Richard Brown

Cindy, I cannot find anything directly on that point. Besides Edgar's correct statement that small boards are permitted to discuss things informally while no other business is pending. Here is the pertinent provision from page 488. It's a list of relaxed procedures in small boards: "PROCEDURE IN SMALL BOARDS. In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present, some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business. The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies, in the following respects: • Members may raise a hand instead of standing when seeking to obtain the floor, and may remain seated while making motions or speaking. [page 488] • Motions need not be seconded. • There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a debatable question.* Appeals, however, are debatable under the regular rules—that is, each member (except the chair) can speak only once in debate on them, while the chair may speak twice. • Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending. • When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion's having been introduced. Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by vote under the same rules as in larger meetings, except that a vote can be taken initially by a show of hands, which is often a better method in small meetings. • The chairman need not rise while putting questions to a vote. • If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions.** Unfortunately, that provision does not specify whether any type of motion is necessary in order to discuss something informally. It is my understanding that such discussion would normally take place without objection by unanimous consent. Perhaps someone else has a better citation. Stay tuned. Edited to add: I want to point out again, though, that with this being a public body with what are probably specific agenda procedures, this might well be covered by the council's rules or by custom.

Can you explain better what you mean by that statement? What kind of motion defeated the discussion item? Edited to add: Was it a motion to remove the item from the agenda?

I think you are probably right, which is why I added the second paragraph and then a third paragraph to my post # 5. It may be that no motion is needed in order to discuss the item. But, the point i made in the third paragraph is that if no one starts discussing, then no discussion takes place. It seems to me, unless they have a rule to the contrary, that when the "discussion" item is reached on the agenda that someone simply starts discussing.

I agree with Mr. Guest. Just having an item on the agenda is not enough unless the council's own rules are different. Someone must still actually make the motion. If nobody makes the motion, it dies and the next item on the agenda is taken up. The link posted by Mr. Huynh is the correct method for getting something on the agenda per RONR, but getting it on the agenda, as Mr. Guest and I have pointed out, is not the same as getting it before the body. That takes a motion. I emphasize that your council might have specific rules that provide differently, especially for items for discussion, which is not the usual procedure in RONR. Edited to add: I have seen city councils put items on their agenda just for discussion, updates, etc. Those are unique procedures that would likely be subject to their own rules. But, if nobody starts discussing, then there is no discussion, right? :-)

As Hieu pointed out, in most cases particular rules in RONR and in the society's special rules of order that interfere with doing something the assembly wants to do can be suspended, but only by a two-thirds vote of the assembly. The chair alone does not have the authority to suspend any rules. Not all rules or order can be suspended, though. There are exceptions. So, trying to suspend ALL of the rules in RONR at once would not be proper, but most (not all) rules can be be suspended in particular situations.

Technically, no. Rules of Order are those rules contained in the society's parliamentary authority, such as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. If a society (an organization) wants to adopt special rules or order to supplement or modify those rules in the parliamentary authority, those special rules should be called "Special Rules of Order" and should be labeled as such. They supersede the rules of order in the parliamentary authority. However, some organizations don't do it that way and adopt a "Policies and Procedures" manual which contains all sorts of rules, some of which are in the nature of special rules of order, some in the nature of standing rules, and some in the nature of policies, etc. When done that way, it is much harder to figure out which rules fall into which category. That is important because there are different rules for suspending the different types of rules. Your organization may indeed have what amount to special rules of order contained in a Policies and Procedures manual. See pages 15-18 of RONR for clarification of the different types of rules a society might have. Edited to add: If a society has not adopted a parliamentary authority such as RONR, but has adopted rules of order which it promulgated itself, those rules, rather than being called "Special Rules of Order", might properly be called simply "Rules of Order". The term "Special Rules of Order" is used when there are also rules of order in the adopted parliamentary authority.

Rules of Order are generally considered to be those rules of order contained in the society's parliamentary authority... such as Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Special rules of order are those rules adopted by the society to supplement, or in some instances, to modify certain rules or to substitute their own rules for certain rules contained in the parliamentary authority. A society's special rules of order take precedence over and supersede conflicting rules of order contained in the parliamentary authority.

I think you will see the light when you wake up.

Well, I've heard people say things like "I know what you're thinking" or "it was obvious that we were all thinking the same thing" or "all on the same page", so I figure maybe they know that by means of ESP.... extrasensory perception. Or maybe a wink and a nod.

Well, regardless of whether a quorum was present, if they voted (formally or informally or by means of ESP) to do "whatever", that "whatever" should be in the minutes, shouldn't it? Edited to add: They can ratify "whatever" at a meeting at which they do have a quorum, assuming the "whatever" is something that they could have done if a quorum had been present.

Guest Guest, are you the same person as Member Nosey who started this thread? Is the same group? It seems that Member Nosey's question has been answered, especially by Dr. Stackpole in post # 4 and by Josh Martin in post # 9. If you are talking about a different situation or organization, please post your question as a new topic.

RONR treats a revision as a form of amendment. There is no reason to treat an amendment to or a revision of a constitution any differently from bylaws in that regard. You might find the following language from page 582 of the 11th edition of RONR instructive: "The wording of this article should avoid redundant phraseology such as "amend, alter, add to, or repeal," or "alter or amend," or "amend or in any way change." The word amend covers any change, whether a word or a paragraph is to be added, struck out, or replaced, or whether a new set of articles is to be substituted for the old one." (Emphasis added). You may be on to something which would constitute a continuing breach with the notification process, but I believe your other objections are considered waived if no point of order was raised at the time of the breach. As to email notice, RONR specifies that email notification will suffice only for those members who have consented to it unless is is expressly permitted in the bylaws. RONR page 89.

I'm getting really confused. Board members aren't members of the organization? And the word "members" refers only to team members, even though the opening sentence quoted from the bylaws refers to "members of the organization"? Are "members of the team" and "members of the organization" the same people? Agreeing with Bruce Lages, I see nothing in the quoted provision that gives members of the organization (or "team members, either, for that matter) the right to attend board meetings, but I'm bothered by the language quoted from the bylaws that gives members voice "in the consideration of all matters of the club." What the heck does that mean? Does that give the members "voice" in board meetings, too? My, my.

I agree with Mr. Guest's statement. I read the original post to say that she had actually resigned verbally, but it she said only that "I intend to resign", that is not the same thing as an actual resignation. It is simply an expression of intent to do something in the future....which she may or may not actually do.

According to RONR, a resignation should be submitted in writing but can also be submitted orally at a meeting. Here is a quote from RONR on page 291 regarding resignations: "If a member who has accepted an office, committee assignment, or other duty finds that he is unable to perform it, he should submit his resignation. A resignation is submitted in writing, addressed to the secretary or appointing power; alternatively, it may be submitted during a meeting either orally or in writing.* By submitting a resignation, the member is, in effect, requesting to be excused from a duty. The chair, on reading or announcing the resignation, can assume a motion "that the resignation be accepted." The duties of a position must not be abandoned until a resignation has been accepted and becomes effective, or at least until there has been a reasonable opportunity for it to be accepted."

I'm still a bit confused. Do you want to remove this person from the committee or do you want to expel her from membership in the organization? Do you just want to remove her as chairman or remove her from the committee? For the sake of this discussion, I'm assuming you want to remove her from the committee. And I'm assuming you are talking about a true committee and not a board such as the board of directors or executive board (or executive committee). With the foregoing in mind, and assuming that she was elected to membership on the committee by the assembly and you want to remove her as a member of the committee, then the assembly may remove her by the same method to rescind or amend something previously adopted: It takes a majority vote with previous notice. Without previous notice, it takes a two thirds vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership to remove her. If removing her from the committee is not what you want to do, please try to explain again exactly what her position is and what it is that you want to do. I gave you the citation to the relevant parts of RONR for removing committee members in post No 3 above. If she is an elected officer of the organization and you are trying to remove her from office, the procedure will be different. Mr. Guest gave you a citation for doing that in post No. 2

Since the OP is referring to the removal of a committee member, I doubt that FAQ #20 is applicable unless this "committee member" is an elected officer. But, your comment that usually the person or body that appoints the members of a committee also has the power to remove them is correct. For the benefit of the OP, it's covered in RONR on pages 177 and 497.

How did I become involved in parliamentary procedure? It's a bit of a long story, but I'll hit the high points. I've had an interest in it all of my adult life, even before college, and was in the student senate and on various committees in college. I bought a couple of books on parliamentary procedure and Robert's Rules of Order and started reading. After finishing law school, which taught nothing about it, I took a non-credit night course in it that a local community college offered. I started buying more books and doing more studying on my own as my involvement in various organizations increased. The catalyst that got me truly involved was being in an organization about 30 years ago that expelled a member, over my strenuous objections, without providing him with due process. He sued the organization for wrongful expulsion, as I predicted he would. We ultimately won the case, but only because I was able to convince the other members that we had screwed up and that unless we declared his first expulsion void and gave him a new "trial" with at least some semblance of due process, we would get sued.... and lose. The others reluctantly agreed. We went through the process again. He was expelled.... again.... and did sue, but after a lot of turmoil and expense, we won... only because the Court believed that the second "trial" provided him with due process. (This was not a purely social organization and there were some financial repercussions to his expulsion). The rest is history. I've been hooked ever since. Back to you: For now I am curious as to how to pronounce your name. I'll stick my neck out with a wild guess and say I think it's probably "Hugh Winn" (or Hugh Hunn). btw, I have noticed that you have been spending a LOT of time reading both current and old threads! It's a great educational tool, but I'll admit I was getting curious. Welcome to the forum!

Mr. Martin is correct. In fact, the footnote on the bottom of page263 which I quoted says that the rules must be suspended to allow a non member to speak in debate. My mistake.

It's in RONR in several places. It's also a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that only members have the right to attend and participate in meetings of a society unless there is a rule or statute giving non members rights. The footnote on page 63 says that ". . . the rules may be suspended to allow a nonmember to speak in debate". On page 644, starting on line 22, RONR says: "PRINCIPLES GOVERNING DISCIPLINE AT MEETINGS. A society has the right to determine who may be present at its meetings and to control its hall while meetings are in progress; but all members have the right to attend except in cases where the bylaws provide for the automatic suspension of members who fall in arrears in payment of their dues, or where the society has, by vote and as a penalty imposed for a specific offense, forbidden attendance. Nonmembers, on the other hand—or a particular nonmember or group of nonmembers—can be excluded at any time from part or all of a meeting of a society, or from all of its meetings. Such exclusion can be effected by a ruling of the chair in cases of disorder, or by the adoption of a rule on the subject, or by an appropriate motion as the need arises—a motion of the latter nature being a question of privilege [page 645] (19). A motion to exclude all nonmembers (except absolutely necessary staff, if any) is often referred to as a motion to "go into executive session" (see 9)." Then, on page 648, RONR provides as follows starting on line 11: " Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings (pp. 644–45). An assembly has the right to protect itself from annoyance by nonmembers, and its full authority in this regard—as distinguished from cases involving disorderly members—can be exercised by the chair acting alone. The chair has the power to require nonmembers to leave the hall, or to order their removal, at any time during the meeting; and the nonmembers have no right of appeal from such an order of the presiding officer. However, such an order may be appealed by a member." That should pretty much cover it for you. Edited to add: If you are the presiding officer, get yourself a copy of RONR 11th edition asap. Don't settle for anything less. http://www.robertsrules.com/book.html

Agreeing with Mr. Guest, if there is a non member in attendance who you know has important information to share with the assembly, you can, as chair, allow him to address the membership by unanimous consent if no one objects. You could do it like this: "Mayor Sinkbottom is here and would like to address the assembly regarding the tax propositions that will appear on the November 4 ballot. Is there any objection to granting him five minutes to address the assembly regarding the upcoming tax propositions? Hearing no objection, Mayor Sinkbottom is granted five minutes to address the assembly about the upcoming tax propositions". If there is an objection, they you will have to go through the motions, if anyone is so inclined, of someone making a formal motion that he be allowed to address the assembly. Doing so might also require a suspension of the rules if it involves amending the agenda or interrupting business. If he is there to speak on an item that is on the agenda or during debate on an item of pending business, suspending the rules would not be necessary and he could be granted the permission to speak by majority vote (or unanimous consent).

Well, if nobody casts a vote for a candidate in that race, then nobody is elected to that position and you have an incomplete election. If the sole nominee is so unpopular and there are no nominees from the floor and no write in ballots, I guess it is conceivable that everyone just abstains from voting in that race. Somebody has to receive at least one vote in order to be elected. I'm betting, though, that the sole nominee will vote for himself. If the election isn't completed before the term of the current office holder expires, then, depending on the precise wording in your bylaws about terms of office, the current officer may may not continue in office until a successor is elected.