Richard Brown

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.