Richard Brown

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

7 minutes ago, paulmcclintock said:

"In order that there may be no interference with the assembly's having the benefit of its committees' matured judgment, motions to close or limit debate are not allowed in committees" (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, ll. 18-21).

Q1:  Can this rule be suspended? 

Q2a:  If not, by what cited rule / principle, on pp. 263-264, or elsewhere?

Q2b:  If it can be suspended, does the p. 261, l. 15 rule ("no rule protecting a minority of a particular size can be suspended in the face of a negative vote as large as the minority protected by the rule") cause Suspend to require at least one more vote than two-thirds?

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.

24 minutes ago, Kim Goldsworthy said:

You know what?

That sounds like an insult.

It doesn't come across as an objective measure of qualifications for office, nor does it come across a a rule citation.

"Anyone in the state"? Really?

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.

41 minutes ago, Guest Diane said:

jstackpo-- can you tell me what article/section that's found. Page # doesn't coincide.

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".

17 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

What if he is not eligible to hold that position?  If not, at what point would the presiding officer make such a ruling?  It's crazy to think they have to wait until the guy is elected in order to rule him ineligible.

(I'm not suggesting that's why this presiding officer said what he said.)

 

 

 

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. 

Agreeing with transport, I would add that if the committee is established in the bylaws or other governing document it may not be possible to dissolve it, but perhaps the members can be replaced.

We really need more information, especially as to how the committee was created and how it's members are selected, in order to advise you further.

If this is a public body or agency of some sort, our advice might be different. 

I agree with Rev Ed but would add that any.mrmber, not just the chair and vice chair, can offer corrections (amendments).

It is important to keep in mind that neither the president nor the board can actually appoint members to positions which are supposed to be elective positions  unless the bylaws give them that Authority

1 hour ago, Guest Joe said:

The Mayor does have the right to veto according to the bylaws. But my question is procedural. Can the same  amendment be made even though it wasvoted down at the last meeting?

48 minutes ago, Hieu H. Huynh said:

Generally, a defeated motion could be renewed at the next meeting.

42 minutes ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

By "next meeting", HHH means "any later session", and each of your council's sessions may continue over a substantial period of time. Your city charter (or whatever) will determine this.

I've been pondering this (and researching it) for over an hour.  My initial reaction was gong to be essentially the same as Hieu's, but I refrained from responding at that time because of my concern over whether each meeting of this city council is considered a separate session.  As Dan pointed out, a motion may be renewed at the next session,, but not necessarily at the next meeting.

However, there must be a way for the council to adopt an amendment that was originally rejected, short of suspending the rules.

Dan, if for the sake of argument we assume that each session of this council lasts four years (which may or may not be the case), wouldn't it be possible, at the next meeting (which is still within the same session)  when the vetoed ordinance is being reconsidered to move to reconsider the vote on an amendment which had been rejected?

Since a vetoed ordinance generally returns to a city council as if it had been reconsidered (which may or may not be the case here), when it comes up for reconsideration it is in the same posture it was in immediately before it was initially voted on.  Would the proper procedure at that time be for someone to move to reconsider the earlier rejected amendment which now seems to have majority support?

If not, what would the proper procedure be, other than to suspend the rules?

And then the assembly (the group that is meeting) decides whether to adopt the proposed correction. It requires a majority vote if this occurs when the minutes are up for approval.

To respond to a question by guest Nancy, it would be appropriate to propose an amendment to the proposed correction the same as can be done with any other amendable motion. 

Depending on the circumstances of the case and the laws of the jurisdiction involved and on the terms of applicable insurance policies, it might be necessary to sue the organization in order for the insurance company to be obligated to pay.   This is a legal question as much as it is a question about parliamentary procedure.

I agree that if the committee is established in the bylaws, it cannot be dissolved.  The members of it can perhaps be replaced through the appropriate procedure, but the committee cannot be dissolved without amending the bylaws.

I agree with the other responses in that if RONR is your authority, the parliamentarian should not make motions, debate or vote except when it is a ballot vote. However, if he is a member of the body, he cannot be prevented from doing so, although he would be violating the rule in RONR.

If the board is in agreement, however, there are two alternatives. First, rather than appointing someone as the official Parliamentarian, the President can ask him to serve unofficially as the board's"experienced member" who the president can call upon for advice as mentioned at the top of page 254 of RONR .

A second alternative is to adopt a Special Rule of Order which permits the parliamentarian to participate the same as all other members can.

It's a little hard for me to follow exactly what your situation is regarding the parliamentarian, but it seems the parliamentarian is automatically a member of the board. If that is the case, it might be that the drafters of the bylaws expected the parliamentarian to participate fully. One might question why he is made a member of the board if his participation is severely limited. That will be a matter of bylaws interpretation, which is something only your organization can do.

Some procedural motions are not debatable, but most substantive main motions of the type you are probably referring to are indeed debatable.  That means that the members must be given an opportunity to debate them.

What type of school and school board is this?  Is it a public school board?  A private school?  How are are the members of the board elected?  Who elects them and who would be voting in a recall election?  The public, the parents of the children, or some other group of people?  Who is this "election officer" and what are his duties?   If this is a public school board, it is very likely subject to state open meetings laws and other procedures that would trump any contrary provisions in RONR.   I'm assuming this is a private school, but you haven't said so explicitly.  Even if it is a private school such as a "Charter School", it might be subject to special state laws and procedures.  

You said "the school" requires that a resignation be accepted by the board.  That is indeed the rule in RONR, but what, if anything, do your bylaws say about resignations?  Oops, never mind.  I see you said that your bylaws are silent about resignations.  In that case, what is "the school" relying on when "it" says the resignation must be accepted by the board?  As I said above, that is the rule in RONR, but you speak as if this school has a "rule" of its own about resignations.  What rule does it have other than the general rule in RONR?

You need to study your bylaws (and possibly applicable state law) carefully for the exact wording of your quorum provisions and vacancy filling provisions.

If your school is incorporated, state corporation law law might contain some applicable provisions re resignations, inability to obtain a quorum, etc. For example, state law my state that a resignation is effective upon receipt.

Your situation is such that you might consider consulting with both an attorney and a professional parliamentarian.

Not unless your bylaws give him that right.

Your organization might want to consider disciplinary action against the secretary.  See Chapter XX of RONR on Discipline and also FAQ # 20 for more information. http://robertsrules.com/faq.html#20

The bottom line, Guest Lona, is that RONR has nothing to say about who can and cannot sign checks. 

1 hour ago, George Mervosh said:

See post #2 for a very good idea.....which makes me wonder why we are on post #11?

Because post # 2 by you was a "coulda, shoulda, woulda" and we are already past that.  They screwed up.  Our poster wants to know what to do now that they didn't do it like they should have.  Your suggestion to have the "new crew" appoint a committee to draft and approve new ones can be done only if there is an intervening board meeting... which really isn't necessary because the outgoing secretary (or any other member) can prepare the minutes and have them at the first board meeting of the "new crew" for approval.  Your method requires two board meetings before the board gets an approved set of minutes.  My suggestion lets them have approved minutes at the next meeting... no intervening meeting necessary.   Either method will work, though.

Edited to add:  for the benefit of EAult, the "new crew" can appoint a committee only in a bona fide meeting.  They cannot  make appointments outside of a meeting.  They have to wait until the next meeting in order to appoint a committee if the annual meeting is already over.

Edited again to add:  The chairman can, though, informally ask a member or group of members if they will see to it that minutes are ready for approval at the next meeting.  That wold be permissible.  It's just not an official committee.  It's just somebody or a group of people  doing the chairman a personal favor to help expedite things.  Anybody else or any other group of members could do the same thing. 

I'm willing to bet that' what's concerning our original poster is what to do about it NOW! 

16 minutes ago, George Mervosh said:

Yes, at a meeting.

Actually, my post didn't say what I had intended it to say.  Unless the "new crew" takes over DURING the election meeting, it will have to wait until the next meeting  to even appoint a committee to draft the minutes.  So, why not just have the outgoing secretary, or any other member, prepare the minutes and bring them to the first board meeting of the "new crew"?