Atul Kapur

As an emergency physician, I tell them that if they don't like a mask, they really won't like a breathing tube and ventilator. [non-RONR digression over]

Except that Mr. Brown's quote refers to the situation before the chair has rendered their decision. A point of order can only be raised after the ruling has been given.

Zoom has Arizona as a separate option when I'm choosing a Time Zone to schedule a meeting. Windows also recognizes Arizona. Canadian content: They both also recognize Saskatchewan as a separate time zone (SK stays on Central Standard Time year-round, so = CST or MDT). Gut shabbos to you, as well. I assume that hasn't started for you as yet, but I guess that depends on what time it is. 😀 And I hope the situation in Arizona with the outbreak is sparing you and yours.

In parliamentary terms, it sounds like one or two things happened: the motion was either Postponed to the next meeting (if the questions will be answered by then) or was Withdrawn (if they won't be answered by then). It sounds like whichever action was taken, it was done by general consent. How large is your board? If "there are not more than about a dozen members present," then modified rules apply (RONR 11th ed., p. 477-478, including lines 27-28, where the above quote is found). Under these rules, "When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced." (p. 478, lines 9-10) and, since it appears to have been done by unanimous consent, you didn't need to take a formal vote, "Unless agreed to by unanimous consent, however, all proposed actions must be approved by vote under the same rules as in larger meetings" (p. 478, lines 11-13) So the proposal to Postpone or Withdraw the motion was voted upon without a motion being introduced and adopted by unanimous consent. Be careful to ensure that the proposal is/was perfectly clear to every member and that there truly is/was no objection. Otherwise, these provisions could be abused to adversely affect the rights of members.

There are other options which may lead to a more efficient resolution. You have four separate proposals which are all aimed at addressing the same situation. You could refer the question of how to address the situation to a committee and include in the instructions that they consider the four proposals and come back with a recommendation (if necessary, the instructions could explicitly say that the committee is free to combine the ideas in the proposals and that the committee is not limited to those four). You could do something similar with the entire assembly by moving into Committee of the Whole or quasi-Committee of the Whole. It would be easier to take either of these actions if you amended the agenda to add, before you deal with any of these motions, the question of "How should we address this situation"

Does it have to be in the bylaws or would a Special Rule of Order suffice? @Brian McMillan, I agree with Mr. Mervosh that, whether it's in the by-laws or a special rule, only the membership can place any of those types of restrictions on a membership meeting. As you become more familiar with RONR, you will find that there are many ways to handle this if you are concerned about the membership being unprepared for this motion. For example, you could have moved to Postpone it until the next meeting, depending on when the next meeting will be held, or to Refer it to a committee or the board to consider it in-depth then report back to a future membership meeting.

And if that raises the question, "What time zone do we put in the meeting notice?" look two posts above this one. In the example that Mr. Merritt uses, I believe Central time zone is used because that is where the headquarters of the association is located.

The only option that I can think of that would avoid possible embarrassment would be a ballot. Is that what you're suggesting? I'm not sure why this particular motion would be embarrassing to oppose, though. Reading the OP again, I believe that the motion could simply be that the assembly support the Pledge. The pledge could be in the body of the motion, or the resolution, but by adopting the motion, the members are not making the pledge themselves. Each individual faculty member would take the Pledge separately from the motion.

Pick one thst makes sense. Options include: Where is the headquarters of the association? Use that time zone. Where is the presiding officer located? Use that time zone. If it's worldwide, consider using Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), which has the benefit of not having to figure out whether a particular time zone is on Daylight Savings Time (aka "Summer Time") or not.

You can install the program onto your computer. By the way, the 12th edition is scheduled to be released in September (or late August) and there may be changes in the versions that are available.

The commonest answer on this forum is: "Consider dissolving the organization." This is a sign of lack of adequate interest in the organization. The ramifications of this can often spark enough interest to generate volunteers. Alternatively, nominate people. Even though they may not have thought of it themselves, if nominated or, taking it the next step, if elected, they may agree to serve.

A couple of points. While others have said that this could be a standing or a special committee, the way it is described seems to be more in keeping with a standing committee. "Standing committees are constituted to perform a continuing function" (RONR 11th ed., p. 490, lines 32-33) and this seems to be a continuing function, unless there will be no more graduations, weddings, showers, etc. or the organization decides to stop sending cards for these events. I also noted the comment: I don't think a committee needs to deliberate in order to be a committee. "A committee, as understood in parliamentary law, is a body of one or more persons, elected or appointed by (or by direction of) an assembly or society, to consider, investigate, or take action on certain matters or subjects, or to do all of these things." (p. 489, lines 23-24, emphasis added). This committee's duty appears to be to take action. That would seem to be enough, unless I'm missing something. A question arises that goes beyond @Angie N's query. Can it be assumed that the committee has been appointed "with power" even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the bylaws? In other words, do those two words need to be in the description of the committee or can the assigned duties make it clear that the committee has the power to take all steps to carry out its instructions?

It's happened to almost all of this on this forum at least once. I invented and am trying to popularize the acronym IDHTBIFOM ("I Don't Have The Book In Front Of Me"). Or, perhaps the unabridged acronym, IDHTBIFOMBIIRC ("But If I Recall Correctly")?

Except on page 162, lines 9-19, where it explains how a "friendly amendment" should be handled.

RONR doesn't recommend one or the other. It gives two options and the language they have in their bylaws follows the first option. The language, "and until their successors are selected" is given as the way "to permit removal of officers only for cause, through disciplinary proceedings that may involve a formal trial" (RONR 11th ed., p. 574, lines 10-11). Nathan adds that, "The issues in 2 above are handled by explicitly handling the case of partial terms." but RONR does that. The "more-or-less" is important. RONR is clear that "For purposes of determining eligibility to continue in office under such a provision," that of a term limit, "an officer who has served more than half a term is considered to have served a full term in that office." (p. 575, lines 2-5) So if the Vice President serves up to half of a full term in filling a vacancy, they can be elected to two terms. If they serve more than half of their predecessor's term, then they can only be elected to one further consecutive term. This, I agree, is ambiguous. Is it meant to be a lifetime limit or just saying that one person cannot be elected to more than 2 consecutive terms or saying that one person is ineligible to serve more than 2 consecutive terms. So if the question comes up, then the organization should interpret their bylaws.

To be exceedingly clear, that means that those people who are no longer members of the board -- even if they were the ones who attended that particular meeting -- no longer have access to the minutes of the board meetings.

If it is prior to the effective date, then they are still in that office and have all of the rights and duties of that office. So it seems fairly obvious that the answer is yes, unless there's something else that we aren't being told. Why does the question arise? And has the resignation even been accepted?

Now I need a clarification because I don't believe Mr. Elsman presumed any such prohibition in the bylaws. In the absence of such a prohibtion in the bylaws, are you saying that a person who holds a "odd-year" director position (with a term from 2019-2021) can also be elected to an "even-year" director position (term 2020-2022) and hold both positions simultaneously?

Are they only poages if you're reading it while eating a po' boy?

Are the two positions incompatible (which would require a resignation from one of them)?

Sure, IF the candidate is present. But present where? The entire electronic voting is a form of absentee ballot. So everyone, including the candidate, is absent. In case it gets lost here, the bottom line is that the election is final. The candidate who won is free to resign and then the vacancy can be filled as per the bylaws. I don't think that the election can be called incomplete.

If everyone is absent, that would include the candidate. So I don't see why the excerpt I quoted would not apply (ie: I don't see why absentee voting affects the applicability of the rule). The candidate (a) is absent along with everyone else, and (b) consented to his candidacy. Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Katz seem to feel that the length of time that the polls are open affects the analysis here. Let me draw an analogy. A member consents to their candidacy for President. The polls are open from 8am - 3pm (paper ballots and ballot boxes in room adjacent to the meeting room). A candidate, who has consented, changes their mind after polls have been opened (let's say, at noon). They win the election. It seems clear to me that the quote from p. 444 applies and the election is final. So the newly-elected President could then resign. I don't see how the fact that the voting is conducted electronically changes the essentials of the analogy enough to claim that the rule on p. 444 no longer applies. Yes, I am assuming that the bylaws allow electronic voting of this type.

I don't think the length of time that the polls are open matters. However, the real question is whether the candidate consented to their candidacy, which it sounds like they did. Therefore, "An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate . . . is absent but has consented to his candidacy." (RONR 11th ed., p. 444, lines 18-20, emphasis added). So it sounds like I disagree with Mr. Martin in that I think it's too late for the candidate to decline.

I don't know what document you are quoting from (it certainly doesn't appear to be a quote from the Act itself), but it seems to answer your questions, if you believe you can rely on it. and as for the last part of your question RONR doesn't require the adoption of an agenda and, in fact, it actually says you should just follow the Standard Order of Business. However, since you apparently are following other rules, such as this Davis and Sterling Act, you should refer to them to advise whether only items listed on the agenda can be raised. Please note that I am in no way giving legal advice or interpreting any law. I've responded using the quotations you gave.

You are correct, Weldon, of course. But I don't see a right to take a leave of absence anywhere. Just as there isn't a right to abandon an office and duties that one has accepted (as per my citation). So I was trying to connect Guest Aimee B's situation to the closest thing I could find in RONR.