Chris Harrison

The motion to Reconsider has a very strict time limit in which it can be made (RONR p. 316 ll. 22-31) and it is now too late to make it.

Are decisions actually being made in these informal meetings or is everyone just talking with no intention to decide anything?

Well, you are under no obligation to read this literature and can let this person know that such literature was neither asked for nor welcome. As for the harassment and bullying see FAQ #20 for disciplinary options.

Is the proposed amendment(s) coming from a committee or is a single member making the proposal?

The President only has the authority the bylaws give him (RONR p. 456 ll. 22-28). If a member believes he exceeded his authority they should raise a Point of Order at a meeting and be prepared to Appeal an adverse ruling (RONR pp. 247-260).

I think that depends on how closely the assembly wants to keep tabs on what the Committee (and Subcommittee) are doing and if the assembly really cares how the sausage is made or they only care that the sausage is being made. To start off the reporting member could give a middle-of-the-road report noting that he or she can supply more detail as requested. Of course, if the Committee knows the assembly likes to keep their finger on the pulse of what they are doing or have a "just get it done and let us know when it is" approach to management they should tailor their report accordingly.

My first response would be the Vice President would preside in the absence of the Parliamentarian (presiding officer). However, at taking a second thought I think that since the Parliamentarian is not the usual presiding officer except in this specific circumstance that it would be reasonable to argue that the President as the usual presiding officer would be the next in line. But, I think it could also be reasonable to argue that the Bylaws name the Parliamentarian as the presiding officer for a reason so the President and VP wouldn't be necessarily the proper people to chair the meeting and the assembly should elect a Chair Pro Tem to preside. So in other words, I am not sure RONR really has a concrete answer to your question and it will be up to you all to determine who should preside. Or maybe I am overthinking the situation . Stay tuned for other thoughts.

The first question is if the General Membership has the authority to overturn the Board's interpretation of the Bylaws (assuming the Board has the authority to make the interpretation in the first place). Generally speaking the body which has the authority to amend the Bylaws is the one that has the authority to interpret them so 1) who has the authority to amend the Bylaws? and 2) do the Bylaws grant the Board the authority to make interpretations and if so what procedures do they have for someone to challenge an interpretation?

Ultimately it will be up to you all to determine if the Board (and Membership) are rule-bound to honor the six month "requirement" as located in the application. However, and this very well may require some in-depth research into the past history of the organization, is it possible that the Bylaws may have at one point imposed a six month requirement which was later repealed and the application wasn't changed to reflect the removal of the six month requirement? Or, was the provision never repealed but the current copy of the Bylaws for some reason no longer reflect the correct language? Also, do the Board and/or Membership have the authority to establish rules governing the length of time a prospective member must wait before being able to apply without having to change the Bylaws? To answer both questions you will need to look to the Bylaws in their entirety and the minutes of both the Board* and General Membership because the minutes are the place you would find any bylaw amendments and rules addressing your question. *Only Board members have a right to inspect the minutes of Board meetings so if you aren't a Board member you will either need to get the General Membership to authorize you to inspect them or get a current Board member to do it for you.

Nothing in RONR prevents it.

See FAQ #20.

Good question. There are at least 155 members there so taking a ballot vote could take a while. I would think that even taking a vote whether to hold the unanimous vote by ballot would require a ballot vote since if anyone voted against it that would suggest they were against the motion. So I suppose I would instruct the Secretary to break out the packs of Post-it-Notes.

As far as RONR is concerned the Board members are the only ones who can make an official proposal the Board do something. Whether that proposal is being made on another's behalf is irrelevant (as far as RONR is concerned). That being said if the Board has a problem with getting issues second-hand they can adopt a rule (or make it a practice) that whenever one of those issues are raised they say "have this person raising the issue come and speak with us directly" and move on.

Nothing in RONR prevents it. Indeed in some smaller organizations the Secretary and Treasurer are both the same person.

Are you the only member that has this concern? If so, you may need to accept this is a custom that the others have no issue with but be prepared to call for a "division" (RONR pp. 51-52) if the results of the vote are inconclusive. If you aren't the only member concerned with this you all might want to approach the Chair informally and point out that the voting procedure can be a bit confusing and request the vote be taken by one method or the other. If this doesn't get the Chair to change his ways; after the next time he holds a vote like that you can raise a parliamentary inquiry (RONR pp. 293-294) as to whether the previous vote should have been held by a voice vote or by a raising of hands. Hopefully this (more formal) approach will get his attention and he will hold further votes by one method or the other.

RONR p. xlix says:

Yes. Can you be absolutely sure that those typographical changes won't bring up (reasonable) questions of interpretation some time in the future? After all the addition of two commas in "The panda eats shoots and leaves" and "The panda eats, shoots, and leaves" drastically changes the meaning of the sentence.

1) Yes and in fact the Board only has the authority the bylaws give them (RONR p. 482 ll. 25-29). 2) Well I can request you send me $1 Million and you would have as much right to decline politely (or not) as the member would to decline the President's request. That being said the Board finding out the President sent out this "request" without conferring with them could send him a similar "request" he resign. 3) Sounds like it. 4) I would definitely recommend the bylaws be amended to raise the quorum.

If there indeed are no nominees for the office then the members write down the name of whoever they want and if someone gets a majority vote then he or she is elected and if that person declines the office then you will need to have further rounds of voting. If your bylaws specifically prohibit write-in votes then you have a real problem. Edit: Also, I was thinking the members could Suspend the Rules and reopen nominations from the floor. However, depending on how the bylaws are written doing so could violate the rights of any absent members.

RONR leaves it up to the organization to determine what sort of classes of membership (and what rights) they want to have.

Details on how someone becomes a member and when those rights start should be located in the bylaws.

All too often we see questions here concerning bylaws that obviously weren't well considered by the members and they didn't seek outside help to assist with them. The reference to Proverbs 15:1 is his signature and doesn't have anything to do with his response (I don't think ).

Is your concern that you don't want to have the same two people as tellers for the whole meeting? If that is the case I don't see why the presiding officer at the start of the meeting couldn't appoint two tellers and then as needed remove one or both of them and appoint replacements. But stay tuned for other thoughts?

As far as RONR is concerned it is permitted provided it is authorized in the bylaws (RONR pp. 423-424). However, check any laws applicable to the nonprofit to make sure there aren't any issues there.

The closest thing he may be referring to is that a member who has a personal interest not in common with the other members should not vote but can't be compelled to abstain (RONR p. 407 ll. 21-31). Since (presumably) the VP would take over the President's duties during the suspension he might have an interest to vote for the suspension (if he wants the power) or vote against it (if he is happy where he is). That being said the VP has the right to vote even if he does have an interest as opposed to the "rule" the member cited where he would have to abstain and abstention being a voluntary action he would count towards the quorum whether he chose to vote or not.