Benjamin Geiger

If the bylaws require a decision to be unanimous it can be overruled by a single member.

The grievance process as it exists in RONR is a bit complicated. It's in chapter XX of the 11th edition. I'd recommend reading it thoroughly. You should also look at FAQ #20, which discusses another way of getting rid of officers before their term is up.

I'm tempted to engrave this into a Wiffle bat with which I can remind the chairs of pretty much every organization I belong to (aside from the local chapter of NAP, of course). Maybe on the other side I can engrave "the Previous Question requires a 2/3 vote".

A quick technical note, Archie: to continue a discussion that has already started, you can type your response into the box at the bottom. There's no need to start a second thread.

Unless it contradicts Federal or state law or the bylaws of your national or state organization, your organization should be able to enact bylaws as you see fit. (Why would local organizations have bylaws if they could only restate their parent organizations' bylaws?)

I interpreted the question as "teachers and parents from a private school want to attend the meetings of the county school board".

In most (all?) cases, school boards are government entities, which means that there is almost certainly applicable law regarding this.

Just to clarify: when I suggested it, I intended for it to be used on the motion in question, not on the minutes.

That said, if enough people are upset by the incorrect facts, you could presumably move to Amend/Rescind Something Previously Adopted. It takes a 2/3 vote (or majority with prior notice or majority of the entire membership) to do, but if it's generated enough outrage (or you can whip up enough outrage), it could be done.

Minutes should record what was done, not what was said. So, in the vast majority of cases, the facts presented during debate shouldn't be recorded in the minutes in the first place.

As I understand it, it should be addressed by shutting it down hard, since proxies aren't acceptable unless explicitly allowed for in the bylaws or applicable law. Edit: check this FAQ. "Proxy voting is not permitted in ordinary deliberative assemblies unless federal, state or other laws applicable to the society require it, or the bylaws of the organization authorize it, since proxy voting is incompatible with the essential characteristics of a deliberative assembly."

I think I'm either misunderstanding or misremembering, then. I thought that a change in membership made it a "different assembly" (in the sense of Heraclitus*) for the purposes of parliamentary principles. Perhaps that only applies to boards with elections? * "No man ever steps in the same river twice." (Often expanded with "for it’s not the same river and he’s not the same man.")

Related hypothetical: Would an assembly be allowed to prohibit a person from holding office in the future as a consequence of a disciplinary trial? Would this violate the "assemblies can't constrain future assemblies" principle?

At yeast we understood it.

I don't have the capacity.

To my knowledge, no, unless your bylaws [edit: or applicable state or federal law] call for it.

The issues: Special meetings can only be called if the bylaws provide for them. The quorum for a group of 27 people is almost certainly more than four. For a call to meeting to be valid, it must be sent to all members. So, the four officers you listed are free to meet if they'd like (barring laws that prohibit such private meetings) but they couldn't do anything because it's not a properly called meeting. (EDIT: "Laws that prohibit such private meetings" may apply in some states. Here in Florida, for instance, any meeting of two or more members of a government board is considered a "meeting" for the purposes of the Sunshine Law. The proceedings of all such meetings must be public.)

RONR 11th ed., p. 579 ll. 31-33:

Threads are not dead which can eternal lie... Bonnie, please submit your question as a new thread. But first, read the "Read This First" post; it covers some points of etiquette (such as not reviving long-dormant threads).

Roll-call votes aren't necessary unless the bylaws say they are. The vast majority of the time, votes are "voice votes": the chair asks those in favor to say 'aye', and asks those opposed to say 'no', and then determines which group is more numerous based on that response. Usually it's fairly clear which side prevails; it's often unanimous, or you'll have a lone vote on one side. The alternative (required when the motion requires a 2/3 vote, useful when a majority vote is close, and required if a single member demands it) is a rising vote: the chair asks those in favor to stand, and then asks those opposed to stand, and determines if there were more in favor than opposed (or twice as many in favor as opposed, for votes requiring 2/3). Generally, roll call votes are used primarily (if not exclusively) to force members to go on record with their votes. That said, you may need to verify your quorum requirements. Unless your bylaws say otherwise, the default quorum is a majority of the membership. If fewer than half of the members (or fewer than the number specified as a quorum in your bylaws) show up, then the meeting is 'inquorate' and no business may be transacted.

PDF is a page-based format, so there's no worry about pagination in that case. Go ahead and add me to the list of people who want an electronic form of RONR that works on mobile devices.

So, as I understand it, if a motion is properly made and seconded, the chair is required to at least acknowledge it. She can either place it in front of the assembly or rule it dilatory or otherwise out of order. If she rules it out of order, then any two members can Appeal the decision, in which case the assembly decides whether the motion is in order. If she doesn't acknowledge the motion at all, then the procedure on p. 650f applies. EDIT: It should also be noted that your bylaws may have provisions that supersede this. For instance, the organization I'm working with right now has a requirement that any new business that isn't vetted by the steering committee (board) can only be heard if two thirds of those present and voting agree to hear it. (I'm working on a full revision of the bylaws—they need it—and this provision won't be part of the revision if I can help it.)

Take a look at p. 650f, specifically the part labeled "Enforcing Points of Order and Appeals".

[Is there a better place to ask advice on matters that don't directly involve interpretation of RONR? - BG] We are a county chapter of a political party. As such, the consensus is that our proceedings affect everyone registered as a member of the party, whether or not they are a voting member of the organization, and as such, we historically have permitted nonmembers to attend and participate in debate. (Yes, I know there's a rule in RONR against participation in debate, but I've been picking my battles; I intend to propose a special rule of order in the near future to make it formally acceptable.) The problem comes down to voting. We don't allow nonmembers to vote, of course, but in several cases we've caught nonmembers attempting to vote on contentious motions. They've only been caught because a couple of eagle-eyed members were suspicious and saw them voting. The vote was voided and retaken with more caution. One option we've considered is requiring nonmembers to remain in a specific part of the room, but as I understand it, there are many cases where members and nonmembers wish to sit together (often one spouse is a member), and we generally have members sitting in most of the areas and standing along most walls. I've seen suggestions to use voting cards for divisions of the assembly, but I'm not sure of the logistics of that, and I know that a large number would wander off after each meeting. Or we could go into executive session for the particularly contentious votes, or use roll-call votes (but at 100+ members, that'd take quite a while). What should we do to keep our votes secure?

I'm glad we could... illuminate matters.