Joshua Katz

I think there's plenty of evidence that they exist. What does the President imagine law schools are doing, just pretending? More seriously, though, the President doesn't have veto power. If the board wants the organization to have an attorney, it can pass a motion to hire one if within its authority. Otherwise, the membership can pass such a motion. The President isn't, as one POTUS put it, "the Decider."

The former.

And third, who is letting them cancel the meetings? If there is no provision for cancellation, the members should just show up anyway; if the officers choose not to attend, that's their problem.

While I think the above answers have hashed out the possibilities, I would just add that organizations often adopt procedural safeguards precisely to slow down leaders and not allow them to steamroll their ideas through.

An appeal is dilatory, it seems to me, if there is only one reasonable opinion - and that's the opinion on which the chair ruled. To say a ruling cannot be appealed because the chair is obviously wrong strikes me as unlikely to produce good results.

It's because, in other areas, you can have formality for its own sake without doing any real harm. So people learn formality for its own sake as if it were part of proper procedure, and apply it in areas where it does do damage. That's my theory, at least.

This is entirely a matter for your bylaws or other governing documents, and most likely governing law. RONR has nothing to say on the matter.

Ultimately, they're just words, and the authority granted to any is found in the bylaws (not granted by the full board, unless the board has the power to delegate). But in general (and in the words of The General), an executive committee is a "board within a board," and handles some subset of board decisions between board meetings. But if your bylaws wish to call your board an executive committee, they are free to do so, so long as terms are used consistently within the bylaws. Parties, by way of example, often call their boards "Central Committees." Just be sure it actually is a board - i.e. something the bylaws give broad powers to govern the organization.

I agree, but in my personal opinion, this looks far more like a qualification for election. This is because the flush language of the Section deals with election, and the qualifications are listed as subparts to that Section. But that's just, like, my opinion, man. Questionable at best, and more to the point, irrelevant to the topic at hand. By the way, I see that this is a CT department. I was Secretary and Parliamentarian of a CT fire department.

Well, it yields to applicable procedural law, not substantive law, but I don't see what this has to do with the conversation about the handling of an officer who no longer meets the qualifications in law or bylaws.

We can't speak to any laws that might be binding on your organization. So far as RONR is concerned, the assembly may order the board to produce its minutes by a 2/3 vote.

An agenda (unless your rules or laws say otherwise) is not an exclusive list of what may be dealt with. It is a series of prioritized items to be dealt with first. There's no reason the topic can't come up. If it came up before you dealt with the agenda items, it should have been through a motion to suspend the rules, but if it wasn't, it is too late now to raise a point of order. The minutes should reflect what was done, not what should be done. If the agenda were not approved, it wouldn't be an agenda at all.

What this paraphrase omits is whether these requirements are to become chief, or to be chief. (Although it certainly sounds like a good idea for the Chief to be able to get to a major incident quickly while off-duty.) Please include a longer quote. I don't think either of these are relevant to the current question. For that matter, I don't think the term of office is relevant to the current question (at least, not the part apparently being cited).

If the bylaws adopt a different parliamentary authority, then the board may not adopt RONR. It has to follow the bylaws.

Well, careful there. It's the common parliamentary law, right? It certainly isn't the whole body of the common law, and I doubt it's even part of what the legal profession refers to as the common law.

Yes, but so what? Rules in the bylaws also prevail, too.

That is one of the options I was thinking of (although the ED is not the Director of the meeting), but I'm still confused on how it fits with the rest of the question. I still think more information is needed.

We still don't know, I'd point out, where this disqualification is found. Mr. Mervosh, would your opinion change if it is found in a statute? Also, as a guide toward answering the question in controversy above: what happens if the bylaws are amended during the term of an officer, making that officer ineligible? If the answer is that the officer stays in office, doesn't that make nonsense of the statement that bylaw amendments take effect immediately? If the answer is that the officer does not stay in office, then why is it any different if something about the officer changes and leads to the disqualification? In any event, it seems to me that bylaws outrank RONR, and if the bylaws discuss eligibility to serve (as opposed to eligibility to be elected) we don't need anything in RONR to tell us that the officer can no longer serve, since the bylaws say so.

While we're waiting for that answer, here are a few thoughts. So far as parliamentary procedure is concerned, firing an employee is a main motion and can be adopted in executive session or open session, so long as the body adopting it has that power. Applicable laws or your own rules may apply, however, as well. So far as RONR is concerned, a matter need not be on the agenda to be adopted; again, your rules or applicable laws may have something to say. Finally, I'm troubled by this phrase in the question: Just what is meant by "Director of the meeting"? In general, a director is a member of a board, but there's no reason to add "of the meeting" after that unless something else is meant. Also: It's almost certainly the case that a single director cannot fire an employee. Directors have no power (unless your rules say otherwise) except as members of the board, i.e. except to vote on board matters. They don't carry individual authority around with them - again, unless your rules say otherwise. Also, an individual can no more take actions in executive session than in open session, leading me to suspect that "executive session" might have been misused in this question. To clarify, an executive session is a meeting or portion of a meeting which is closed to non-members (except those who are invited), whose minutes are kept secret, and whose participants are not permitted to discuss the proceedings with those not permitted to attend. Is this the sense in which you're using it, or do you mean something different? As a general matter, motions adopted in executive session are just as good as those adopted any other time, so there's no need to adopt a motion twice, once in executive session and once out, and doing so is usually out of order.

Great movie.

Well, true, but RONR doesn't say anything about bank robbing, while it does say that email voting needs to be authorized in the bylaws.

I guess a better term would be 'alternate member' instead of nonvoting member, if that clarifies anything. This is what the statue states: Three members and three alternate members appointed by the governor each of whom shall possess a commercial fisherman's license with a "certified" endorsement pursuant to R.S. 56:303(E), with four to be selected from a list of six nominees submitted by the Louisiana Shrimp Association and two to be selected from a list of six nominees submitted by the secretary It seems to me that this does not change the answer. Alternates do not enjoy the unrestricted right to participate including voting (generally), making them non-members. But non-members may serve as chairs, as described in the prior answers.

When you say residency requirements, do you mean qualifications for office as defined in the bylaws?

Well, as far as RONR is concerned, sure, the members of a board or committee (excluding one if you want) may get together and discuss issues. What they may not do is conduct business. But be sure there's no applicable sunshine law or other law on the topic. That's not, at least in RONR-speak, though, convening a meeting.

I do not see how the quote helps answer the question, since the question concerns someone who is not a member in the parliamentary sense.