Josh Martin

3 hours ago, Guest Who's Coming to Dinner said:

What if the notice says "other business"?

"A special meeting (or called meeting) is a separate session of a society held at a time different from that of any regular meeting, and convened only to consider one or more items of business specified in the call of the meeting. Notice of the time, place, and purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up, must be sent to all members a reasonable number of days in advance." (RONR 11th ed., pg. 91)

"Other business" does not seem very clear or specific to me.

10 minutes ago, Guest Roberta E. said:

At an annual conference, who is eligible to ballot vote for officers-- just the delegates or the whole membership attending?  Or, is this a bylaws matter?

It is ultimately a bylaws matter, but generally speaking, only delegates are eligible to vote at a convention of delegates - whether on the election of officers or on any other matter.

1 hour ago, Guest Tori Goodwin said:

Our bylaws call for our Steering Committee to consist of the four elected officers of our CNA and the immediate past chair of our CNA...the immediate past chair resigned as CNA chair and moved immediately out of state now and is no longer a part of our community - so does that position on the Steering Committee become vacant or is it ok for the past - past chair to remain on the Steering Committee??

Neither. The position is not vacant. The Immediate Past Chair is still a member of the Steering Committee. It just looks like he won't be doing anything.

This is one of many reasons why most members of this forum (myself included) advise against granting any automatic status to the Immediate Past Chair.

10 hours ago, jlinhrst said:

The Board states that they strictly enforce Robert's Rules, but I am curious. Does Robert's Rules allow for Executive Session voting on the hirings of employees without any necessary requirement to document the results of the vote in the Open Session or Open Session minutes? Is this at the discretion of the Board to choose the process for voting on new hires?

Robert's Rules allows for a board to conduct all of its business in executive session, and to keep all of its minutes solely for the board to review, if the board wishes to do so. This is at the board's discretion.

Any limitations on what the board may or may not do in executive session will be found in the board's own rules or in applicable law, not RONR.

1 hour ago, Guest Vonda said:

Five board members:

Topic a Joiner Agreement

1 can't vote because the Joiner Agreement is for his lot

1 abstained because he was not at the meeting when discussed

That leaves three to vote

How many yes votes are needed to pass?

Assuming the remaining three members all vote, two.

It is also not correct that the member who is affected by the agreement can't vote, unless your bylaws or applicable law so provide. So far as RONR is concerned, he should not vote, but he has the right to do vote.

1 hour ago, Guest sara said:

Unanimous consent re: minutes:

is it okay to say "Are there corrections to the minutes?........Hearing none, the minutes are approved as distributed..."

Must I include:  "If there is no objection, 

No. The only way to object to the approval of the minutes is to offer a correction. If there are no corrections, you may declare the minutes approved.

1 hour ago, Guest Curious said:

Our organization voted in favour of a large project, that is set to begin in a few months.

If a member brought forth notice of their intent to move to rescind the motion to move forward with that project, does that put the project on hold until after the next meeting (and the projected start date of the project)? In other words, does that put everything on hold until after the motion to rescind is dealt with? 

No, giving notice of a motion to rescind does not put the project on hold.

1 hour ago, Guest Juanita said:

At our March Board meeting, the members were informed that the various committee's had voted to make several recommendations for vote by the full board. However, the vote would not take place until the April meeting as per our by-laws.

My question is - example: On the April agenda would the proposed budget be placed under the Executive Committee Report or under new business or old business or general business or something else? The proposed budget was voted on at the Executive Committee's March meeting. The Board at their March meeting was informed and give copies to review and that it would be voted on at the April Board of Director's meeting.

Based on the facts provided, it seems to me it should be under the Executive Committee's report.

2 hours ago, Guest Maureen said:

Do you make a motion not do do something?

Some additional details may be helpful, but generally speaking, there is no purpose in making a motion not to do something.

2 hours ago, Guest Claude Soones said:

However reading the minutes and accepting the minutes denies the membership from making corrections and a path forward for the subsequent meetings.

No, it does not. The membership may still make corrections.

2 hours ago, coleche said:

I think I understand that an election may be contested by raising a point of order.  That point of order must be timely.  When the  point of order is raised the Chair would ask for a motion from  the membership to have a recount.  The elections committee (tellers) would do the recount. 

No, the chair would rule on the Point of Order, subject to appeal. A Point of Order is a claim that some aspect of the rules was not followed, not a claim that the count is incorrect. The exact remedy for this will depend on the specifics. If a member wishes for a recount, he simply moves for a recount.

2 hours ago, coleche said:

If a member contest the ballot vote count of her totals (she was candidate and did not win) and ask to review the ballots, is that permissible?  Can she do that in front of the secretary who would have ballots after the election.  Our bylaws do not address the this issue.

The member may request this, but is at the assembly's discretion whether to grant the request.

1 hour ago, ParliamentaryPlayer said:

As I am the committee chair, Is there specific language I should use to have it considered as a whole / consent calendar? I.E. "I would like to make a motion to consider all action items as whole?" or something like that? Thanks!

Edit: I don't believe I can move these action items to a consent agenda as the board agenda has already been made public. (correct me if I am wrong of course!)

If your board has its own rules regarding the consent agenda, then those rules must be followed. I don't know what those rules provide.

Even if it is not permitted to place these items on the consent agenda, I believe it would still be in order to say "Mr. Chairman, if there is no objection, I request that the committee's recommendations be considered as a whole."

12 hours ago, Joshua Katz said:

"...every ballot with a vote for one or more candidates is counted as one vote cast, and a candidate must receive a majority of the total of such votes to be elected...if more than the prescribed number receive a majority vote, the places are filled by the proper number receiving the largest number of votes."

What else can this refer to but approval voting?  A ballot is valid if it contains a vote for at least one candidate.  If there are, say, 6 seats, and I select 10 candidates, my ballot is valid - and gives one vote to each of those candidates, but counts as one vote cast for the purpose of determining majority.  Since no upper limit is specified on how many candidates I may select, I don't see what else would be needed to describe this as approval voting (with a majority requirement).  

I belong to an organization which frequently mixes its ideology with its rules of order, to confusing effect.  They insist on allowing people to select "none of the above" even when voting in this manner, so that a ballot with no candidates selected counts as a vote.  

If there are six seats and you vote for ten candidates, your ballot would be counted as an illegal vote. See RONR, 11th ed., pg. 416.

9 hours ago, Willie Watson said:

Okay, thanks for your answer! But now I am having trouble understanding what sense did it make for the bylaws to create the assembly in the first place! The reason I say this is the EC can perform a preemptive strike on all business by approving it before it gets to the assembly. This leaves the assembly with only the choice of a 2/3 vote to rescind the EC’s decision. What should happen is that the EC should pass all business that does not have to be decided between assembly meetings to the assembly. It should act only on that business that must be decided before the next assembly meeting.

Frankly, this is what some societies want - to elect a board to do pretty much all of the work, but reserve the right to overturn the board on particular matters. If the organization wishes to amend its bylaws to restrict the Executive Committee's powers, it is free to do so. As noted, you could also try to elect board members who share your views.

I would also note that a motion to rescind may be adopted by a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire membership, or a majority vote with previous notice.

2 hours ago, Guest FKS said:

The information of Board member misconduct was included in a report about the agency employee. The report was sealed in an agreement with that employee in exchange for separation. The Boards hands appear to be tied unless we can refer to the section of the report dealing with the Board members misconduct. 

If the closed session rules are your only concern, the solution is simply to enter closed session again, which should be done for disciplinary matters anyway.

As for this business of the report being "sealed in an agreement with that employee in exchange for separation," that sounds like a legal issue, not a parliamentary one. RONR has nothing to say about "sealing" reports.

4 hours ago, Richard Brown said:

This brings us back to the statement by Alexis hunt that all other provisions of the chapter XX disciplinary proceedings of RONR remain in effect with the single modification that any member can prefer charges.

Assuming that the disciplinary procedures outlined in the policy and procedures manual have indeed expired, what is your opinion as to whether the chapter XX disciplinary procedures would control with the single modification that a single member can prefer disciplinary charges?

If all that is said in the organization's rules is that a single member can prefer charges, then yes, I would think that the rest of Ch. XX which is still applicable would apply.

4 hours ago, Alexis Hunt said:

"Minimal" in the sense of "no more than is necessary to bring things into compliance with the bylaws". It also depends how someone interprets "file a complaint". I could see someone arguing that that merely amounts to the right to have a complaint studied by an investigative committee, rather than preferring charges, for instance.

Fair enough.

1 hour ago, Guest W. Watson said:

My organization’s assembly consists of the Executive Committee (EC) and 2 delegates from each affiliate unit of the organization. The EC consist of the elected offices of the organization and they currently make up only 4% of the assembly members. We have the following statement in our bylaws:

“the Executive Committee may exercise the authority of the assembly between its regular meetings”

The EC believes that this gives it the authority to act on any and all business that has not been acted upon by the assembly. I believe this is clearly incorrect based on the following argument. If the business is not urgent and can wait until the next assembly meeting, then by the EC acting on it they have taken away the right of the other assembly members to  vote on legitimate business (which can’t be done except via disciplinary action). Could you please comment on my argument before I put it before the assembly. Thanks!

Based solely upon what has been posted, I think the Executive Committee has it right.

It is incorrect to say that "by the EC acting on it they have taken away the right of the other assembly members to vote on legitimate business." The membership may rescind or amend motions adopted by the Executive Committee, based on the language provided,

On 4/15/2017 at 5:55 PM, Guest Linda said:

I am sorry.  I guess I just assume (obviously) that everyone knows what I am talking about.

The PPM is our Policy and Procedures Manual which gives detailed descriptions of the rules for our procedures.  Our Bylaws reference them quite often.  In this particular case, our Bylaws allow a member to file a complaint.  It then references the PPM we don't have  (They expired in 2015) in order to spell out how to handle disciplinary action.  I am assuming since our PPM is not valid, that we revert to RONR for the disciplinary process itself?

What do you mean when you say that the Policy and Procedures Manual "expired?" Is that a thing in your organization's rules? Generally speaking, rules do not expire.

On 4/15/2017 at 5:55 PM, Guest Linda said:

I don't know if this question pertains to this forum but is it common, or a beneficial practice to have the Bylaws deliberately vague to put the actual "how to" in the PPM or is that a bit dangerous?  The Bylaws were changed in 2015 to remove the details regarding disciplinary action which subsequently moved them to the PPM.

It's not unusual, and it normally works out fine. The dangerous part is this business of your Policy and Procedure Manual potentially "expiring." If that is indeed possible, then it would be extremely dangerous to refer to it, since the bylaws might end up referring to a document which does not exist.

On 4/15/2017 at 6:28 PM, Alexis Hunt said:

If your bylaws explicitly adopt RONR as the parliamentary authority, then it seems to me that it would be a sensible to interpret the procedures in section 63 as governing, perhaps with minimal modifications as required by the bylaws such as to allow "any member to file a complaint".

I don't know that I would describe this as a "minimal" modification. Allowing a single member to bring charges essentially eliminates several steps of the disciplinary process.

1 hour ago, Richard Brown said:

Well, if we are going to get down to the nitty gritty, I doubt that it is necessary to say either "Mr. President" or "I rise to raise a point of order".  Just standing up and shouting "Point of Order!!" should also suffice.  Sometimes the situation demands that it be blurted out quickly.  In my experience, making a "Request for Information" or "Parliamentary Inquiry" is not usually of the same urgency as raising a point of order.  Niceties are always nice, but they aren't always essential.

The book specifically recognizes "Point of Order!" as acceptable when necessary, presumably due to the strict time requirements for raising most points of order. Since, as you note, questions are generally not of as great urgency, there is generally no need to dispense with the words "Mr. President, I rise to..." in those cases.

2 hours ago, parkourninja said:

I try to use forms as close to as given as well. But in this case, I could see how it might be more convenient to begin the statement with I rise, as the presiding officer immediately knows the type of motion that is being brought and therefore would not accidentally recognize another member who also said Mr. President, but was making a motion of lower precedence.

As for issues of claiming preference in recognition, the member still begins "Mr. President," and the President asks the member for what purpose he rises. If this is not sufficient, due to a large number of members seeking recognition at once (as may be the case in large conventions), the assembly may adopt rules to handle the situation, such as using colored cards, or lining up at different microphones, or the like.

14 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Or why not appoint Committee members at the first meeting of the Executive Committee following the installation of new members of the Executive Committee.  So, if new members of the Executive Committee take office until two months after the election is held, then why not appoint members of the other Committees at that meeting, two months after the election?

I expect there is concern with waiting two months to make the appointments.

4 hours ago, Guest Victoria said:

My organization has a special rule stating that members may introduce new motions from the floor, and once the motion has been made and seconded, "it shall be laid on the table until the next regular meeting."

Our yearly schedule also includes a quarterly time interval. My question is: if a member introduces a new motion at the last meeting before the quarterly time interval, can it carry over to the first meeting after the quarterly time interval? Or would it need to be reintroduced in the first meeting and not addressed until the second?

First of all, I would note that the effect of your rule appears to be that the motion is postponed until the next regular meeting, not laid on the table.

The general rule is that a motion may be postponed to the next meeting provided that the next meeting is within a quarterly interval, and that motions "fall to the ground" if more than a quarterly time interval passes between regular meetings. Your society's rules take precedence over the rules in RONR, however, so if your rule provides that motions made in New Business are postponed to the next regular meeting, and no exceptions are made, then I would think that the rule applies regardless of the time between meetings.

4 hours ago, coleche said:

-events prior to meeting

14 days prior- Notification sent out via Call for Nominations email.  Date of Elections was provided in the Call for Nominations Guidelines

-9 days prior - Newsletter included Call for Nominations reminder and again included Call for Nominations Guidelines with the election date 

-5 days prior - Reminder email with Sample ballot and election guidelines, reminders was sent out in Weekly Newsletter and indicated that election would take date

2 days prior - Additional reminder email with sample ballot and election guidelines was sent out in Weekly Newsletter and indicated that election day

I don't see how. You say that your bylaws require notice sent through the U.S. mail 10 days in advance, and it looks like that did not happen.

3 hours ago, Chris Harrison said:

Email is not the same as "U.S. postal service communication" so it sounds like the latest that something was sent out was 9 days before.  Of course even if it was sent out 10 days before one could question when does the 10 days start?  From when it was sent out (how can that be proved?)?  From the postmark?  From when the piece of mail was delivered to the member?

I would assume from the date of the postmark.

14 minutes ago, coleche said:

We have a couple of members that want to contest our election based on the fact that our membership did not recieve 10 days notification of election. Our bylaws state

"Prior written notice of ten days for any election shall be given to chapter members via U.S. postal service communication."  Which is debatable, because the President did send notice out via US mail, but it was sent out with other information as: campaign information and again with sample ballot. Also, it is in our bylaws that all elections are to be held in April and it was announced at a previous meetings.

Based on RONR (11th ed.)  pp. 444-446 shouldn't this have been done prior to voting and not after these candidates lost election?  What other recourse do we have in dealing with this issue?

It is always preferable to raise objections as soon as possible, but a previous notice issue affects the rights of absentees. Therefore, it is a continuing breach and the issue may be raised after the election. If it is indeed correct that sufficient notice was not provided, the election is null and void and must be redone. The way to deal with this issue is for the complaining members to raise a Point of Order at the next meeting. The chair will rule on the point, and his ruling will be appealed. Ultimately, the assembly is the final judge of its rules.

2 hours ago, Rev Ed said:

Yes, but the Board is free to allow anyone they want to stay.  I would argue that the Board cannot be doing its job recording what was done at a meeting if no one was taking Minutes.  As this is normally the job of the Secretary, it would be normal for the Secretary to remain in the meeting, even if not a member.  The person would be bound to keep confidential information secret, and if an employee could have this written right into their employment contract to ensure this.

In this situation, however, the board chose not to have the employee remain, and (I assume) to have a board member take minutes, which is entirely within the board's rights. The board is under no obligation to inform its regular Secretary of anything that occurred at the meeting.

15 hours ago, Guest Linda said:

I was pretty sure I read something to that fact.  We have 2 of our BOD severely attacking our President.  They have filed one complaint  that was ruled not valid due the fact it wasn't signed.  They are now getting ready to file another one.  These complaints are related to stuff that happened in 2015 (same President with an almost completely different BOD).  These two have decided that "someone needs to pay" and are now telling our President that she is only able to participate in the hearing but nothing else.  These same two are trying to inhibit the VP from attending as well since they are friends.  "Conflict of interest".  If the current BOD accepts to hear the complaint, I would like to be able to reference the location in RONR that would explain that the President can sit in.  Are you able to do that or is it only customary to give a yes or no answer?

If the President is being removed through the formal disciplinary procedures in Ch. XX of RONR, it is correct that at the trial itself, the accused may only be present for the trial, not for the consideration of guilt and the penalty. It must be understood, however, that the trial is the last step in a lengthy disciplinary process, and the accused has full rights to be present during the earlier steps of this process. If the President is being removed through a simple motion to remove him from office (which may be an option, depending on how your bylaws word the term of office for officers), the accused may be present throughout the entirety of the proceedings. If your organization is using a customized procedure, you'll need to check your rules, but I would say the accused has the right to be present, unless your rules provide otherwise.

Additionally, I would note that so far as RONR is concerned, only the membership (not two individual board members) may file charges against a member, and only the membership (not the board) may hear those charges, unless the membership has delegated this authority to the board, or to a trial committee appointed for the purpose. Your rules may vary.

I would also say that, while he has a right to be present, the President should relinquish the chair during the consideration of any disciplinary proceedings against him, since his appearance of impartiality will be compromised. Since the VP's impartiality is apparently also in question (albeit on fairly weak grounds, in my view), it may be appropriate to appoint someone else as a Chairman Pro Tempore, but I will leave that to the VP's best judgment.

Finally, the notion that the VP is prohibited from attending is absolute nonsense. RONR provides that members who have a personal or pecuniary interest not in common with other members (and I would not define simple friendship as such an interest), should not vote, but they still have the right to. They certainly have the right to speak in debate and to attend.