Richard Brown

Agreeing with my colleagues, it is hard to fight a "one man battle". you will need friends on the board (or in the membership) who will support you and at least second your appeals. Since there is no "RONR police force" this is really a matter of educating your colleagues on the board. Giving them (or having the board buy them) all a copy of RONR or RoNR In Brief (RONRIB) or a copy of "Robeert's Rules for Dummies" by C. Alan Jennings might go a long way toward educating them. Having a parliamentarian meke a presentation on proper meeting procedure and to highlight the trouble spots might also help convince the chair and other board members they they haven't been doing things the right way. Lastly, I will say that it might be important to "pick your battles" and not sweat the small stuff that really isn't hurting anyone or infringing on anyone's rights.

Well, of course the member who made the request to withdraw a motion may make a formal motion to withdraw the motion if there is an objection to his unanimous consent request. Likewise, any other member may move to grant the other member permission to withdraw his motion if the unanimous consent request is denied. The request or formal motion to withdraw the original motion must be made before voting on the question begins. 33:16 RONR (12th ed.). However, you and I may still disagree. I maintain that section 33:15 is quite clear that the chair MAY, but isn't required to, put the matter to the assembly in the absence of a formal motion. The initial request to withdraw a motion is a REQUEST, not a motion. The chair may insist that a formal motion be made, either by the member who originally made the unanimous consent request or by another member. If the motion is made by the member who made the unanimous consent request, it must be seconded. If it is made by another member, it does not require a second because it is assumed that the member who made the unanimous consent request also wants his original motion to be withdrawn.

My colleagues have correctly answered your question based on the rules in RONR. However, I will point out that RONR also permits a society to adopt special rules of order requiring additional matters to be included in the minutes or to specify that certain things which RONR requires shall not be required in your organization's minutes. In other words, RONR permits you to adopt special rules of order to specify what your organization wants included in the minutes. See §48:3 of RONR (12th ed.).

Agreeing with Guest Anon, it will be helpful if you can elaborate a bit on your question..... unless it Guest Anon's answer was sufficient. However, I will add that your board of directors meetings may be handled pursuant to the "Small Board Rules" in RONR which permit less formality in meetings of small boards of no more than a dozen members and in committees. Under such rules, for example, the chairman can make motions and participate in debate and vote just like all other members. There are some other distinctions.

That is no my understanding of the process. According to 33:15, the chair MAY treat the unanimous consent request as a motion of there is an objection, but he is not obligated to. The chair has the choice of treating it simply as the unanimous consent request being denied and then proceed to the next order of business OR he can put the request to the assembly for a vote as to whether the request shall be granted. There is still another option: If the chair does not put the request to the assembly, another member may formally move that the request be granted. The chair is not obligated to put the request to withdraw a motion to the assembly as a motion unless a formal motion to do so is made. Edited to add: I believe the section cited by Mr. Elsman, 4:59 may be used when there has been a formal motion made to do something, not merely a request as in a request to withdraw a motion utilizing the procedure in 33:14-15.

I agree and probably should have added that caveat to my own answer. I trust that the OP understands that the member does have the right to vote on that issue if he insists on it.

Yes, that is correct. You've got it!

Agreeing with my colleagues, matters that are simply discussed are not normally included in the minutes. However, RONR permits a society to adopt special rules of order that specify additional items that should be included in the minutes and also to specify that certain items required by RONR shall not be required. Your special rules of order supersede the rules in your adopted parliamentary authority, such as RONR.

What motion are you referring to? This question appears to relate to something that is perhaps the topic of a different thread. l It is best to ask follow-up questions about a topic in the same thread.

Yes, but more information would be helpful. For example, if the rules in RONR apply, ordinarily, the presiding officer of an assembly does not make motions or speak in debate or vote by voice vote but there are some exceptions. Two of those exceptions are for the chair of a committee or a small board of no more than about a dozen members. In those cases, the chair can make motions, participate in debate and vote just like everyone else. For a more precise answer, we need more information as to the nature and size of this "committee" or "council".

Unless state (or local) law provides an alternative, you do as Mr. Martin said and keep voting until someone wins (alternate names may be proposed, also) or, if the candidates agree, do as Mr. Merritt suggested and settle the matter by chance such as the toss of a coin. FWIW, and in line with Mr. Elsman's statement, I am aware of a situation where a county council was to fill a vacancy but remained deadlocked on the two candidates with a tie vote. In this case, state law provided that if the council was unable to fill the vacancy within a certain number of days, the Governor could make the appointment. The council remained deadlocked so the Governor made the appointment.

This seems to me more of a legal question than a parliamentary one. I am assuming that the Executive Director (ED) is an employee of the organization and that he is resigning from his position of executive director. Whether his "resignation" becomes effective when submitted or at some other time and whether it must be accepted by someone or some body such as the executive committee depends more on state law and the provisions of his employment agreement than on RONR or parliamentary procedure. RONR does not address employer-employee relations.

Yes, since at that time no actual charges have yet been preferred against the member and his rights as a member have not been suspended. He therefore may vote on the adoption of the resolution preferring charges and to hold a trial.

@Mark41 I'm not sure just what you are asking, but concur with Mr. Martin's responses. I'm just not sure that they answer whatever you are asking. For example, what do you mean by "secretary and treasurer minutes"? There really are no "treasurer's minutes". The treasurer gives a "report". As Mr. Martin stated, this report should not be formally approved or accepted but is merely placed on file. When the treasurer has completed giving his report, the chair can thank him for his report and then immediately calls up the next item of business.

I concur with Mr. Martin's responses.

Wasn't it the OP, Guest Robert J, who said that? I don't see where Dr. Kapur said it. Also, Dr. Kapur seemed to expressly disagree with the OP's position that the rule protects a minority of one.

I think RONR 17:8 is pretty clear that the motion laid on the table dies if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session. It may not have died YET, but it will die if not taken from the table by the end of the next regular session.

I disagree. That is not what 13:1 says. What it says is that the motion "is GENERALLY used to send a pending question to a . . . committee so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider". The motion is not limited to that purpose, rather that statement is used as an example of how the motion is generally used. The rule does not say that it would be out of order if used as Mr. Katz suggested.

I agree with Dr. Kapur’s interpretation.

Agreeing with my colleagues, any such requirement would have to be included in your own rules. There is no such rule in RONR.

I’m not sure I understand the question, but if you were asking what I think you are, the provision you referred to can be removed either through an ordinary amendment to the bylaws or by a complete revision. Simply do not include the provision in the revision if you want it removed. There is no need to include the provision in the proposed revised bylaws and then remove it with an amendment if that is what you are asking. The committee chair is not correct if the rules in RONR are applicable. You might try restating your question so that we can be sure we understand it correctly.

Agreeing with my colleagues, the governing documents (Articles of Incorporation, bylaws, etc) of both organizations are going to be more important than RONR and probably contain your answers. This is also more of a legal question than a parliamentary one.

I understand your concern. There is a bit of disagreement over whether a notice that something will be "discussed" at a special meeting is sufficient for taking action on it as opposed to just discussing it, but that's somewhat of a different issue. However, since this is regarding a public body, it is more of a legal question than a parliamentary one. It may well be covered in the city charter, council rules, or your state open meetings (sunshine) laws. It is a question of whether the agenda item as stated provides adequate notice under law for action to be taken on that item or for that item to be amended at the meeting.

Yes. Perhaps you missed this from one of Anthony's posts: (Emphasis added).

Thank you for this information!