Dan Honemann

Take a look at page 456, lines 22-28.

Yes, the motion passes. No, abstentions have no affect at all on a quorum.

I don't know. Such things are above my pay grade.

There is no rule in Robert's Rules of Order which would prevent it.

In view of the fact that "Executive Secretary" is the title used in the bylaws, I doubt that the Board had the power to change it to "Administrative Assistant." I think such a change required an amendment to the bylaws.

If, as you say, these minutes have been approved, they now constitute the official record of the assembly's proceedings, and the only way to make any change in them (if one is necessary in order to correct any error) is by the adoption of a motion to amend them (see Sec. 35 in RONR for details). The manner in which they were prepared prior to their approval is completely irrelevant.

I think you've got this right. If the bylaws provide that a member can be removed from membership (or an officer from office) without cause, then all that will be required will be the adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of such a motion is either a two-thirds vote, a majority vote when previous notice has been given, or a vote of a majority of the entire membership, any one of which will suffice.

Take a look at FAQ #10.

It is interesting to note, however, that RONR tells us that a secretary (or clerk) is one of the two minimum essential officers for the conduct of business in any deliberative assembly (RONR, 11th ed., p. 22, ll. 1-5; p. 447, ll. 3-5), and it has done so ever since 1970. I suspect that deliberate failure to have someone act as secretary during a meeting is, at best, a bad idea.

Yes, this certainly appears to be the case.

Quoting Mr. Martin: "The former Vice Chair is most likely correct that he is now the Chair. The Vice Chair would automatically become Chair in the event of a vacancy, unless your rules provide otherwise." I agree.

No.

If a determination has to be made by the assembly that a person has provided 25 years of faithful service before he can become a life member, then that word "automatically" loses much of its significance.

I'm afraid that this is going beyond the question asked and into doubtful territory.

Yes, this is regrettably true, but the rule is correctly and fully stated on page 497, lines 22-29. Actually, the proper factual context is also set forth on page 456, lines 28-34, immediately preceding the troublesome statement to which you refer, but I agree that what follows can be misleading.

The initial response to the questions asked in this thread was correct in all respects.

The only point that RONR is trying to make in this connection is that when, as so often happens, an organization's bylaws provide that the President shall be a member of all committees (with limited exceptions), as in the sample bylaws on page 587, lines 34-36, the evident intent and purpose of such a provision is to permit the President to act as a member of these committees, but not to require that he or she do so.

Oh, I think that if a committee's chairman will be acting as parliamentarian at the meeting at which the committee 's report is to be presented, the committee should certainly choose another one of its members to act as its reporting member.

But now that you mention (in another thread) that your association is a home owners association, you may find something in an applicable statute relating to your questions. If so, it will take precedence over anything in your bylaws or in Robert's Rules of Order with which it may conflict.

Well, you have the correct answer to your questions in the first two responses posted.

I'm not at all sure about this. It appears that the point of order was raised regarding the eligibility of nominees who were declared to have been elected. As a consequence, it may well be that this appeal does not adhere to any pending motion. If the point of order was raised immediately following the chair's announcement of the result of the vote, I suppose the election might be regarded as still pending, but I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that a motion might then be made to lay the election on the table.

Let's hope this isn't really what it says.

The point of order could have been validly raised only if it was genuinely incidental to the conduct of the meeting or to the transaction of the business specified in the call of the meeting. Was it?

Based solely upon the facts provided, I think that, as far as the rules in RONR are concerned, the power vested in the Board by the Articles of Incorporation to determine the location of this particular office cannot be undermined by any provision contained in the bylaws. In other words, I'm inclined to disagree with the previous responses.

Well, at least I think so, absent something else in the bylaws indicating otherwise. 🙂 Whenever there is any conflict between the rules in the bylaws and the rules in RONR, the rules in the bylaws prevail.