Josh Martin

I don't think it is. Based upon the facts provided and the information in FAQ #20, it looks to me like formal disciplinary procedures are required. Be sure to review the rules in Section 63 of RONR in their entirety before proceeding. A ballot vote is certainly an option. Under formal disciplinary proceedings, when you reach the end of the trial, a single member may demand that the vote on the question of guilt and on the penalty shall be taken by ballot. A trial won't necessarily be that messy. You might want to seek out a professional parliamentarian in your area for assistance due to its complexity, though. (Look up the National Association of Parliamentarians or American Institute of Parliamentarians for assistance.) Also, I don't think the member's experience in legal trial will necessarily mean she'll be an expert at facing a disciplinary trial under RONR. They're not quite the same, and I'd bet she's not familiar with the process either (since few people are). If anything, I'd say that the fact that the member is litigious is all the more reason to do this "by the book," in case she sues the society. I think that's also another reason to potentially seek professional assistance. Based on the facts presented, I think you'll need to hold a trial. As noted in FAQ #20, if the Bylaws simply provide for a fixed term of office, then formal disciplinary procedures by the general membership are required to remove an officer. See Section 63 of RONR for more information on the trial (and the steps leading up to a trial).

Based on the information provided, no. As noted in FAQ #20, if the Bylaws simply provide for a fixed term of office, then formal disciplinary procedures by the general membership are required to remove an officer. You can have the general membership follow the formal disciplinary procedures in Section 63 of RONR. I suppose I cannot say for certain that the meeting itself is null and void, although it seems likely since even if the Bylaws authorize board members to call special meetings, it looks to me that the meeting may have been improperly called due to (for instance) failing to send notice to all members of the board. It seems clear, however, that the board's actions at the meeting are null and void since the original poster clearly states that the Bylaws are silent on the topic of discipline. Thus, regardless of how the term of office is defined, the board does not have the authority to remove anyone from office. Such authority rests with the general membership unless the Bylaws provide otherwise. Dissolution has the same requirements as amending the Bylaws, so that's a pretty high bar to cross, but that's an option you can look into if you wish. If the President is attempting to have non-members vote, you should be prepared to raise a Point of Order and an Appeal if necessary. Does the President have the support of the actual members of the organization? If so, you're fighting a losing battle. If not, then there may still be hope. If this is accurate, it would be highly advisable to consult a lawyer before proceeding. Based on the information provided, I still maintain that the general membership will need to follow formal disciplinary procedures to remove the President. I certainly see nothing that would suggest that the board has the authority to remove the President. The only other solution I could imagine would be to amend the Bylaws to change that.

On a non-parliamentary note, remember that paragraph breaks are your friends. The meeting and the decision to motion to remove the President are null and void. Special meetings of the board can only be called if provided for in the Bylaws, and if they are provided for in the Bylaws you must follow those provisions. Based on the facts you've presented, it looks like special meetings of the board are either not authorized or they may only be called by the President. Additionally, all members of the board (including the President) must be notified of the date, time, and place of the meeting and of the topics to be discussed at the meeting, and it's unclear whether that happened. See RONR, 11th ed., pgs. 91-93 for more information on special meetings. Furthermore, since your Bylaws are silent on the subject of discipline of officers, the board does not have the authority to remove the President. A formal trial may or may not be required depending on how your Bylaws are worded (see FAQ #20 for more information), but in any event, the authority to remove the President rests with the general membership. See FAQ #20.

Yes, my mistake... I meant to say "a minority of greater than one-third." Yes, this is part of the reason why I find it highly unlikely that a member would move the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time, let alone that this would be obvious. I don't quite agree. I think a member might conceivably speak in support of the main motion and speak in favor of Postpone Indefinitely. This might happen if, for instance, the member would prefer that the society go on record as supporting a motion but fears this to be unlikely... and thus, makes the motion to Postpone Indefinitely as an alternative to the society going on record as defeating the motion. In this case (or in any similar case), however, the member will not be making the motion to Postpone Indefinitely solely to gain more debate time (which is consistent with your original argument).

Let's say for the sake of argument that it is indeed "obvious" that the member is using the motion solely for this purpose (although I find such a situation unlikely). I'm not sure there's any real harm here. If it's only a handful of members, then the Previous Question will sort this mess right out. If a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third is involved, keep in mind that even without the motion to Postpone Indefinitely, each member can speak twice per motion per day for up to ten minutes each time. In an assembly of any appreciable size, a determined minority of one-third or greater greater than one-third could keep the assembly busy for a very long time even without Postpone Indefinitely. If tactics like this are likely to be a problem, then the assembly is going to need special rules of order to set lower limits on debate. If tactics like this aren't likely to be a problem, then Postpone Indefinitely won't be an issue. The section on dilatory motions is clearly written with small groups of troublemakers in mind, since it focuses on two or three members bringing business to a standstill. It's not designed to address large-scale gridlock. Personally, I'm more fearful of the majority cutting off the motion to Postpone Indefinitely simply to save time than a member using it simply to gain more debate time. Sure, but if that's different from what is provided by RONR they should so so by adopting appropriate special rules of order. EDIT: Edited to correctly reflect the size of the minority required to block the Previous Question.

Fair enough, but can you illustrate a realistic situation involving the "dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely" - preferably a situation in which the motion is so obviously dilatory that the chair should rule it out of order? It may be true that any motion could theoretically be dilatory in the right set of circumstances, but for some motions those circumstances will rarely (if ever) arise.

Well, I suppose I'll concede that in that unusual instance it might be appropriate to rule the motion out of order, but members generally do not explicitly tell the chair why they are making the motion, so it seems we are in agreement that generally speaking, it will not be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely is being made solely to extend debate?

Mr. Hunt, can you please explain a scenario where it would be obvious that the motion to Postpone Indefinitely was being moved solely to gain more speaking time? I'm having a difficult time imagining one.

Well, I don't know exactly what you mean, but I don't think Matt's question was about protocol at all. See his follow-up post on the subject (#13 in this thread).

Indeed. Thank you.

Based on the discussion, I'm getting the idea that the characteristics of deliberative assemblies are primarily a set of assumptions inherent in the rules of RONR. If a group does not meet all of the characteristics of a deliberative assembly, this serves as a warning that many of the rules in the book will not apply to such a group, and that if the group wishes to use RONR, it will also need to adopt customized rules to fit its own unique circumstances. Edit: Filled in a not hole.

Well, certainly voting would require a Bylaws change, and that is what I focused on. Other things would require an ordinary motion or a motion to Suspend the Rules. It's my understanding that the desire is to have a single person attend online and everyone else meet in-person.

No. If your Bylaws define a "Past President" or "Immediate Past President" position, then by the simple dictionary definition of the term, the President automatically takes over that position when he resigns as President. If your Bylaws do not define such a position, your board can't just create the position. No. Unless your Bylaws say otherwise, the Vice President automatically becomes President, and the board has no say in the matter. There is no such thing as an "interim President" unless your Bylaws define such a position. So far as RONR is concerned, someone is either President or not. There's no "interim" about it. As for the resulting vacancy in the Vice President position, check what your Bylaws have to say about filling vacancies. If they're silent, the position is filled by the same body which elected the position to begin with, and previous notice is required for the election. This is not permissible unless specifically authorized by your Bylaws.

From a parliamentary perspective, a custom of an assembly which does not conflict with the organization's rules should be followed unless and until a majority votes to do otherwise, however, it seems unlikely that this is a parliamentary situation.

It is up to your organization to interpret its own Bylaws.

Lee, while I realize it's often difficult to determine this on this forum, I don't believe any of the members meant any disrespect. As Mr. Mountcastle said, from a parliamentary perspective, minutes are taken of all meetings, and there's no such thing as an "informal" meeting. In non-parliamentary circles, however, the term "meeting" often has a much broader meaning. The use of the word "informal" likely triggered notions of this broader meaning, and so the other posters were attempting to determine whether the "meeting" was a meeting in the parliamentary sense. If this was a regular meeting called for by a rule or resolution of the organization or board, or a special meeting properly called in accordance with the organization's Bylaws, then it was a meeting of the board and minutes should be taken. If it was something else, it wasn't a meeting of the board and minutes should not be taken (nor could the board take action under such circumstances). I also realize many posters simply use the term "informal" to indicate that the meeting did not follow strict parliamentary procedure (which is common for small boards), so if this was your intent, I understand if the posters' questions about informal gatherings seemed disingenuous. I believe, however, that they were legitimate questions.

So far as RONR is concerned, there are no alternates in standing committees. Robert's Rules does not address it. There is no such thing as an alternate for a committee unless provided for in your organization's rules. In RONR, alternates only exist for conventions of delegates. If your organization wishes to have alternates for committees, it will need to develop its own rules to facilitate that. No. No it doesn't. In the current edition of RONR, Chapter 20 is about disciplinary procedures. Chapter 19 is about conventions. So you either read the roman numerals wrong or you are not reading The Right Book.

Assuming there is nothing else in your Bylaws which is relevant to this issue, if the officers chooses not to resign it will be necessary to follow the formal disciplinary proceedings in RONR, 10th ed., Ch. XX. You should read that chapter in its entirety before proceeding, as it is crucial that the disciplinary process is properly conducted.

It's not even true that the President has the authority to give directions unless this authority is granted by your Bylaws, and no administrative authority of the President transfers to another officer in his absence unless that is specified in your Bylaws. You're going to need to amend your Bylaws and other rules if you want a "chain of command" of that nature.

The intent of using the slashes rather than arrows was to indicate equality for all the individual officers. The only reason the treasurer is listed before the secretary is because the original poster did so. While it is true that not all societies have a board, this society clearly does, and the President certainly does not outrank the board. I suppose I can imagine a society in which the board has so little power it can't even give directions to the officers but that seems unusual. But yes, if you want to be technical, the pure chain of command is General Membership -> Everyone, and anything else needs to be stated in the Bylaws.

The chain of command is General Membership -> Board of Directors -> President/Vice President/Treasurer/Secretary/Department Heads/etc. RONR does not give any individual any administrative authority over anyone or anything. All authority rests with the assembly unless the Bylaws state otherwise.

The quorum in the Bylaws doesn't apply until the Bylaws are actually adopted. Prior to that time, the assembly is in the nature of a mass meeting, and a quorum is the members present (not any fraction of the members present, because that's silly). Well, that wasn't very smart, but that does seem to clarify the proper interpretation of the ambiguous phrase. In that case, your quorum requirement is way too low, and silly. You will always have a quorum present, which defeats the purpose. Somewhere in the 10-15 range might not be bad for a quorum, based on those numbers. (I'm assuming that 14 is still within the normal range and wasn't an outlier due to some unusual circumstances.) If you wanted a percentage, that would be around 15-20%.

The body (or person) authorized to fill the resulting vacancy may accept the resignation.

Although RONR also notes that a majority is unattainable for the general membership of most organizations. Well, if your average attendance is about 30, then you should probably set your quorum a little lower than that. There's going to be some natural fluctuation in attendance so you should set it below the average. One way of thinking about it is estimating what would likely be your "low point" for attendance barring unusual circumstances (like a blizzard). Another way of thinking about it is at what point would the group be so small that you start to get nervous about them making decisions for the entire organization. Would you be okay with ten members spending your organization's money? What about five? Setting quorum is, of course, a balancing act. If you set it too high, the organization can't get a quorum and can't do anything. If you set it too low, one snowy night the three members who actually show up decide they should go to Tahiti on the organization's dime. I would say that if you're unsure it's better to set it a little on the lower side, as it's a lot easier to fix a quorum that's too low than to fix one that's too high (especially if it's WAY too high). We quite frequently get people on the forums asking what they can do if they can never get a quorum, and sadly the only answer is "Try harder." It sounds like you might have that problem right now.

The rules of decorum apply to all parts of the meeting, including Open Forum. See RONR, 10th ed., pgs. 379-382.