Josh Martin

As has been explained several times in this thread, when the Secretary casts the vote of the assembly, the ballot that the Secretary casts is not actually a vote, but is instead a ceremonial gesture (and an archaic one, for that matter).

Please post your question as a new topic.

As has been explained several times in this thread, the meaning of the phrase "dispense with the reading of the minutes" in RONR does not mean to do away with the reading of the minutes altogether. Instead, it means to delay the reading and approval of the minutes until a later time, usually later in the same meeting. After such a motion has been adopted, a member would later move to read the minutes. To approve the minutes without reading them is the standard procedure when copies of the draft minutes have been distributed in advance - no motion is necessary. As is the case when the minutes are read, no motion is necessary for the approval of the minutes, and the procedure is the same whether or not a motion to approve the minutes is made. The chair asks if there are any corrections to the minutes. Corrections are generally adopted by unanimous consent, but a majority vote is sufficient if there is disagreement. After any corrections are handled, the chair declares the minutes approved without a vote. A single member may demand that the minutes be read prior to approval.

We just answer questions about the rules here. What your society should do about what's going on is for your society to work out. As a matter of parliamentary law, if a motion to censure is pending, it is in order for a member to move to strike the word "censure" and insert the word "commend." In most circumstances, it seems fairly unlikely that such a motion will succeed, but that's a separate question. To Mr. Mervosh's question, I believe it is even in order for the member who is the target of the proposed motion to censure to do this, but it's probably not the best idea. Well, they don't need to, but if they don't make a case for their amendment in debate, then the chances of it being adopted seem even slimmer.

If a procedural rule in applicable law provides that the quorum is based on the fixed membership of the board rather than the current membership of the board (and I make no attempt to determine if the law in question does in fact provide that), then it is certainly correct that the board's quorum is six, regardless of how many vacancies the board has.

I'm a little puzzled about what the General is saying in the Q & A in question. Is he saying he quorum for a board is always a majority of the fixed membership, or only in circumstances where the board has failed to fill the vacancies for some time? Additionally, the Q & A seems to be dealing with an elected public body. Is that relevant to the answer provided? The language quoted in Post #6 is not applicable unless the organization's rules require a vote of a majority of the fixed membership.

In my opinion, the quorum for the board is a majority of the current members unless the bylaws clearly provide otherwise. Therefore, a quorum was present and the board could conduct business. Nonetheless, the vacancies should be filled as soon as possible. Since no one raised an Appeal from your ruling, however, the ruling stands, and there is now a precedent that the phrase "majority of the board" in your bylaws refers to a majority of the fixed membership of the board. A member might still raise an Appeal when you make this same ruling in the future. In the long run, it would be best to amend the bylaws, one way or the other, so that there is no question on the subject.

The board members who wanted him gone should have immediately moved to accept his resignation. At this point, there isn't anything they can do regarding the resignation - it's withdrawn. If they still want him gone, they'll need to look into more forceful methods to remove him. See FAQ #20.

The motion is legitimate. Whether or not a "non-voting member" can make a motion is a question your society will have to determine, since there is no such thing as a "non-voting member" in RONR. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591 for some Principles of Interpretation. Even if it is determined that such a member cannot make a motion, however, it's too late to raise a Point of Order regarding that issue now.

The procedure for calling a special meeting is what is defined in your bylaws. If your bylaws are silent on the subject, then a special meeting cannot be called. RONR does not contain its own procedure for calling special board meetings. What is said on pg. 586 is part of a set of sample bylaws, and is not applicable to your organization.

If I understand the facts correctly, the Secretary position is normally an elected position, but the bylaws authorize the President to appoint someone to fill a vacancy in that position. If that is the case, it seems to me that the rules for removing the Secretary are the same as for removing an elected officer, unless the bylaws provide otherwise. Exactly what that entails depends on the wording of the bylaws regarding the term of office. As for the issue of the President presiding, the President should not preside over his own trial or over a motion to remove him from office, but he is not automatically removed from the chair in such circumstances. If he refuses to relinquish the chair, the assembly may suspend the rules to remove the President from the chair by a 2/3 vote.

If the vote is taken by roll call, he should answer "Present" or "Abstain" when his name is called. Other than that, no notification is required.

I agree with Mr. Brown that most rules in Robert's Rules can be suspended. Yes, and as noted, this is improper. A motion to "Suspend Robert's Rules" is out of order because some rules in Robert's Rules cannot be suspended, and because the motion to Suspend the Rules is used to accomplish a specific purpose, not to simply suspend masses of rules for no reason. If the members could explain what exactly they are trying to do, perhaps we can advise them on the proper way to do that (if there is one). "In making the incidental motion to Suspend the Rules, the particular rule or rules to be suspended are not mentioned; but the motion must state its specific purpose, and its adoption permits nothing else to be done under the suspension." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 262) What are you quoting from? It certainly isn't Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition. The entire book is about parliamentary procedure. Are you asking, perhaps, for examples of rules which can be suspended by a 2/3 vote? The rules could be suspended to permit a motion which does not take precedence over the immediately pending motion. For instance, permitting a motion to Postpone Indefinitely while an amendment is pending, or a motion to Commit while a motion to Postpone to a Certain Time is pending.The rules could be suspended to take up a motion before the usual time, such as to introduce an item of New Business while the assembly is still considering Unfinished Business.The rules could be suspended to permit a non-member to speak in debate.

I would think the first paragraph should include a notation that a quorum was not present (or a notation later in the minutes, if the quorum is not lost until some time later), but beyond that, I see no need to write the minutes any differently than usual.

If the meeting was actually in recess (or adjourned), any decisions made during that time would not be recorded in the minutes. I'm not sure, however, that the facts you describe necessarily mean that the decisions were "taken during what was, in effect, a recess."

No, it is not quite the same as if those members had happened to get together at the local tavern and made the same decisions. A properly called meeting, even without a quorum, is still a meeting of the assembly. The minutes are a record of what happens at such meetings, even if what happened was improper.

Based on these additional facts, it would appear that the required vote threshold was not met, however, it is too late to raise a Point of Order about that at this time.

In the case of a special committee, discharging the committee of its appointed task will also disband or dissolve the committee, since special committees are appointed for a specific task. In the case of a standing committee, discharging the committee of a particular task will not dissolve the committee. Not in those words, but the assembly can accomplish this object by means of the motion to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted, which is discussed in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 305-310. Exactly what is required will depend on how the committee was established. In order to definitively answer whether the method used was improper, what would have been the proper method, and what can be done about it now, it will be necessary to know how the committee was established. Was it simply established by a main motion? If so, by the board or the membership? Alternately, is the committee found in the organization's rules? If so, what level of rules - bylaws, special rules of order, standing rules?

The members of whichever assembly is meeting. I see no reason from the facts provided why a motion to recreate the same or a similar committee would be out of order. A single person can't insist on much of anything. The membership itself could adopt a motion ordering the board to learn the rules of RONR and to implement them faithfully, and could remove board members who fail to comply (see FAQ #20, as noted above).

No, there is no need to include other information. Minutes for meetings held in executive session, even those for meetings concerning discipline, follow the same rules as for minutes generally. Additionally, who attended is not part of the standard information in the minutes so far as RONR is concerned. The fact that the regular chair and secretary were present (or the names of their substitutes, in their absence) is recorded, but a full list of attendees is not.

The chair would say something to the effect of "Mr. X is elected by acclamation." This is generally done separately for each position. I believe it could be done for all uncontested positions at once, but only if no member objects. This is only the appropriate procedure, however, if the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, or if they do require a ballot vote but provide an exception for uncontested positions. If the bylaws require a ballot vote and provide for no exceptions (as seems to be the case in your organization, if you are the same Penny as in this related thread), then a ballot vote must be taken. Additionally, for future reference, it is generally best to post a new question as a new topic in this forum, even if an existing topic is similar.

Well, in that case, I don't know why he called it "#66," but there is nothing on that page which supports the board member's point of view. There is no rule in RONR which requires the board to appoint the runner-up, but if the board is authorized to fill vacancies, there is also no rule which prohibits it.

No, there is no such rule. Your board member appears to be referring to Section 66 in the 4th Edition of ROR (which was written in 1915), but it says no such thing - nor does the current edition. No. While there is no rule which requires the board to appoint the runner-up, there is also no rule which prevents the board from doing so. (Assuming, of course, that the board is authorized to fill vacancies in the first place.)

I started in student government in college. At my first meetings, I had little idea what all of the terminology meant. I proceeded to order RONR and RONR In Brief. I read the latter text before my next meeting, and the former over the course of the summer. I found the RONR forum the following summer as a way to keep my skills sharp while Student Senate was not in session. After graduation, I joined NAP and, over the course of the next couple of years, became an RP and then a PRP.

This is not correct. A motion to Suspend the Rules is required to permit a non-member to speak in debate. A majority vote is sufficient to let a non-member speak when no motion is pending (assuming, as you have noted, that this does not interfere with the order of business).