Joshua Katz

Quorum does not vary meeting to meeting, so I will assume this means something like 15% of the number who attended. Say meeting 0 was just held, and they want to call meetings 1 and 2. If attendance at meeting 0 was so high that 15% of that meeting will always be sufficient to call meeting 2, then I suppose they can call both. But if not, and it's possible that meeting 1's attendance will be so high that this group will not be able to call the next meeting, then it seems to me that they cannot call meeting 2 until they see who actually shows up at meeting 1.

The rule in RONR covers how to pass amendments, but does not prescribe that they pass through any particular committee. You say it's always been handled one way and now another, but what do the bylaws say about their amendment? If nothing, then the organization has no right to restrict the ability to present an amendment on the floor.

I don't think so. I don't think the problem is with the word "shall," but with the word "consisting of." In my view, that word does not allow for extra members. But there's a huge caveat. Only your organization can intepret its own constitutiona/bylaws. My opinion means little. Let the membership decide through a point of order and appeal. Well that's an interesting question. If possible, we should treat these are harmonious. Perhaps the president can be the representative from his Section?

I'll leave the other one as is, but I still don't follow your logic here. Why wouldn't the body decide? That's what seems natural to me - if there's a choice as to how to run a meeting, the body that is meeting decides.

Like Gary, I never met George, but I highly valued his contributions here and will miss him.

Well, I'm not sure enough of the facts to be certain that the first paragraph describes a blowing off of RONR. But let's assume it is, and the organization is also blowing off its bylaws. In my ordinary organizations, the solutions are to elect a different board, or perhaps for the membership to remove board members, via discipline or by ending their terms if the bylaws so allow. To do either of those things, the membership has to care enough. If that's not the case, and you can't make it so, then the organization will function in an unfair and inefficient manner. In the vast majority of cases, there is no RONR police, and no where outside of your organization to turn when the organization ignores its rules.

Well, you could elect different board members, or the other board members and committee members could vote to sell different mechandise.

I think it is mandatory and you'd need to suspend the rules to do otherwise (or adopt a special rule of order). But even if you disagree, why would it be at the chair's discretion?

It's not just a good idea, it's the law! (Well, the rules, anyway.) 😉

How large is the board? Under small board rules (smaller than about a dozen), yes. Under normal rules, no.

5 is greater than 2, so yes, assuming a majority is needed. Or, to look at it another way, of 7 votes cast, 5 were yes votes, which is more than half.

The difference is that, to remove someone from the office of director, the assembly needs to follow those procedures, since it elected them to that position. Since the board elected the person here to the office of secretary, it is the board that follows those procedures.

In that case, if you wish to remove an elected officer from their position, you will need to follow the disciplinary procedure in RONR chapter XX.

In that case, since the board is the appointing body, it is also the body that can handle removal. Next question - how are the terms of office defined in the bylaws?

How do your board members and officers get selected?

It is correct to hold the election. But if the election does not result in a person being elected, it has, as a matter of fact (is, not ought) not been completed.

Well I guess that explains it. Assuming, of course, that nothing the General wrote has ever changed.

Even assuming, a safe assumption, that everyone is right and I am wrong, why in particular is that absurd? Bylaws can say false things. You can adopt a bylaw that the sky is green. More seriously, many years ago we all, I think, eventually agreed that a bylaw saying "there are no rules of order and no points of order are permitted" would be ineffective, since there would be no way to stop someone from raising a point of order that would not, itself, violate that rule. So that rule simply states something false. Why can't this rule?

Well then there's no problem, since that date will never come. If he meant April 30, that's not quite true either, unless he wants to give up the remaining partial day of his current term. He seems to be saying, instead, that he doesn't intend to serve another term if elected. What do your bylaws say about elections, though? In particular, do they rule out nominations from the floor and/or write-ins?

I've always wondered about this, too.

RONR does not contain all the niceties of corporate law on these matters. If your organization is incorporated, you may have to consider state law.

Agreeing with my colleagues, an assembly may not be forced to meet indefinitely. If they want to go, they have the right to end the meeting and go. Else you could pass things by exhaustion. If, on the other hand, people would like to conduct the business for which they came, they should vote no on the motion to adjourn.

Agreeing with both of Mr. Elsman's points: RONR contains no rule saying that the secretary must be a member of the body, so long as the body desires someone else and the organization has no rules on the subject. So a non-member (regardless what else they are a member of) could be the secretary and sign the minutes. Is that the scenario you have in mind?

I agree. More precisely, as to 1, because you don't vote on committee reports, the report is never before the assembly, so the assembly is in no position to amend it. Besides, it is a report about what the committee did and recommends. The committee, not the board, are the experts on that. The motion Amend applies to motions before the body, and the motion Amend Something Previously Adopted applies to motions the body has already adopted. This is neither.

Or they could amend it to add a provision: in 2024, the percentages shall be...