Josh Martin

These words are not found in RONR. There is nothing in RONR explicitly about correspondence in the minutes, but RONR does note that minutes are a record of what was done, not what was said. I would suggest that even this may be too much information for the minutes, at least so far as RONR is concerned. The closest analogy is guest speakers, where RONR notes that the name of the speaker and the topic may be noted, but no effort should be made to summarize the remarks. No. No.

So far as RONR is concerned, members are free to introduce motions during New Business, whether they or not they are listed on the agenda. I don't think that there is anything explicitly stating as much, because it should be painfully obvious to any reasonable person that the purpose of the heading "New Business" is the introduction of new business. Your board, however, is free to adopt its own rules which supersede those in RONR, and it would seem that your board has adopted a rule on this subject. So the real question whether that rule prohibits the introduction of motions which are not listed on the agenda, and that is a question that only your board can answer.

Only items 3, 4, and 5 on this list are fundamental principles of parliamentary law. Item 9 is either misleading or inaccurate. Not all motions may be reconsidered, if you are referring to the specific parliamentary motion Reconsider.

I believe that all the OP is saying with the statement regarding the Secretary is that if the Secretary is the candidate, someone else makes the motion for acclamation.

Yes, but the bylaws can provide for an exception, and it seems that these bylaws do, since they say that "a motion to elect that candidate by acclamation is permitted as long as there are no objections."

If the board has sent out an e-mail regarding a special election in order to get the membership's input on the vacancy, it seems fairly clear to me that the board has accepted the resignation, even if it failed to formally vote on the matter. Nothing about special meeting at all? If so, they cannot be held. If there is nothing about special meetings in your bylaws, the vacancy cannot be filled until the next regular board meeting. It also no longer seems practical to seek the membership's input on the matter (at least not at a formal meeting), since the membership's next regular meeting appears to not be until the term is over anyway. I fully agree with this, but (if the timeline wasn't an issue), I would see no problem with the board seeking the membership's recommendation.

Well, I hope that whoever told you this is basing it on something in your bylaws, because nothing in RONR says any such thing. So far as RONR is concerned, a quorum is required to conduct business, period. The fact that quorum has not been met for several meetings or the reasons why a quorum cannot be obtained are irrelevant.

Thank you. Based upon the facts provided, it will be necessary for the society to use formal disciplinary procedures, including a trial, to remove the wayward board members. These procedures are fairly lengthy and complex, and it would be advisable to read Section 63 of RONR in its entirety before proceeding.

Of course you fit into FAQ #20, but there are two different processes discussed there, and which is applicable to your organization depends on the wording in your bylaws. What is the exact wording your bylaws use to describe the term of office?

You say that "our general membership really has no power." What power, if any, does the membership have? For instance, does the membership at least elect the board members? If so, see FAQ #20.

It seems to me that a delegation either is a special committee or is very much like such a committee. My own experience is that delegations are not often expected to make a report, but if they are, they would report under that heading. "As in the case of any committee, in the absence of a superior rule to the contrary a constituent society or unit can instruct its delegation," (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 606) As for the latter question, the rules generally suggest that there should be a single, joint report from the committee. I suppose one could reasonably argue that the language of the rule in question provides otherwise and that each member is required to report, although that would not be my personal interpretation.

Well, first I think the chair should ask the Secretary if he's just making a joke or if his intent was to make a nomination. If the latter, perhaps the assembly will need to hold an actual election after all. If it was just a joke, I think what should happen in such a case is for the chair to remember that all this nonsense is completely unnecessary and declare the sole candidate elected by acclamation, which is what should have happened in the first place. In practice, I imagine the assembly would be dumbfounded by this development and would, after much confusion, either convince the Secretary to do it right the second time or get someone else to do it. Whether the assembly would laugh this off or promptly initiate disciplinary proceedings depends on the assembly.

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.