Josh Martin

The fact that the President has the power to appoint members to committees does not necessarily mean that he has the power to create committees, but assuming that he does, I agree that he could dissolve committees he created. As for the second case, while the President could technically pull a stunt like that, it doesn't seem like a very good career move for the President. If the President removes all members from a properly established committee and refuses to appoint new members, I would expect disciplinary procedures to be forthcoming.

I don't understand the problem. If there is a record of how each individual member voted, those votes can be counted. If the minutes simply state the total number of votes on each side, there isn't anything to count. If tally sheets are taken and securely preserved, these may be recounted. It is rather unlikely that this will be done in practice, however, unless perhaps if the assembly is especially large. There is something to count if tally sheets are used. If not, there is nothing to count. Whether the question is on an election has nothing to do with it. Because tally sheets do not simply include the totals. They include tally marks, and those tally marks can be counted. The rule is that you can't have a recount unless there is something to count. Simply looking at the totals isn't counting.

Yes, exactly. The minutes should be approved, since they are an accurate record of what happened. Then a separate motion would be made in new business to amend the previously adopted motion.

If this was merely a typographical error, made after the meeting, then so far as RONR is concerned, "a little bit of white out will fix it." On the other hand, if the chair stated the question on replacing Ordinance 48, then that is what was adopted, and the council will need to fix it. Since this is a government body, there may also be legal issues involved.

If this is a special committee, disbanding and discharging the committee are synonymous. If it is a standing committee, it is correct to draw a distinction, but then this also raises interesting questions about whether the board had the authority to establish the committee to begin with. I concur that, in any event, the President does not have the authority to do this on his own.

If this is an unincorporated society, see RONR, 11th ed. pgs. 562-563 for the proper procedures for a merger or consolidation. If this is an incorporated society, consult an attorney.

If you read the next paragraph of that post, it seems pretty clear that Dan is not saying that. It appears that General Robert suggested in a particular instance that the assembly could accomplish an even greater effect than Rescind and Expunge by a 2/3 vote when the minutes were pending for approval. Rescind and Expunge still leaves the motion in the minutes, it simply expresses extreme disapproval. Striking something from the minutes removes it entirely. I concur with Mr. Honemann and Mr. Gerber that this is not in order. The presumption in the answer seems to be that this may be accomplished by suspending the rules, but rules which have effect outside the current session may not be suspended. I'm not sure this limitation was fully fleshed out at the time PL was written (it does not appear to be explicitly mentioned in the section of PL on suspending the rules), which may account for this odd response.

I see no reason why not.

Yes, technically the rule is that a motion which is defeated may not be reintroduced until a later session. I did not make the distinction as the OP's question did not appear to be regarding a multiple-day session.

RONR provides, in the section for the Nominating Committee "After the nominating committee has presented its report and before voting for the different offices takes place, the chair must call for further nominations from the floor." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 435) In the context of RONR, however, a nominating committee is a committee which makes its own recommendations for each office, and is under no obligation to submit any other nominations it receives to the assembly. In some organizations, however, the role of the nominating committee (either in addition to or instead of the role above), is to collect nominations made by mail, and to pass all such nominations on to the assembly. In such a case, notwithstanding the fact that there is a committee called the nominating committee, this seems less analogous to the procedure in RONR for nominations by a committee and more analogous to nominations by mail (RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 437-438), which has no requirement for nominations from the floor.

If this is, as you say, "a temporary majority that is not representative of the body," then the assembly can fix its minutes at the next meeting, and also adopt a motion to appoint an investigative committee.

The statement of the result in the minutes, in and of itself, is not subject to a recount. A recount requires actually counting something. In the case of a ballot vote, that would be the ballots. In the case of a counted rising vote, that would be the tellers' tally sheets. If such tally sheets were not securely preserved (or if they never existed in the first place), there is nothing to count.

So far as I can tell, a "recapitulation" is only applicable to a roll call vote, so no, I don't think this could be ordered. The assembly could theoretically order a recount for a counted rising vote, but only if tally sheets or other written records of the vote counts were taken and preserved, which seems unlikely in practice. Assuming this could actually be done, however, I see no reason why the chair could not use this opportunity to correct his math.

If the nominating committee submits all nominations it receives to the assembly, then yes, nominations from the floor are not required. So far as RONR is concerned, the assembly may still choose to open nominations from the floor if it chooses to do so, but your rules may provide otherwise.

Yes, the minutes are what is being amended. The procedure described above applies to all cases where the minutes are amended after they are approved, regardless of how minor the correction is. For something as minor as a spelling error, my suggestion would be to leave it alone. The minutes are a record of what is done, not what was said. For that reason, this information should not have been included in the minutes at all. If such information is nonetheless included, however, it should be an accurate record of what happened at the meeting. So if inaccurate information was given at the meeting, then that's what goes in the minutes.

I prefer option 1. I don't think it makes much difference assuming the actions are ratified. If the actions aren't ratified, then yes, it may make a difference whether the actions were taken at an inquorate meeting or if the actions are taken by the officers - it changes how many people share in the blame. The reference to delegates doesn't apply here. That would come into play if, for instance, the delegates took actions which exceeded their instructions from their state/local societies.

See the second paragraph of FAQ #16.

Your organization will need to interpret its own rules. Nothing in RONR permits the chairman to cast two votes. For what it is worth, the rule in RONR is that the chairman shall not vote unless his vote would affect the result or the vote is taken by ballot, and by "chairman" I mean the person who is chairing the meeting at the time. In committees and small boards, however, this rule does not apply, and the chair is free to vote in all cases. Under no circumstances may the chair vote twice. If there is a tie, the motion is defeated.

Not at the same meeting, but it could be reintroduced at a later meeting.

A majority vote (more than half) of the votes cast for a position is required for election. Keep in mind, however, that blank ballots or abstentions don't count as votes cast.

It's not clear to me whether the organization's nominating committee functions in the same manner as the nominating committee in RONR. If the nominating committee only nominates candidates of its choice, then yes, nominations from the floor must be taken. It seems, however, as if the committee may be required to report all nominations which it receives by the deadline, in which event this process is more similar to nominations by mail. In that case, nominations from the floor are not required, but the assembly may permit them if it wishes. Of course, the bylaws take precedence in any case.

About skipping the trial? RONR, 11th ed., pg. 665. Perhaps, but it may also be the case the body does not wish to apportion the penalty according to the full evidence, and is satisfied with acting on the member's admission of guilt. I would certainly agree that the assembly may choose to appoint an investigative committee even if the accused admits his guilt, but is the assembly required to do so? As I understand the rules, the purpose of the requirement for an investigative committee is to protect the right of the accused "that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground." (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 656) If the accused admits that the allegations are correct, this protection is not needed.

I would think not, but stay tuned for other opinions. RONR specifies that there is no need for a trial if the member pleads guilty at the start of the trial meeting, but it is not clear if other stages of the disciplinary process may be skipped if the member admits guilt at an earlier stage. (The text seems to assume that a member will tender his resignation in such a case.)

None. The term "ratification of the house" and the procedure you are describing do not appear in Robert's Rules. Such details are handled by the Credentials Committee, and the assembly only discusses these matters if there is a challenge to the credentials of a particular delegate or delegation.

It is ultimately up to your organization to interpret its own bylaws, and they will need to be read in their entirety to be properly interpreted. Some Principles of Interpretation can be found in RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 588-591.