Atul Kapur

Maybe not in this particular organization ... yet. But it has definitely occurred in this type of circumstance.

Adding to the list of questions, one for @Josh Martin and @J. J.: how should a member with an interrupting motion obtain the floor? The problem with alternate recognition methods is that they require recognition by the chair. Related, does the entire assembly need to be able to know who is seeking recognition or seeking to legitimately interrupt? Or is it adequate that only the chair (± assistants) would be made aware? This would, among other things, prevent a member from realizing that a point of order regarding preference in recognition should be raised.

It's plain English. In a recent thread, the response is that a main motion is not out of order just because it proposes a bad idea. Similarly, your disagreement with what a bylaws article says (or the fact that it isn't a good idea) doesn't render it "incomprehensible and uninterpretable."

It's hard to see how the individual could be effective as a board member or committee chair if required to follow the rules intended for a meeting parliamentarian, which apply to the person who is serving as an advisor to the chair of the meeting (primarily).

The simplest is to recognize that what he has done is to withdraw as a nominee before the election. Using the word "resignation" is inaccurate and confuses matters. RONR advises that, in this situation, you reactivate the nominating committee to come up with a replacement. If there is not enough time, then you go with what you have and also open the floor to nominations, in the hopes that they will nominate a person who will accept the position if elected.

The fact that an idea is very bad (because of financial responsibility or other reasons) is not a reason to rule it out of order. Parliamentary Procedure Protects the Process (TM Pending); it does not protect the organization from following the proper process to make a bad decision.

I asked here, once, and the response was that the General wrote it that way.

I was trying to give a non-Procrustean response but am unclear what you mean by "both change the agenda and list the changes with the motion to accept" At what stage are the amendments to agenda being proposed? After it has been distributed but before it has been moved to adopt the agenda? While the motion to adopt the agenda is pending?

To avoid a future question about the denominator of such a vote (see many other threads), might I suggest "after the annual fundraiser is held, 50% of the income goes to the Youth fund and 50% goes to the Benevolence fund unless the membership determines another allocation by a two thirds vote. Notwithstanding the above, in 2024 the allocation of income from the annu[a]l fundraiser will be 50% to offset the deficit, 25% to the Youth fund and 25% to the Benevolence fund and in future years." You might want to specify a deadline for the membership to change the allocation for a particular year, perhaps "... unless the membership, before the fundraiser begins, determines another allocation ..." Alternatives include a specific date when the budget is adopted By the way, is that gross or net income? Whatever the answer is, you may want to specify while you're amending the other stuff.

The motion was in order, but it was not a privileged motion in those circumstances; it was a main motion (21:8) so it was, among other things, debatable.

Isn't this the same question asked here?

I recall that this exact question, with the same group, was dealt with recently. Either you or someone with more time can search for it.

They have it backwards. The chair should rule out of order a motion that conflicts with the bylaws, including a motion to adopt a budget with dues that are higher than authorized in the bylaws. The reference is 10:26(1).

Bottom line is that RONR does not remove their right to vote even if they are in a conflict as RONR defines it - RONR only says they should not vote; if they do vote, their vote must be counted. You may want to look at any internal rules your organization has adopted regarding conflict of interest, including your own definition (which is likely broader than RONR's) and the restrictions on someone in conflict.

I just want to ensure clarity, because I'm not certain what you mean by "call the motion," which is not standard language. As has been stated, RONR presumes that the chair of the committee will be the person to move (or make) the motion arising from the committee's report. However, the Chair of the meeting (in this case, the board chair) presides over the debate and vote on the motion, and announces the result. Some organizations mistakenly have the committee chair preside, and I wanted to make sure that's not what you meant. Your chair may be thinking of reports from officers. RONR says that motions arising from reports of officers should not be made by the officer but by another member. I do not know why RONR treats officers differently from committees in this way.

This line of reasoning and this conclusion is what I meant when I said this was an issue of bylaw interpretation. The first principle of bylaws interpretation in RONR is 56:68 (1) Each society decides for itself the meaning of its bylaws. So it will be up to your organization to decide on how to interpret this question. Mr. Elsman says it in a different way.

But doesn't that rule protect a minority of >10%, so wouldn't 25:2(7) apply?

Well there's your problem. So close this gap and formalize the committee by amending the bylaws or, if your bylaws allow, adopting a motion to create the committee with the details that you want to specify (e.g. number of members, how members and chair are appointed/elected, terms, etc). When you formalize the committee, formally also appoint the members and chair - nothing says you have to appoint the current people. Yes, this may be more tedious and time-consuming, but it sure seems a lot fairer than railroading a member through a disciplinary process for no good reason.

If the bylaw said that suspending any rule in the bylaw required a 9/10 vote, what vote do you say would be required to suspend that rule?

This sounds like a legal question, which you should ask a lawyer knowledgeable about the laws that apply to the corporation.

If you only look at Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, then proxies are not allowed at all, so there's no further advice it provides (as Mr. Elsman said). But there is more. It sounds like you have an issue of bylaws interpretation. As well, there is almost ccertainly a law about condo associations and boards in your jurisdiction that applies, and it may say something about this.

No. It would require a Suspension of the Rules. For what it's worth, I do not recommend this approach.

Then, unless the bylaws of a superior level create a structure and membership for your district (or the districts generally), you have no formal structure or members who can be deemed to have vacated the seats that you don't formally have. So, yes, it sounds like you "need to first adopt bylaws at a District committee level." Do the bylaws of your County committee give your district committee any structure / define the membership, or do they just "enable the creation of District Committees." The quote you have provided regarding absent members appears to only apply to the State Committee itself, not any subordinate body.

The request was for "anything in Robert's Rules that could be used." The quotation was offered in response, without warranty, explicit or implied. 😄 That was one of the reasons I mentioned that a lawyer would likely be involved.

Are you the same person as the OP, Guest Stephen? If not, the moderators ask that you create a new thread for you separate question. When you do, it would help if you shared the exact language in your bylaws about discipline and expulsion of members and about the powers and authority of the board generally.