted for each specific infraction. In other words, something like this: "Campaigning inside a polling place shall carry a penalty of 2% of the vote total for each instance in which it occurs". Or do these strange rules leave it up to the election commission to decide how many votes to deduct for various violations? These rules are in the bylaws and not separately adopted rules, correct? If these penalties are not in the bylaws, it is possible that they violate your bylaws. It's all very strange indeed. But, like Josh Martin keeps saying, I think you need a lawyer, not a Parliamentarian.

Christopher, do your bylaws or rules actually require deducting votes from candidates accused or convicted of improper campaigning? If so, is the penalty for various offences spelled out? We really need more information in order to answer your question. Nothing in RONR authorizes deducting votes from a candidate because of violating a rule. Under RONR, votes simply are not deducted from candidates for "bad behavior". Any such penalties would have to be contained in your own bylaws or rules.

Nothing in RONR requires advance distribution of information prior to a regular meeting unless it is something which your bylaws or the rules require previous notice of. Any such procedure would have to be found in your own rules or customs. Nothing in RONR prevents the secretary or any other member from Distributing information pertinent to an executive session to the members prior to the meeting. That is something else that would have to be in your own rules. As you know, if you are incorporated or otherwise subject to state procedural laws, those laws will take precedence over RONR. You seem to be doing the best you can to get the president and secretary to send out the information in advance of the meetings. If that is required by your rules, a member might also raise a point of order in addition to moving to postpone items or setting adjourned meetings if the matter can't wait until your next regular meeting. If there is currently no written rule requiring advance distribution, and that is something the members want, you should consider adopting such a rule.

I agree with Mr. Goodwiller. I believe that a resignation becomes irrevocable when it is accepted, regardless of the"effective date" of the resignation. Acceptance and effective date are two different things.

P.S. There is a reason RONR suggests on page 439 that at conventions and in large meetings where balloting can be time consuming, that "The elections should take place early in such a meeting, to allow time for any necessary additional balloting for any office for which no candidate receives a vote sufficient for election." There is a lot of wisdom and experience expressed in the 716+ pages of RONR. I suggest your society consider officially adopting it.... and following it. Edited to add: Other business can be conducted while the tellers are tabulating the ballots.

D Llama, I tend to agree with what I think be suggesting in your last post: namely, that the ballots be counted and the winners announced, using plurality voting if a candidate fails to receive a majority vote. Keep the ballots intact until the next election. And tell anyone who doesn't like it to file suit. btw, that's not in RONR. That's in "Richard Brown's suggestions for dealing with unanticipated messy situations not specifically dealt with in RONR". You gotta do something. You gotta move on. You can't just sit back and do nothing and let the organization wither away. I imagine that's not an option. Another alternative is to have the president or the board declare "no election" and let the current officers serve for another year. This would not be my preferred approach, but it's an option. And, again, if a member objects strongly enough, he can file suit. btw, when you do finally have a legitimate meeting, it might be a good idea to ratify the announced results of this election and all actions taken by the officers and board in the interim. Maybe not necessary, and maybe not even proper under RONR, but I think I would suggest it anyway. btw, I suspect this sort of thing isn't all that unusual. I was at a large convention once when something almost identical happened: The meeting had exceeded the time allowed in the contract for the meeting hall before the ballots had been counted. The organization had to vacate the meeting hall. So, they adjourned and the officers tellers continued counting the ballots in another location and the winners were announced an hour or so later. Everyone accepted that outcome. Sometimes you just gotta do what you gotta do. Edited again to add: Actually, I probably wouldn't say "if you don't like it, sue us". I would just say, "This is what we did". Period.

I think the answer would depend mostly on your bylaws. The exact wording on terms of office is important. You might see FAQ # 20 on the main website for more information. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

Adding to what Mr goldsworthy said, there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order that prevents a nominating committee from nominating more than one person for a position. Edited to add: Like Rev. Ed, I wonder why the chairman does not vote. Does some rule prevent it or is it just a custom? If you are following RONR, in a committee the chairman votes along with the other members.

Guest Tyler, it looks to me like your question is not one of parliamentary procedure but rather one of what criteria and standards are going to be used for selecting attendees. Other than that, I really can't add to what my colleagues have said. If you want a parliamentary procedure answer, the tried-and-true method is simply majority vote. For example, potential attendees could be nominated and then selected by majority vote the same way an organization would elect the members of the board of directors. If you have 10 nominees but can only select five attendees, the first five to attain a majority vote are selected. That's just one example of how you could do it.

I think it is important for Guest Patricia to keep in mind that if it was the general membership that set the deadline for returning ballots, the board likely has no authority to change what the general membership adopted at a membership meeting. If the board set the deadline, then perhaps the board can change it. But, if the deadline was set by a vote of the membership, only the membership can change it unless the bylaws or state law grant the board supreme power to reverse a vote of the membership.

Agreeing with Mr. Harrison, the proper recourse is for a member, at meeting, to raise a point of order that the election violated the bylaws and is therefore invalid . Void. You are correct that s bylaw requirement of a ballot vote cannot be waived or suspended.

It appears to me, based on the information provided, that only your board can fill that vacancy

Your bylaws may use the term"special meetings" rather than emergency meetings. If your bylaws do not provide for special meetings, and if this is truly an emergency, the members may still gather and informally decide to take whatever action they deem necessary. However, the members who vote to do that do it at their own risk and can be held personally liable if the board or the membership does not ratify the action at a proper meeting. Such action is not an official act of the organization unless and until it is properly ratified.

I disagree with your president. If your bylaws permit participating in board meetings by telephone, then that would include voting unless your bylaws specifically provide otherwise.

I tend to agree with Mr. Katz. I would treat it as a motion to postpone definitely (to a definite) time, but with that time being only until the next meeting, as that is as far as you can postpone it. A similar issue has come up in the forum as to what is the status of a motion that has improperly been postponed until a time too far. I believe the majority opinion in here is that it should be considered as having been postponed for one meeting, since it cannot be postponed beyond that. Keep checking back to see if others respond.

Your bylaws can also grant authority to a smaller body, such as a committee or board, to determine from time to time which groups shall be considered "constituent groups". Or the bylaws can grant that authority to whatever group is considered the "general membership" of that group. I don't understand your structure, so it is hard to be more specific.

Well, we have a couple (or more) major problems here. First, I question whether the motion to " postpone until amended project representing only X and Y streets is presented" was proper unless it was expected that the amended project would be presented at the same meeting or possibly at the next meeting. It is improper to postpone a question beyond the next session, which, in this case, is probably the next meeting. Except when being postponed until later in the same meeting, a motion to postpone to a definite time is usually made for a specific date or time. But, the motion to postpone it in this unusual manner was adopted. I'm not sure what the status of such an unorthodox motion is now, but I'm inclined to treat it as a postponement until the next meeting. Second issue: The conversation has somehow shifted from a postponement to being "laid on the table". If it is treated as being laid on the table, it dies if not taken off the table by the end of the next session. ANY member may move to take a motion from the table. The person who made the original motion or the motion to "postpone" (or to "table") has no more say than any other member. As Josh said, he does not own the motion. It is under the control of the assembly, not a single member. Whichever is the case, no one member is in control of the motion. Councilman # 4 cannot single handedly prevent it from coming back. You asked for a citation. As to taking from the table (not that I agree that the motion was ever laid on the table) is in RONR at page 123. The pertinent part reads as follows. I will bold and highlight the key provision: "TAKING A QUESTION FROM THE TABLE. Rules affecting the motion to Lay on the Table are closely related to the motion to Take from the Table (34). After a question has been laid on the table, it can be taken from the table by a majority vote as soon as the interrupting business is disposed of and whenever no question is pending, provided that business of the same class as the question on the table, unfinished business, general orders, or new business is in order. Any member can move to take a question from the table in a regular meeting or in a meeting that is an adjournment (9) of a regular meeting." (Emphasis added). If the motion was postponed until a certain time, as opposed to having been laid on the table, it should be brought up automatically by the chair under "unfinished business and general orders" If the chair fails to bring it up, any member may bring it up by making a point of order. So, again, councilman # 4 has no control over it. The motion to "postpone to a definite time" is covered in RONR on pages 179 - 191.

I tend to agree with Mr. Gerber. This is the lawyer in me coming out, but I am of the opinion that once a motion to approve the contract has been adopted and the contract has been signed or the other party has been notified that the offer/bid has been accepted, the motion to approve or accept the bid or contract has been fully carried out and cannot be rescinded. A motion could perhaps be adopted to terminate the contract, but I believe it is too late to rescind it once it has been accepted and the other party has been notified.

Yes, you can amend your bylaws to provide for just about anything you want to within the bounds of the law. Provisions in your bylaws take precedence over RONR .

In this book: http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html And in this one: http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html Edited to add: if you are truly unfamiliar with parliamentary procedure and Roberts Rules of Order, an excellent book to help you understand it is "Roberts Rules for Dummies" by C. Alan Jennings , a highly respected professional Parliamentarian who writes using easy to understand language. Note: it is a book ABOUT Roberts Rules of Order and is not intended to be cited as a parliamentary authority. https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1119241715/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1490828261&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_FMwebp_QL65&keywords=roberts+rules+for+dummies