Dan Honemann

In other words, guess again. 🙂

No, you should not "redo the vote". If this phony "amendment" was declared to have been adopted, a point of order can be raised at any time that this action, which is an action taken in violation of a rule protecting absentees (the notice requirement), is null and void (RONR, 11th ed., p. 251). This assumes that the entire membership was not present at the time this took place.

Based upon what you have posted, you are clearly right when you say that his amendment is not in order because it isn't germane to the motion which it proposes to amend. Even if an amendment to a proposed bylaw amendment is germane (and the one to which you refer clearly is not), it is not in order if it increases the modification of the article or provision to be amended …" (RONR, 11th ed., p. 595; see also p. 306, ll. 18-23)

The chair must take up items in the order prescribed by an adopted agenda unless the assembly directs him to do otherwise by a two-thirds vote (or by unanimous consent). He cannot do so on his own volition. An adopted agenda can be amended by a two-thirds vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent.

For now, I'll just say welcome back Mr. Tesser, and let it go at that. 🙂

Take a look at pages 644-45 in RONR, 11th ed.

Well, then, go on back to the other thread and tell us in what respect you disagree with what Mr. Martin has said here (if, in fact, you do disagree): "As was explained several times in the previous thread, business may only be conducted at a regular or properly called meeting. This is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law, which is a separate category of continuing breach than violations of rules protecting absentees, so the fact that there are no absentees is no defense." I think he said the same thing there as well.

I think that any report which is actually adopted should be included in the minutes, or attached to the minutes as a part thereof. Such adoption "has the effect of the assembly's endorsing every word of the report—including the indicated facts and the reasoning—as its own statement …" (RONR, 11th ed., pp 507-508; p. 124).

No rule in RONR prevents it. By the way, questions concerning what is or is not permitted under the Internal Revenue Code are not questions which should be posted in this forum.

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, a member of an assembly is a person entitled to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. Based upon what has been posted, it would appear that only these "active" members are members of this organization's assembly.

Actually, this text is not new to the 11th edition. You will find it on page 316 of the 7th edition, and in all subsequent editions as well. It simply got moved around a bit in the 11th. An "order of the day" is "a particular subject, question, or item of business that is set in advance to be taken up during a given session, day, or meeting, or at a given hour, provided that no business having precedence over it interferes." (RONR, p. 364, ll. 17-21) I agree that calls to order, recesses, and adjournments are not technically "items of business", but they are items which are sometimes properly included within an adopted agenda or program. For example, an adopted agenda or program may include a recess which is scheduled for a certain time (see p. 232, ll. 3-19), and in that event will also ordinarily fix the time at which the meeting is to be called to order again.

Per the original post: "Facts: Bylaws require at least five days notice of a special meeting of the executive board, The president can call special meetings." If we assume that the bylaws do clearly and unambiguously require exactly what Mr. Brown says that they require*, I don't see any reason why a bylaws change is called for, and certainly not the one which is suggested here. --------------------------------------------------------- He being the guy who so often in this forum demands that posters post the exact language as it appears in their bylaws, and no paraphrasing. 🙂

The answer to this question remains the same as it was yesterday. Nothing in RONR requires that a proposed amendment to the bylaws be read three times before being voted on.

No rule in RONR requires it.

Nothing in RONR requires any advance notice.

The only items of business that may be included in an agenda for a special meeting are items of business which have been specified in the call of the meeting. The adoption of an agenda listing these items will make each one of them either a special or general order, depending upon whether or not a particular hour is assigned for it to be taken up. As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, listing specific items of business in an agenda for any kind of meeting under a heading of "New Business" simply indicates a misunderstanding of the nature of an agenda, and what is accomplished by its adoption. A careful reading of what is said on pages 371-75 in RONR (11th ed.) is advisable.

A is incorrect. Only members who were present at the time when a motion is adopted by unanimous consent may move to reconsider it.

Well, I don't think that any rule in RONR itself prevents the offering of new business after all items on an adopted agenda have been disposed of. If no time for adjournment of a meeting has been established, or if such a time has been established but has not as yet arrived, then (unless and until the assembly adopts a motion to adjourn) it seems to me that members are free to introduce any new items of business, and the chair should inquire if any member wishes to do so before declaring the meeting adjourned without the adoption of a motion to adjourn.

Yes. See page 365, lines 14-16, and page 371, lines 17-24.

If specific items are listed under the heading of "New Business" on an adopted agenda, I suppose this may give rise to an inference that nothing else may be proposed. It indicates to me that the assembly isn't using the term "New Business" as defined in RONR. After all, whatever is listed on an adopted agenda, even if listed under New Business" isn't "New Business". 🙂

Well, there is a big difference between instructing a committee to submit its reports in writing (which it ought to do as a matter of course), and instructing it as to exactly what it should include in its reports. In any event, I don't think that there is any "standard motion" the inquirer can make to force the committee to report in writing what he wishes it to report. A motion to give additional instructions to a committee is simply an incidental main motion, adoptable by majority vote.

Well, if there is some disparity understanding it will inform us as to exactly what the Study Guide got wrong. This might be helpful if there was some lack of clarity in the sentence on page 316, lines 2-6, but I don't see any.

Why?

No, there is nothing in Robert's Rules which will permit avoidance of your bylaw requirement that a quorum for the conduct of business by mail shall consist of at least two-thirds return of ballots.

I think such a special rule of order can be validly adopted by the membership's assembly, but I think it will take a bylaw provision in order to authorize any entity to approve minutes outside of a regular or properly called meeting at which a quorum is present.