mjhmjh

I recently chaired a meeting and want to make sure I followed the rules. At the conclusion of debate (the special rules of order set an overall time limit on debate), a member stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by two minutes. The motion was seconded and failed. This same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by one minute. The motion was seconded and failed. The same member then stood to be recognized, was recognized, and moved to extend debate by 45 seconds. I ruled the motion dilatory, as it seemed clear the meeting did not want to continue debate. The maker of the motion appealed the decision of the chair. I gave the first speech in debate, others spoke (no more than once), and I spoke last. We voted, and the meeting voted to maintain the decision of the chair. Was all of this proper?

When a document (in this case a complete bylaws revision) is being considered in seriatim, is there a way to end debate on one article and move on to the next? RONR page 279 line 25 says that the previous question and motion to limit/extend debate cannot be applied to individual paragraphs (articles in this case). Could the rules instead be suspended to the effect that debate ends on the current article and proceeds to the next?

My organization wishes to adopt the following rule of order. Is it permissible to have a special rule of order that cannot be suspended?

In my organization, the body meets just twice a year. The executive board has full control over the organization in between these biannual meetings. Our organization has many accounts (Facebook, Instagram, etc.) and the EB would like to adopt standing rules regarding the control of these accounts. This seems like a proper use of standing rules, as RONR says they should be "related to the details of the administration of a society" (page 18). Before I draft them, I want to make sure I'm not violating any important principles. One proposed standing rule would give control of half of the accounts to the Secretary (an appointed position not on the EB) and control of the other half to the Internal Affairs Director (an elected position not on the EB) a few days before the election of a new EB. This would prevent disgruntled former officers who failed to be reelected from seizing control of the accounts (which has been an issue in the past). After the election, the Secretary and Internal Affairs Director would each give the passwords to the new EB. The other standing rule I am less sure I about. In the event any three members of the 7-person Executive Board suspect someone is stealing data (which has been an issue in the past), the Secretary and Internal Affairs Director would then be able to take control of half of the accounts each. They would maintain control until the EB could meet, deal with the situation, and vote to take back control of the accounts.

I have always interpreted it to mean a majority of those present and voting (i.e. “a majority vote”).

Thank you for your help.

RONR covers the method of counting votes (i.e. a candidate needs a majority of the votes cast to be elected; if no candidate gets a majority, you ballot again), so it need not be included in the bylaws. However, the membership of my organization prefers to have the election method somewhat delineated in the bylaws. Our bylaws currently state: I have always read this as being perfectly consistent with the vote counting method in RONR (i.e. it doesn't "break" anything). Can any of you find issue with it?

Does this mean a member could give notice of an amendment the day of a meeting or the day before a meeting and still fulfill the notice requirement? Would another member be justified in raising a point of order against the consideration of such an amendment?

This passage from page 124 led me to think notice of a motion (in this case a motion amending the bylaws) and of a meeting go out together.

My organization meets twice a year. At these biannual meetings, we only elect officers and amend the constitution. The constitution says In the article on meetings, it is said that In the article on the Secretary's duties, it is said that Additionally, the Executive Board has the duty of fixing the hour and place of the biannual meeting (the biannual meeting must occur within 6 weeks of a certain twice-yearly event of great importance to our organization). It is my understanding that the Secretary must include any amendments submitted to him with the meeting notice. My question is about the details of this process. Let's say the Executive Board met today and scheduled the biannual meeting for March 15th at 6 p.m. The Secretary then immediately sends a notice of the meeting to all members. No amendments were submitted to the Secretary, so none are included in the notice and none will be considered at the meeting. This situation seems unfair to us, so our practice has been to have the Secretary wait to send out the official notice until 1 week before the meeting. Between the Executive Board's scheduling of the meeting and the 1 week deadline, the Secretary solicits amendments from the membership. This practice is not in RONR nor our constitution (but it is not prohibited). Are we breaking any rules?

The bylaws are silent on this issue and I can't find any treatment in RONR.

Page 647 says that after the chair has given proper warning, it can be moved to remove the offending member from the meeting hall. Would this motion need a majority or two-thirds to pass?

Thanks for the help. "The Executive Board may create standing committees and boards with standing authority to act on certain matters without specific instructions." Would that do the trick?

In our organization, the bylaws don't mention committees at all. We simply meet yearly to elect the Executive Board. Can the Executive Board establish standing committees and boards—with standing authority to act on certain matters without specific instructions—that report to it? It is my understanding that such standing committees and boards would need to be in the Executive Board's special rules of order, per page 578.

The president, vice president, secretary, and treasurer constitute the executive board. Alice is elected president, Bob is elected vice president and is then elected secretary, and Charlie is elected treasurer. The bylaws don’t mention what happens if someone holds two offices. Would Bob have one or two votes at executive board meetings?

You seem to be implying that the Executive Board could appoint general staff through the passage of a motion (the organization only meets twice a year and the EB has full authority over the organization’s affairs in between those two meetings). How is this the case if the constitution explicitly grants the president the power to appoint general staff, and the EB the power to appoint independent staff?

I'm familiar with that passage, but my concern is that it specifically refers to committee appointments.

"Staff" is just a term we use. They aren't paid, there are no contracts, and the organization is not incorporated :).

Our constitution tasks the president with appointing a number of "general staff" positions, and the Executive Board with appointing a number of "independent staff" positions. The constitution does not specify the term for such positions, nor a procedure for removing staff. Can the president unilaterally remove general staff, and the executive board independent staff? I know RONR says that a president with the authority to appoint committee members may also remove them, but I'm not sure if that applies to other things as well. Here is a link to our constitution. Articles 7-9 are particularly relevant: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HasJflfN5CKSqdEz0n3ihdK3cgq6-3ooyuBq0pFllRs/edit?usp=sharing Edit: the staff are not paid, there are no contracts, and the organization is not incorporated

It is my understanding that a motion can only be taken from the table under the class of business it was originally made (in the case of elections, special orders). Would the motion to take the election of the vice president from the table have to be made following all other elections? Or could it be made, say, between the election of the secretary and treasurer?

Instead of either of those two methods, would it be in order to adopt an agenda at the beginning of the meeting with an alternate election order? Edit: Or to table the election of a certain officer and take it from the table later in the meeting?

Based upon my reading of the section in RONR on standing rules for a convention, there wouldn't need to be notice, but the rules could only be adopted by a 2/3 vote. Is that right?

The usual practice is that they are applied only to the biannual meeting at which they are adopted, the reasoning being that the by-laws state "each biannual meeting."

Thank you

Thank you