Richard Brown

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".

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

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.

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!

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"?

George, I agree, but wouldn't the "new board" (the "new crew") have to wait until their first meeting to create and/or approve the minutes? New officers typically assume office upon adjournment of the annual meeting or upon some specified future date. If the "new crew" takes over before the end of the meeting at which they are elected, that would be easy to accomplish. If not, it seems to me the outgoing secretary (who might well be the incoming secretary as well) should prepare the minutes as usual and arrange for someone to have them at the next board meeting for approval.

Members of the body that is meeting have a right to attend the meetings in executive session. Are you a member of the executive committee? If so, you have a right to attend. Others can be permitted to attend by majority vote of the executive committee. I believe the person objecting to this is thinking of state Open Meetings Laws, sometimes called Sunshine Laws, that prohibit a quorum of the members of a public body from getting together to discuss the body's business. Unless your organization is a public body, such as a city council, school board, or public board or commission, those open meetings laws probably do not apply. Edited to add: You are referring to EXECUTIVE SESSIONS of the Executive Board and not to regular meetings of the Executive Board, right?

Per RONR, meeting minutes are available for inspection by all members of the body that was meeting regardless of whether the meeting was in executive session and regardless of which members were present at the meeting. Regular members (the general membership) has the right to inspect all minutes of meetings of the general membership, regardless of whether it was in executive session. But, if the meeting was in executive session, the members are honor bound not to disclose what was said or took place at the meeting or what is in the minutes. Members of the board are entitled to the same access to minutes of board meetings, regardless of whether the meeting was in executive session. The same obligation of confidentiality applies. Regular members (the general membership) do not have the right to inspect minutes of board meetings unless they are also board members. btw, the body which was meeting has the right to lift the secrecy of the executive session to whatever extent it desires. It is quite common, for example, for a body to adopt a motion in executive session and to report publicly what it was they adopted but to maintain the confidentiality of the rest of the meeting. Any motion which was adopted in executive session but publicly reported out would also be included in the minutes of the regular meeting as having been adopted. An alternative procedure is to have the discussion in executive session but to come out of executive session to publicly adopt whatever motion it is that was discussed. Open meetings laws (sunshine laws) often require that public bodies follow that procedure. They can only discuss things in executive session, but must take all votes in public session. Private organizations often do the same thing, particularly with personnel issues.

Guest Joe, some forums do request that new questions be posted in existing threads if the topic is generally the same. However in this forum, the preferred procedure is that guests with a new question, even if it fits in with an existing topic, be posted as a new topic. Edited to add: The method for asking a new question is explained in the second bullet point in the "Read This First" topic at the top of this forum: http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25416-important-read-this-first-faq-and-information-for-new-members-and-guests/

The makeup, duties and even existence of the committee are subject to change at a future meeting by use of the motions Amend or Rescind something previously adopted. Both motions require a two thirds vote to adopt without previous notice, a majority vote with previous notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership. Edited to add: The assembly can also discharge the committee by use of the motion to Discharge a Committee, which is very similar in this case to the motion to rescind something previously adopted and is subject to similar rules for adoption.

I'm not aware of any provision in RONR that allows this. It is my understanding that nominations cannot be withdrawn, period. If there is an exception, I would like to know about it myself. Note: It is possible that the language on pages 295-296 about withdrawing a motion would apply to nominations, but I have never looked at it that way nor heard it mentioned by anyone else. It is an interesting question.