Chris Harrison

4 minutes ago, Guest Jack C. said:

1. Does the secretary approve /post the meeting agenda or does the President?

See FAQ #14.

Quote

2. Doesn't the Secretary attest/sign the minutes of a meeting once approved?

Yes.

I can't speak to Survey Monkey or any of those other programs.  However, before any of that is considered the first question would need to be if the Bylaws specifically established the Nominating Committee?  If it is, then you cannot hold meetings or votes via email unless the Bylaws say you can.  If it isn't specifically established under the Bylaws then the General Membership can adopt a standing rule allowing it.  See RONR pp. 98-99 for more details. 

10 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

By “administrative duties” are you referring to other duties assigned by the organization’s rules or to other duties assigned by RONR?

Yes.  In my opinion the only duty that would actually transfer over would be the taking of minutes.  However, in the case of needing a long-term Secretary Pro Tem most if not all of the duties assigned by RONR would as a matter of course be delegated to either the person selected to be Secretary Pro Tem or someone else.

The first question is if we are talking about meetings of the Board or of the General Membership?  If it is a meeting of the General Membership then the agreement of the Board is irrelevant unless the Bylaws grant the Board the authority to make those sort of decisions.  Ultimately this may be a matter of Bylaw interpretation but if we are going strictly by what RONR says about Pro Tems:

1) RONR doesn't really go into much detail regarding Secretary Pro Tems but if we go by what RONR says about Chair Pro Tems I'd say the answer depends on what exact duties we are talking about.  The best way for me to put it is the only duties a Pro Tem is authorized to perform are the core duties (the Chair presides and the Secretary takes the minutes).  Administrative duties don't automatically transfer to the Pro Tem.  That being said the Board may or may not be able to delegate some or all of the Administrative duties to whoever is selected to be the Secretary Pro Tem.

2) Yes.

3) Yes.

4) Only members of the body which is meeting have a right to vote.  So the question is if this person would have the right to vote if he or she hadn't been named the Secretary Pro Tem?

5) Roughly the same question as before.  Would the person have counted towards a quorum if he or she hadn't been named Secretary Pro Tem?

8 hours ago, Guest RMA said:

Is it permissible, according to RONR, to vote on a main motion with no debate allowed?

Yes.  I haven't had my coffee yet this morning but two ways come to mind.

1) The main motion is made and then since the motion maker gets preference in recognition (gets called on before anyone else) he can move the Previous Question which if adopted (by a 2/3 vote) forces the motion to a vote immediately.

2) The member can move to "Suspend the Rules and adopt [insert motion language here]."  That requires a 2/3 vote.  If the motion doesn't get a 2/3 vote then it is treated the same as any other motion (debate, amendment, etc).

34 minutes ago, Josh Martin said:

RONR notes that a member can be disciplined for conduct “tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work.” (RONR, 11th ed., pg. 644) A society has broad discretion in determining whether particular conduct falls under this definition. RONR does not use the phrase “behavior unbecoming of a member.” If your organization has its own rules concerning discipline, those rules should also be consulted, and it will be up to the society to interpret them.

Would it be proper for the Committee to recommend the preference of charges against the member interfering with the investigation or would it be necessary for the assembly to refer the matter to a committee for investigation (even if it is the same Committee)?

See RONR pp. 530-540.  Page 530 specifies the distinctions between them and the remaining pages goes into more detail.

As far as RONR is concerned a member is a member with the rights of a member.  Since you have created another class of membership (a paid Treasurer without the right to vote) it is up to you all to determine what rights that member retains.  I will mention though that if the Treasurer buys a cup of coffee from McDonald's she has spent her yearly salary right there and she might not want to serve if you all decide that she needs to remain silent on all subjects except for what pertains to her duties.

I read Item #4 being more of an indication that there is someone there to preside and take the minutes at the start of the meeting rather than a requirement that it needs to be indicated each and every time the chair (or pen) is turned over for bathroom or coffee breaks.  I agree of course that if the changeover is going to be for the remainder of the meeting or a long period of time it should be noted but is it really necessary to do so if the changeover is only for a few minutes?

RONR doesn't grant her that sort of authority.

RONR doesn't grant him that authority.  But you should check the Church's rules in case they have something to say on the subject.

See FAQ #14.

Do your Bylaws actually authorize Special Meetings?  You can't hold them if they don't (RONR p. 92 ll. 9-10).  If the Bylaws don't specify the length of notice required and other details then RONR p. 91 ll. 31-35 addresses it.

Merry Christmas and here's hoping that Santa was good to y'all!

You have a right to request whatever you want.  However, that doesn't mean they are obligated to honor such a request.  That being said, at a meeting of the Board or of the General Membership (whichever one you think you'll get the most traction with) you can make a motion that the Club's books be audited.  Also, you may want to check the Bylaws because sometimes they may have a mechanism for ordering an audit or require one be done every so often.

14 minutes ago, Guest newbee said:

If an elected member of a standing committee from a society has missed all ( or X number of ) committee meetings  (consecutively) then are they removed from the list of committee members?

RONR doesn't impose any rule like that.  However, you should check the Society's rules to see what they say on the subject.

Nothing in RONR prevents it.  What do your rules say?

No.  However, depending on what they are wanting to do with the motion there are other options such as voting the motion down, Postponing it Indefinitely, Postponing it to the next meeting, or referring it to a committee.

While what happened was improper the vote is still valid because it doesn't fit the criteria (on RONR pp. 250-251) for rendering it null and void without regard to the normal timeliness requirement.

At the next meeting a member can raise a Point of Order that the adopted motion is null and void based on RONR p. 251(a) and the Chair would rule.  Or the Chair on his own can rule it null void.

Agreeing with Mr. Brown I would also add that if her intent for sending the letter is merely to let the members know she would be willing to serve again if elected I see no reason why it couldn't be permitted.  I can see the benefits of doing so if the custom of the organization is to only nominate and elect those who are at the meeting (maybe it is difficult to conduct another round of voting later if the elected person declines the office?) and she wanted to remove that concern.

Have you already accepted the resignations of those 3 Board members?  What do the Bylaws say regarding accepting a resignation?

Do your Bylaws define the Committee's quorum?  If not, then RONR p. 347 ll. 12-19 says the quorum is a "majority of the members of the board or committee."  Depending on the circumstances it may be more reasonable to argue the quorum should be calculated from the total number of potential Committee members.  Or it might not be.  At the meeting if a member believes there is not a quorum he or she can raise a Point of Order and the Chair will rule.  That ruling can be Appealed and then the Committee would decide. 

Another possible option depending on how feasible it is would be to seek guidance from the General Membership (at a meeting).  That would (hopefully) prevent the GM from coming back later and chastising the Committee for conducting business when (in the GM's opinion) the quorum should have been the more difficult threshold to achieve.  If nothing else, that might help motivate the Units who haven't selected a representative to do so if they want to have a say in what the Committee does.

What is your question?

Unless the Bylaws require a ballot vote the Chair should declare the sole candidate elected (RONR p. 443).  If a ballot vote is required then a ballot vote is required even if there was only one nominee.