Chris Harrison

You cannot deprive a member of her rights (including the right to vote) simply because she is in arrears unless the Bylaws say so or she had been subjected to disciplinary action (RONR p. 406).

A nonmember can be permitted to speak (but has no right to speak). However he or she cannot vote.

Those details should be in the Bylaws. I would also suggest you check to see if there are any higher levels of the Union (Regional, State, Federal?) and laws or agencies governing your Union who can put more pressure on them than a single member.

If no one steps up...push comes to shove you all can hire someone to take the minutes, Better yet, save yourselves money and dragoon one of the kids/grand-kids into doing it. After all, they owe y'all one. Of course, this assumes the bylaws don't limit who can be Secretary.

Nominations wouldn't exactly be proper fodder for the Good of the Order as discussed on RONR p. 362. The bigger question is why are you all having problems finding someone willing to serve? Is there anything the organization can do to make the job more desirable?

I think that depends on the EXACT language in the bylaws defining a quorum and how many members the Board has/can have.

I still stand by my previous response regarding Executive Session (though if you want to go after the member for other misdeeds you will need to look to the bylaws for the details). I don't believe you ever answered my question whether the parliamentarian had a right to attend the meeting if he or she had been there.

You take them the same way you take minutes in open session. You store them in the same place as the minutes. You approve them in Executive Session. See RONR p. 96 ll. 14-17and pp. 468-476.

With some restrictions an adopted motion can be amended or rescinded. See RONR pp. 305-310.

I think that is one reasonable way to interpret it. However, it is ultimately up to the members to decide. No math I'm aware of would define 1/10th as a majority. Maybe he is using Common Core Math for his calculations. You will need to read the Bylaws in their entirety to (hopefully) get an answer. That one sentence amendment provision you cited us leaves much to be desired so I would hope there is more to it.

If it seems like everyone who has spoken is for (or against) the motion is there a way (within the rules) for the Chair to acknowledge this and encourage/prompt the members to either move the Previous Question or simply stop seeking the floor in order to continue debate?

RONR leaves those sort of details for the organization to figure out. I would suggest you all do some research (talk to some veteran members who have been around for a while?) to determine how it was done in the past.

Can you please clarify your question? Are you wanting to preside over the meeting? Or are you wanting to address the assembly?

...Though p. 253 ll. 25-27 makes it sound like the explanation is actually a required part of the Chair's response to the Point of Order rather than something that "should" also occur. If that is the case wouldn't a member have a right to demand the Chair provide his or her rationale for the ruling. Of course, upon such a demand the Chair may retort "Because I said so."

I understand you all want to keep everything that was discussed confidential. However, with the possible exception of the parliamentarian (would he or she have had a right to attend the meeting if he or she was there?) from what you have told us it sounds like everyone who was included in the email had a right to this information in the first place. So, while what this guest did may have been rude and against the member's wishes I'm not sure there was an actual rule violated that you can properly go after her for (again with the possible exception of the parliamentarian depending on what rights he or she have).

I'm not sure how saying "I don't trust you" could be construed as anything but a personal attack. While saying this is a personal opinion the (quite clear in my opinion) insinuation is the person can't be trusted (even if only in this one person's opinion). Of course the assembly is free to take this statement with a grain (or ten trillion oceans worth) of salt.

An adopted motion continues in force until it is fully executed, amended, rescinded, or reconsidered. A motion that is defeated can be renewed (subject of course to any rules governing how and when it can be introduced). So in other words, just because the assembly decided something doesn't mean a future assembly can't go another direction.

RONR does not grant the Chair or Board such power. Any such powers would need to be bestowed by an applicable rule or law.

It does seem like the Secretary is straying into the Treasurer's lane. A member can make a motion directing the Secretary not to disseminate the organization's financial information (and in debate it can be pointed out that there is a mechanism in place to allow people with the right to that information to obtain it from the Treasurer).

<Slaps head with hard-backed copy of RONR> That is a very good point!!

Nothing in RONR would prohibit it.

He has no right to do so (under RONR). However, the Board can by a majority vote allow the non member (of the Board) to address them when no question is pending or by a 2/3 vote allow him or her to enter into debate.

Two questions (so far): 1) Do your bylaws require a ballot vote for elections? 2) How long after you all declared the first candidate elected was the other nomination?

In my experience hungry people make cranky people. But on the other hand my experience is also that folks tend to fall asleep after eating. So take your pick...hungry and angry or full and snoring.