Chris Harrison

I'll rephrase my question.  Do your Bylaws actually provide for the Subcommittee in question?  Or did the Board (or Executive Committee) decide at some point that there was a need to create this Subcommittee?  Your answer will determine whether amending the Bylaws is required in order to allow Electronic Meetings.

Is the Subcommittee listed in the Bylaws or did the Board create it?

Two main ways to send a message:

1) Elect new Board members who care about and will follow the rules.

2) See FAQ #20 (disciplinary options).

I think the definition of "member" on page 3 in combination with page 648 ll. 11-14 and 17-21 seems pretty clear to any doubters.

45 minutes ago, reb said:

Does the board vote

Yes.

Quote

if so on every issue?

No.

Quote

by-laws dispute or amendments?

Maybe

Quote

even officer votes?

Members (of the body which is meeting) have the  right to vote unless the Bylaws say otherwise'

Quote

Do they make motions? 

Usually.

If you can clarify your questions we may be able to give more detailed answers.

I'm always partial to the language in Article IX of the sample Bylaws (page 588).  Keep it short and simple.

18 minutes ago, Guest Shari said:

 I understand if the board were to go into a closed session, any non member would be asked to leave.

It is true that upon going into Closed Session only members of the body which is meeting are by default allowed to remain.  However, the assembly can allow/invite others they wish to remain to stay.

2 hours ago, Guest Joe C said:

At a recent meeting one of the officers seconded a motion that was made. A past officer advised that officers can not  make a motion or second a motion because RONR says a motion and second must come from "the floor." Is this correct and where exactly can I find the answer?

Let me guess...the officers are seated separately from the rest of the members and the area members sit is considered "the floor"?

The answer is most likely (almost certainly) no he or she doesn't.  However, if you can give us more details such as what the motion is and when it was made we may be able to give a more definitive answer.

If the Society chooses to do nothing then they have chose to do nothing and that seems to be the will of the members (to do nothing about the alleged violation of Executive Session).

1 hour ago, CB2 said:

So we have a member that is going to receive a disciplinary letter which will be finalized at a meeting, down the road. Removal of said person from the board.

However, we don't think they will come to that meeting. How is that handled if they don't show?

RONR doesn't say (though your Bylaws should) but I don't think you can go wrong in sending it by Registered Mail to the member with a requirement it be signed for as proof it was received.

Quote

We know they have a right to vote for themselves to stay of the board. When they are disciplined they also aren't allowed to do anything board related until the appeal is finalized.  What are the proper steps for this?

The details on how this "Appeal" is conducted should be in your Bylaws.

Quote

Also, the board member lives in another state than the meeting place. All flights are usually paid for by the Association, are we still supposed to pay for a flight for this person? 

Again those details should be located in the organization's rules.

Generally speaking the Board cannot reverse a decision the General Membership has made.  In other words, probably not.  See Official Interpretation 2006-12.

I think either interpretation could be reasonably argued.  I know which way I would lean but it is ultimately up to the members to do the interpreting.

Those details should be located in the Bylaws.  How did the Membership make the Club "inactive" last November?  Is there some actual process in place for doing so or did the members just decide they had better things to do than attending meetings and participating in Club activities since nothing of any interest was happening? Depending on the answer it may require some jumping through hoops to get things up-and-running again or it may be as simple as sending out a message to the members letting them know when the next meeting is.

54 minutes ago, Chris Harrison said:

Now, when the issue of the allegations are being considered neither the President (as the accused) nor Vice President (as one of the accusers) should be presiding (RONR pp. 451-453).

I should also add that in addition to the Vice President anyone else who are one of the accusers should also avoid being the Chair pro tem since he or she would  not be able to remain impartial while presiding.

Nothing in RONR would require or suggest anyone other than the President need preside over the meeting for any business not concerning the allegations.  Now, when the issue of the allegations are being considered neither the President (as the accused) nor Vice President (as one of the accusers) should be presiding (RONR pp. 451-453).  If both the President and VP relinquish the chair the assembly should elect a Chair pro tem to preside over the matter.  If one (or both) of them believe they should preside anyway the assembly can Suspend the Rules and elect a Chair pro tem against their objections (RONR pp. 651-653). 

Give the definition on RONR p. 345 I see no reasonable argument as to she could count towards the quorum.  She doesn't have a vote and is required to be at every Board meeting.

See FAQ #2.

Disregard.  I misread the question.

Does the US code REALLY cover everything the organization needs in order to function properly?  When does it meet?  How often?  Who are the officers?  How are they elected?  When are elections held?  What if an officer does something that warrants removal from office...how is that accomplished?

Just to name a few.

6 hours ago, Guest Concerned and Upset said:

Do I, as a Board Member, present my findings directly to the Chairman privately according to any principles found in Robert's Rules before I go directly to the Board assembly?

Nothing in RONR requires you approach the Chairman privately with your concerns before bringing it before the assembly.  However, depending on the circumstances it might be advantageous to talk to him first...or maybe not.  It is possible he would be an ally who can work with you to address these issues before publicly airing the Board's dirty laundry (even if it is only in front of the Board itself).  On the other hand, letting him know in advance might allow him time to warn other Board members so they can circle their wagons.  You know the players better than we do.  

Quote

Do I, as a Board Member expose this Board's conduct directly to the members so that this 3 1/2 year record of indiscretions is open to the membership for their consideration?

Perhaps, but I would think twice, thrice, and then again before doing so because you will invariably make enemies if you publicly air the Board's dirty laundry.

Also, I agree with Guest Zev's advice.

1 hour ago, Josh Martin said:

Mr. Harrison, based solely on the rules in RONR, if two members are nominated, the bylaws do not require a ballot vote, and one of the two candidates indicates that he has no desire to serve, do you think the chairman should/must proceed with the election, or should he declare the only willing candidate elected?

If their Bylaws don't require a ballot vote then yes I agree the Chair should declare the willing candidate elected with no further vote required. 

Well, only business that was included in the Call for the Special Meeting can be validly conducted.  That being said, I question where the people who are not allowing questions from the floor (provided they have to do with the business at hand) and claiming all questions must be pre-submitted and answered before the meeting believe  they have the authority to make such a dictate.

I know you said one of the candidates "withdrew his nomination" but what exactly does that mean per your rules?  Does that mean that he officially is out of the running for the office (so if anyone voted for him their vote would not be valid)?  In other words, is this REALLY a one person race or if more people voted for this person (withdrawn or not) than the other would he be considered elected (and the members have to hope that he won't then decline the office)?

I for one would welcome seeing things I can laugh or roll my eyes at.  Bring them on!

1) What do your Bylaws say?

2) Only business that was included in the Call for  the Special Meeting can be validly conducted (RONR p. 93 ll. 3-4).

3) It is up to you all to interpret your own Bylaws.  See RONR pp. 588-591 for some principles to help with that.