Atul Kapur

No, the method of verification is an uncounted rising vote. As the section I cited (45:14) says, a member can demand that a voice vote or a show-of-hands vote be verified by an uncounted rising vote. This is done by calling for a "Division" of the assembly. Very often, things end here. If the member is still in doubt of the result after that, the member can make a motion to have a counted vote. But this motion must be seconded and requires a majority vote in favour to be adopted.

RONR (12th ed.) 46:10 says, "Designation of the nominating committee. The nominating committee should be elected by the organization wherever possible, or else by its executive board. Although in organizing a new society it may be feasible for the chair to appoint the nominating committee, in an organized society the president should not appoint this committee or be a member of it—ex officio or otherwise." Note that this is advisory ("should not") rather than a rule. And if the OP's president is proposing to have the board vote on the nominating committee, then she is following the letter of this advice.

Perhaps, but the chair should consider whether it would be faster to just hold the uncounted vote on the motion to count the vote than to rule it dilatory and deal with the point of order that arises.

Well, if she brings it to a vote at the board meeting, then the board is making the decision. What the president is doing is nominating the members of the committee. When she brings the motion to the board meeting, the board has the opportunity to amend the motion. So I don't see the violation of your bylaws.

A call to verify the vote by an uncounted rising vote is the right of any individual member. "Any member, by demanding a Division (29), can require a voice vote or a vote by show of hands to be retaken as a rising vote—but no individual member can compel it to be counted." RONR (12th ed.) 45:14 I understand it as a balance between the rights of an individual member and the right of the assembly not to have unnecessary delays due to calls for counted votes (which are much more time-consuming) when the results are clear. RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

I don't see anything in RONR (12th ed.) 13:17-18 that suggests that a person can chair a committee without being a member of it. Any such situation would need to be in the organization's own rules. From this example, it is clear that "oversee" is different from "chair." However, the question of whether "oversee" means that they are members of the committee is unclear. @Patricia Holliday, I suggest you review RONR (12th ed.) 56:68 and particularly subsection (1) for recommendations on how to deal with ambiguities. It emphasizes trying to be in accordance with the intention of the society at the time, if you can determine that. And it also says that the bylaws should be amended to remove the ambiguity as soon as possible.

Appeals are recorded, "together with the reasons given by the chair for his or her ruling" RONR (12th ed.) 48:4(10). The ruling that was appealed from was about the germaneness of a particular amendment, hence the definite article. Normally, amendments are not recorded, but I would include it in the minutes (immediately preceding my example) in order to give context to the ruling. RONR (12th ed.) 48:4(7) says that minutes include "secondary motions that were not lost or withdrawn, in cases where it is necessary to record them for completeness or clarity" [In my example I did not create a specific non-germane amendment.] As I said in my post above: "On appeal, the ruling was sustained." RONR (12th ed.) 48:4(11): "the declaration by the chair in 'naming' an offending member as a part of disciplinary procedures, as well as any disorderly words that led to such naming and that the chair directed the secretary to take down (see 61:12–14)." and 61:14: "The declaration made by the chair in naming a member is addressed to the offender by name and in the second person, and is entered in the minutes." So, Yes, the name of the miscreant is included because it is part of the declaration when the chair names the offender. "On a point of order that was put to the assembly, the proposed amendment was ruled not germane to the pending main motion." Again, I would record the proposed amendment.

So you're saying the 12th edition has come up short? "The proposed amendment was ruled not in order because it was not germane to the pending main motion. On appeal, the ruling was sustained."

Like beauty, "uncontroversial" is in the eye of the beholder. Actually, if you have metrics to help guide the decision, that's a step ahead of most organizations. If there was enough opposition to putting the item on the consent calendar, then it probably would have been removed from the calendar when the opportunity for objections arose (your rules do provide such an opportunity, I trust).

I agree with Mr. Martin. It appears very clear that the proposal made by the Senate needs to be adopted by a majority vote in a referendum. You appear to use the terms "bylaws" while the referring to what the document itself says is the "constitution." It suggests that they are the same document, which would obviate Mr. Martin's caveat.

This appears to be a judgement call, not a fact. Based on the limited information provided, I recommend against "disqualifying" the candidate, and I would be surprised if the Board even has that authority (which would have to be in your bylaws). No, that is not correct. Ballots cast for an "ineligible candidate are treated instead as illegal votes—that is, they are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate or choice." However, they are still counted and a candidate needs to have a majority of votes cast that indicate a preference (including illegal votes) to be declared the winner. RONR (12th ed.) 45:32

For membership meetings, RONR (12th ed.) 47:11 states what to do in the absence of the president, so most organizations don't need to clutter their constitutions with that material. Guest Mike E asked specifically about committees. Committees are different from membership meetings. RONR (12th ed.) 13:17-18 explain how the chairman of a committee is designated. Please note, @rayan08, that "The Question and Answer Forum is provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised." (emphasis added)

"the board has only such power as is delegated to it by the bylaws or by vote of the society’s assembly referring individual matters to it." RONR (12th ed.) 49:5 If you can find "the board can set a precedent" in the bylaws, then the board has that power. Otherwise it doesn't.

The point is that the style guide uses the word "their" to refer to an individual when, as Mr. Elsman has put it, "when the gender is unknown or irrelevant in the context." The authors of the Style Guide could have said: If an individual has expressed a wish to be addressed in a particular way, even if it is technically incorrect, use his or her preferred style. The authors did not. I cited it as an example of the University of Oxford using the singular "they". It was as good an example of "the Queen's English" as I could find quickly.

Can you cite where the Queen decrees this? Because the Oxford English Dictionary documents the singular use of "they" from 1375. And, while it does not specifically mention Her Majesty The Queen, The University of Oxford Style Guide says that, when addressing a member of the peerage (e.g.: those entitled to call themselves Sir/Dame/Lord/Lady etc.) that, "If an individual has expressed a wish to be addressed in a particular way, even if it is technically incorrect, use their preferred style." (p. 18, emphasis added)

No, it is not changed. I see nothing that supports your contention that an amendment allows the mover to speak against the motion they moved. On the contrary, RONR (12th ed.) 43:25 says, "If he changes his mind while the motion he made is pending, he can, in effect, advise the assembly of this by asking permission to withdraw the motion . . . ." While it is pending includes the time after it has been amended. I believe you are referring to 11th ed., p. 393, ll. 19-26.

In case it helps the OP, the use of "they" as a singular is part of the Associated Press Style Guide, the Chicago Manual of Style, and both the MLA and APA Style Manuals. And Merriam-Webster made it their Word of the Year for 2019. Extrapolating from RONR (12th ed.) 2:18, these may be persuasive. However, I prefer the solution that Mr. Mervosh and Mr. Geiger posted above.

I'll make it unanimous. Given your answers to Mr. Brown's questions, I also agree with Mr. Martin.

There is confusion here about the terms of membership of the committee. What you are describing is closer to what happens with the members of a Standing Committee, not a special committee. For a special committee, "A special (select, or ad hoc) committee is a committee appointed, as the need arises, to carry out a specified task, at the completion of which—that is, on presentation of its final report to the assembly—it automatically ceases to exist." RONR (12th ed.) 50:10. Emphasis added Not that I think it applies here, but for completeness: Standing committees exist for the life of the assembly that creates them. Ordinarily, ". . . the members of such a committee serve for a term corresponding to that of the officers, or until their successors have been chosen . . ." Not that the committee itself falls to the ground but the term of the members ends with the term of the officer. RONR (12th ed.) 50:07. Emphasis added

I am not going to disagree with Mr. Martin. However, this does also raise other issues because you have not had a valid constitution and have not officially existed until now. You are likely back where you started in 2015. For example, Any actions that have been taken in the name of the Senate since its (non-)founding in 2015 may be null and void This 2019 version of constitution will likely also need to be voted on by the full Faculty, even if the Trustees approve it This is a complicated situation (which is why I used "likely" and "may" so often) and you may wish to obtain an opinion from a professional parliamentarian.

If you turn your phone sideways to 'landscape" mode so that it's wider than it is tall (like a tv screen) then the numbers show up. At least, they did for me on my Samsung phone.

First, the error that it is too late to correct is the chair's ruling that the 3-2 vote defeated the motion. If that is what happened, there is no restriction on introducing the motion again at a future meeting. This is the same as with any other motion that is defeated.

One small nuance to Mr. Brown's answer. The less formal rules that apply to small boards apply to all committees, no matter the size of the committee, unless the committee is instructed otherwise by the society. (RONR 11th ed., p. 500, lines 9-13) As well, the president is not necessarily the chair of any committee they are a member of.

It's unclear what you mean. An executive session is one where the proceedings are secret. An executive meeting is just a meeting of your executive. Is the employee a member of the body that is meeting? Your use of the terms trustees and Director make me think of a school board. Public bodies such as school boards have particular laws that apply to them, including specific reasons why the board can move into executive session and the requirements of public reporting around that. Only members of the board ("trustees") are able to make motions, debate, and vote. However, a Director for a school board, similar to a CEO of an organization, often provides much information to the board, and is often allowed to do so during debate.

I believe Mr. Martin's quotation answered that: "other assemblies which have a heavy work load including a large number of routine or noncontroversial matters may find a consent calendar a useful tool for disposing of such items of business." I have seen several non-legislative assemblies use it profitably.