Benjamin Geiger

As I understand it, "in the chair" is not a physical location, but rather a status. If your President is in a position where he can be seen and heard by the members, then he can still be considered "in the chair". Individual organizations may have rules or traditions on the matter (Toastmasters, for instance, usually has a tradition where the lectern is never left unattended) but as far as I'm aware RONR doesn't.

I'd assume that the exception is so you don't need an executive session at every meeting from that point on? (I'm a coder. This is just how my brain works.)

Assuming your bylaws don't say anything on the matter, you may find RONR FAQ #20 of interest.

Wow. I thought our bylaw (in our parent organization's bylaws, so we can't do anything about it) requiring a vote of 2/3 of the membership to remove an officer was onerous. I'm fairly certain 2/3 of the membership has never been in the same room before.

Years ago I was given career advice, for what to do when your workplace is unpleasant: you can change your organization, or you can change your organization. It applies (in most cases) to societies, as well. It may be unpleasant (as in the case of HOAs), but it can usually be done. No amount of parliamentary procedure will save an organization from itself.

I fixed the link. Pretty much the ones in the question. The subject of the censure is an ex officio member of the organization by virtue of being an elected official in a district in our county who is registered with our party, but that wasn't entirely certain at the time (I checked the bylaws later). The objector claimed that he would be fine with a statement of disapproval but not a motion to censure, and wouldn't give me a straight answer when I asked what he thought the difference was; he gave some claim about how Congress can only censure its own members (false, I might add, and moot). And since we're a subordinate body, he claims that the parent needs to do the censuring (which, of course, my resolution encourages).

Who can an organization censure? Can we censure someone who isn't technically a member of our organization? Can we censure someone who is required to be a member of our organization by law or bylaws? Specifically, can we censure someone who holds state-level elected office? What is the effect of a motion to censure? Is it simply "we disapprove of what this person has done" or is there more? Does a motion to censure in an ordinary society differ from one in a legislative body? As a subordinate entity (a county-level chapter of a state-level political organization), do we need our parent organization's permission to censure someone? I apologize for bringing the subject back up, but when I attempted to bring up a motion to censure (the one I asked about here), another member continually claimed that it was improper for several reasons, and I'd like to have an answer to their objections available before attempting it again.

My county (in Florida) does this. Our county Supervisor of Elections also performs random hand-recounts in order to ensure the accuracy of the electronic vote. (I'd prefer that the actual result be hand-counted in its entirety, but...) Another is to have the voting machine print out the actual ballot, which then gets put into the ballot box, but in the words of Tom Scott: "Congratulations, you've just invented the world's most expensive pencil." Most of his concerns aren't necessarily applicable at the scale of an ordinary society, granted. But they're worth hearing and considering anyway, because some of them are.

I don't know if this is possible with the current forum software, but I would like to see a system where, after a thread has been dormant for a given time, only the existing participants in a thread (or an admin) can 'revive' it. It feels like this is a suitable compromise between guests performing thread necromancy and allowing for evolving situations.

It sounds to me like it was interpreted as a motion to Adjourn. That said, there should have been a vote on the motion (it requires a majority). As I understand it (and I'm certain the more qualified members here will correct me if I'm mistaken), any General Orders, Special Orders, or Unfinished Business for the "cancelled" meeting should be taken up at the next meeting.

A caching issue, perhaps? It comes up with a "Page Not Found" page here.

As I understand it, "Second" simply means "I want to discuss this motion", without any connotation of support or opposition. You can second a motion because you support it, or you can second a motion because you want to argue against it to put it to rest.

Some background: I belong to a county chapter of a major political party here in the US. Anyone who holds elected office in the county and is registered as belonging to our party with the Supervisor of Elections is considered to be an ex officio member of our organization. As one would expect, we have an adopted platform and a set of principles. One of those elected officials, a county commissioner, recently supported a bill that goes against our platform and several of our principles. Many of our members are up in arms and are demanding that we censure her during our next membership meeting. (Full disclosure: I agree with those members.) How would I word a resolution to censure her? I know it could be as simple as "I move to censure Commissioner Wossname", but I feel something this significant should be more formally worded. And yes, I'm aware that any wording would be open to amendment during the meeting, but if we start out with better wording we're more likely to end up with better wording. So far my resolution looks something like Other than saying "Commissioner Wossname is a big meanie poopyhead", what can we do without formal disciplinary proceedings? Can we issue a press release condemning the commissioner or her vote? Can we (if the organization chooses) publicly encourage her to resign? What is considered "punishment" enough to need a formal trial? ---- Also, are full disciplinary proceedings necessary when the facts of the matter are not under dispute? (I presume so and would encourage them, but I'd imagine some members would rather skip the trial. Suggestions on how to convince them, other than "the book says so"?)

Was the committee appointed by the board or by the membership? If it's a board committee, the report goes directly to the board and the board handles any resulting motions. If it's an organization committee, the report goes directly to the membership and the membership handles any resulting motions.

Was there a call to meeting? Do your bylaws contain provisions for special meetings?

I would presume that the "silent roll call" would be the secretary recognizing members and recording their presence. If the organization is small enough, the secretary could probably recognize all of the members by sight. (In our organization, members sign the roll as they enter the hall.)

Isn't SOP normally to specify the desired result when suspending the rules, not to specify the rule itself? In other words, "I move to suspend the rules to allow Leeroy Jenkins to speak in debate" should solve the problem, no?

What would be the proper verbiage if the (lengthy) motion has been distributed to the members and submitted to the chair and secretary in written form? Does it need to be read in its entirety?

Ultimately parliamentary law can't protect an organization from itself.

Ackchyually... The "f" stands for "folio", and usually refers to pages or sections, not lines. For instance, you could refer to "p. 237" (for page 237 alone), "pp. 237f" (for pages 237 and 238) or "pp. 237ff" (for page 237 and some number of following pages, typically determined by context). Whether "f" can be used to refer to lines seems to be under dispute. If you want to be as pretentious as I am, you could always use "et seq." instead. The duplication to indicate plural does hold, though. (Some languages do the same in the general case; the abbreviation for the United States in Spanish is "E.E.U.U.", for "Estados Unidos".)

I'll do you one better. The party I work with calls its county-level organizations "Executive Committees". The Executive Committee I deal with itself has a "Steering Committee", which is for all intents and purposes a board.

Page 447, lines 16-19: Since "members who can not vote" is a contradiction in terms under RONR, it stands to reason that these "non-voting members" would fall under the same category as non-members.

Do your bylaws require a parliamentarian be appointed?

If by "consent agenda" you mean the same thing as "consent calendar" (a series of motions to be adopted collectively and typically by unanimous consent), it's on pages 361-362.

That's probable, but I was going by this note in the FAQ: "The material here is derived from Chapter 13 of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief."