Joshua Katz

I'm not sure about 3.

As Mr. Martin and I have said, it's a judgment call. Lots of things are judgment calls, and I don't see any reason this is more problematic than other rules that use words like reasonable, excessive, etc.

Hmm, yes, this is a problem.

Except it is not at any time whatsoever, it is when the chair has failed to call a meeting.

I think it is ambiguous as to whether or not the rule applies to subsequent meetings. I'd add that it has rather bizarre consequences if it doesn't, though. "Our committee chair isn't scheduling any meetings and we aren't getting anything done." "So replace them." "How?" As a result, I'd apply it to subsequent meetings. The remaining question is what "fails" means. I think that's up to the judgment of the committee, but my personal opinion is that one cannot be simultaneously trying to schedule a meeting, and failing to act.

Exactly. They didn't say "6 year terms, approximately one third elected every 2 years."

Approximately one-third of the Senate comes up for re-election (or not) every 2 years, but they don't put it that way. I'd not suggest you put it that way either. How about, instead, saying how many people are on the committee, giving a term of office and setting up staggered terms, then letting the voters take it from there?

I've also seen worse meetings. That doesn't mean this one doesn't, as the title suggests, need major help. The administrator might have the intent to do some sort of "rescue," but is actually shouting down a recognized speaker who is speaking against a pending motion. I don't think the speaker has exceeded any time limits, but if they have, a point of order would be more appropriate than what was actually done. Yes, as I mentioned, the speaker has the only lectern, and that's a problem - it's also why the speaker winds up yelling at the administrator. The speaker has not yet moved his amendments - so? Debate is permitted, and he's debating. You'll notice also that when he tries to move them, he is shouted down because there's already a pending motion, as if subsidiary motions were not "a thing" (it is important to try to fit in with the setting, and so I am using some millennial phrases).

I agree that if RONR is adopted in the bylaws, its rules can (through one of two different theories, and I don't know that it matters which one you use) be considered rules of the society. However, I don't think such a standing rule would conflict with anything in RONR. RONR says that members have no such right, but does not prohibit their attendance. It is not, in my opinion, contrary to that to provide such a right by rule. If a federal law were to provide that states do not have to, I don't know, include pictures on driver's licenses, would it be contrary to that law for a state to provide, by state law, that such pictures will be included?

Mr. Martin's comment got me thinking - a standing rule of whose? A standing rule of the board can, of course, be suspended by the board (or amended out of existence). But a standing rule adopted at a membership meeting would be sufficient, and couldn't be suspended by the board, I think.

In all seriousness, I think a better lesson may be that those calling a meeting should try to do it when they expect others may attend.

Yes - have a rule dropping people's membership after they miss X meetings. That's the lesson, right?

One suggestion for maintaining order: don't let people speaking in debate stand in the place of the chair. Doing this removes the chair from being able to officiate, gives undue influence to the speakers, and is overall, in my opinion, a bad idea. Have a place for the chair, and have the chair remain there, able to rule, etc. Here, the speaker starts acting as if he were the chair, talks about "turning it over" to a girl, people start saying nonsense, etc. - all without a ruling from the chair. Nothing about what I saw suggests that the administrators will go quietly into the night. However, the assembly doesn't seem all that concerned about their violations and interference in the organization.

Also, to the OP, the preferred way to approve the minutes is to ask for corrections and, once there are no more corrections, declare the minutes approved.

I seem to recall a chaotic student government meeting at a school in California where a school administrator not only insisted on speaking, but also insisted, in essence, that a vote be retaken until they got the "right" answer. I agree that RONR might prohibit this sort of activity, but, again, I don't know how persuasive that is likely to be.

Somehow, though, I feel uncertain that school administrators will listen when told by the presiding officer to be quiet or be removed as disruptive non-members.

I haven't watched the video, since I am at school and it would be rude to play with sound, and rather pointless without. Why do you believe the business is not valid? As for the administration, the general rule in RONR is that non-members have no rights at meetings, but if permitted by a majority they may speak. Some here think they can make motions, others do not. They certainly cannot vote. However, without more information, it is not clear what relationship administrators have to the organization, i.e. whether or not they are non-members.

I have been to many meetings where people did not know how to raise points of order. It is like the Passover Seder - some sons must be taught even if they do not know what to ask.

In thinking about my response some more - of course holding the election at a different time can change the outcome, but in general, it doesn't do so in a prejudicial or systematic way. On the other hand, if it can be proven that the presiding officer said "okay, it's time for the el...hmm, Ted's still here and Bob hasn't gotten here yet...it's time for this other thing!" or was on the phone saying "okay, so when can you get here to vote for our favored candidate?" it seems to me there was a violation that impacted the outcome by controlling the voters. That doesn't seem to be the case here. (Of course, under those circumstances, I'd also think there's a case for discipline.)

Regardless, none of the things complained of (one of which I don't understand - how can a Board chair a meeting?) would impact the outcome, so there's no continuing breach, making the point of order not timely.

Well, I do not agree that they can't be your representative. However, there's no reason for a motion to remove the person, however that is done under your rules, to include a reason. I am puzzled why anyone would think that the question of removing your board representative should be put before the board, but maybe I'm missing something. I agree with Mr. Brown that it is odd for bylaws to make a Parliamentarian a member of the board.

I'm not aware of a rule that prohibits it, but having your representative be the Parliamentarian has two difficulties. First, assuming all goes as it should, you will not have a representative who speaks for you and votes according to your interests, since the Parliamentarian will neither speak in debate nor vote (nor make motions). Second, even if all goes as it should, despite you losing representation, others will suspect that your caucus has an unfair advantage.

I don't think my past career as a logician gives me any special insight on this problem.

Note also that the chairman need not 'ask for a motion' when operating under small board rules. Motions are in order when no business is pending, so at any time during that discussion, it is perfectly in order to make one - no need to wait for the chair to ask for one. So, it's not clear to me how the chair can simply move past the discussion without allowing for a motion.

Well, I suppose one could interpret that statement as meaning that no business can be conducted at the spring meeting, but I personally wouldn't interpret it that way. Many organizations have several business meetings, one of which is called the Annual Business Meeting. Usually it means that some specific business is conducted at that meeting, such as elections, budgets, etc. However, it is up to your organization to interpret your bylaws. I can't imagine why you'd hold a "meeting" at which business is not conducted. Now, unless you have some special provisions, the petition signed by a quorum of members is meaningless. Quorum is the number who must be present to transact business at a properly-called meeting; there's otherwise nothing magical about a gathering of that many people. (Although it is beloved by people who don't understand parliamentary procedure to gather together a quorum and claim they can conduct business.) The petition itself is likewise meaningless - either the board has the exclusive power to set the rules, or it does not. The board does not permit the members to vote on things at its pleasure (unless you have rules saying it does). It's then a question of interpretation as to whether the rules you have stated give the board the exclusive power to make rules, or the membership can also do so. I note in passing that it doesn't say anything about this power being exclusive.