Atul Kapur

It's not more than a quarterly time interval in the future.

Paging Dr. Stackpole. Paging @jstackpo

There is no motion to Suspend The Meeting. As Dr. Stackpole has said, you could Fix the time to which to adjourn and then Adjourn the meeting.

Until the next time. I would take this as an opportunity to clarify and remove any ambiguity before the next time it happens again. (as an analogy, using the time you visited the emergency department for chest pain as an opportunity to finally backup the computer; update your file of important documents, e-documents, and passwords; stop smoking, etc, even though they didn't find anything dangerous during the visit.)

The short answer is Yes. The answer differs depending on the size of the board. If it is a small board (less than about a dozen members), then the chair has the same rights to speak as any other member, so this would be an infringement. It is, however, still in order for the board to make a special rule of order. If it is not a small board, then the chair has the right to speak but almost always does not exercise that right in order to preserve their impartiality. In this case, a special rule of order is in order but would functionally serve to increase the ability of the chair to speak in debate of a motion.

Pages 487-8 describe some of the changes that are allowed in a "small board", which is defined as "not more than about a dozen members present" (p. 487). One of these "small board rules" is that the chair may make a motion, participate in debate, and vote without leaving the chair.

Well, yes they should count for quorum if they are members. But there is another problem. The board does not attend the meeting as "The Board", and they certainly do not "preside". If they are all members than they are attending the meeting as individual members. Holding an office does not give a member any more or any less (fewer?) rights than any other member at a membership meeting. The President and Secretary usually perform their roles at both board and general meetings, but that's it.

Even if it's retroactive? In this case the motion would be considered at the meeting to which the member has already flown. And even if it's not retroactive, you're suggesting that a motion to remove travel reimbursement from one member only would not be seen as disciplinary?

The chair cannot ignore a motion that has been made and seconded. Except in very rare circumstances (such as a member repeatedly making dilatory motions) the chair should either state the motion or rule it out of order, but not ignore it.

Holding an office does not give a member any more or any less (fewer?) rights than any other member at a membership meeting. The board does not attend the meeting as "The Board". If they are all members than they are attending the meeting as individual members.

In the future, if you lose quorum and you have items that need to be dealt with before the next regular meeting, you can still Fix The Time To Which To Adjourn and have the adjourned meeting occur in time that those items are still relevant. This is one of the four things that a meeting can do without a quorum.

Not sure why we're picking this particular nit, but... I acknowledged that it was a presumption by use of the word "presumably". Presumption is, at least in this case, based on probability, and the word "usually" was enough for me to determine that it was more probable than not. I did not make a definitive pronouncement because that would have been presumptuous. And, reverting to parliamentary questions, even if there was not a rule, the removal of an entitlement that is given by custom would still amount to discipline, which has not yet been decided / imposed.

What did the committee chair think would happen with the recommendation? I think he is getting confused over wording. For anything to happen with the recommendation, the membership meeting has to take some action on it. The meeting takes action by voting on motions. Whether it's called a recommendation or a motion, the same process has to be followed, otherwise nothing progresses. I've excerpted pages 506-7 below and recommend that your committee chair read that entire section. "Immediately after receiving a board’s or a committee’s report—unless it is a report containing only information on which no action is taken (p. 525)—an assembly normally considers whatever action may be recommended in or arise out of the report. In the remaining pages of this section, it is explained how such action under various conditions may involve the introduction of motions—to implement recommendations or, occasionally, to adopt the entire report. Motions to Implement Recommendations. When a report contains recommendations...the reporting board or committee member usually makes the necessary motion to implement the recommendations at the conclusion of his presentation, provided he is a member of the assembly (see examples, pp. 514-16 and 519ff., in which it is generally assumed that the “reporting member” is a member of the assembly). ... . No second is required in these cases, since the motion is made on behalf of the board or committee (see p. 36, ll. 15-23). If the person presenting the report ... does not make the required motion to implement the recommendations as just described, any member of the assembly can do so; but the motion should then be seconded. Or, when the proper motion is a matter of clear-cut procedure and must necessarily be introduced to resolve the case, the chair may sometimes expedite matters by assuming the motion—that is, stating the question on it without waiting for it to be made—provided that the assembly is accustomed to this method.*" (emphasis in original)

"The committee recommended that [take the language from the report, which should be written] . The recommendation was adopted." You can show him the passage quoted above and suggest that he should at least phrase the recommendation in the form of a motion. If he doesn't want to do that because he disagrees with the committee's recommendation, then another member of the committee should move it. Yes, but the Chair is giving up their position of impartiality, which is not advisable. Again, your can show them the passage quoted above.

It is recommended in order to avoid confusion. "In any report of a subordinate board or a committee ... specific recommendations for immediate action by the parent assembly should be grouped at the end—repeating them if they have already been noted at separate places in the report—and should generally be cast in the form of one or more proposed resolutions. Although it is possible for a report, in the circumstances just described, to present recommendations which are not in the form of resolutions or motions, the “adoption” of such recommendations by the parent assembly may, depending on their wording or that of the motion to adopt, lead to confusion as to whether their adoption authorizes action, or only has the force of a declaration of intent (requiring the adoption of subsequent resolutions for implementation). A board or committee is usually best fitted to prepare resolutions to carry out its recommendations, and it should never leave this responsibility to others." (RONR 11th ed., p. 504, lines 16-32. Emphasis added) The chair may have assumed that the recommendation was clear enough that everyone knew what they were voting on. If the secretary (or any other member) was not certain, then they should have insisted that the motion be stated clearly. Depends on the size of the body that is meeting. "If the presiding officer is a member of the assembly or voting body, he has the same voting right as any other member. Except in a small board or a committee, however— unless the vote is secret (that is, unless it is by ballot;) the chair protects his impartial position by exercising his voting right only when his vote would affect the outcome," (p. 53, lines 16-21) "Small board" is defined as "In a board meeting where there are not more than about a dozen members present" (p. 487) That is something to be decided between the chair and the parliamentarian. They are not listed in RONR among the duties of the parliamentarian. Edited to add: The rules for small boards and committees (p. 487-8) cover a few of the things you described: "some of the formality that is necessary in a large assembly would hinder business. The rules governing such meetings are different from the rules that hold in other assemblies ... "- When a proposal is perfectly clear to all present, a vote can be taken without a motion’s having been introduced. ... "If the chairman is a member, he may, without leaving the chair, speak in informal discussions and in debate, and vote on all questions."

Well, it does say that until the discipline is imposed, the member retains their rights. So, presumably, at this stage the member would still be entitled to have their flight paid for.

When you wish to suspend a suspendable rule that is preventing you from doing what you want to do. Sorry for the tautologic answer, but if you want something more specific you will need to be more specific in your question.

Ask this person to find and show you the rule that says that.

In this one case, it would probably have been better to add on to your previous question, which Guest Zev answered Guest Zev did not say the President appoints someone. The group should elect someone to serve as Secretary pro tempore, for that meeting. The advice against having the president do both is not because the minutes would be invalid but, rather, because it is difficult for one person to do both jobs well. This can be done very simply. The president can suggest that someone, for example the vice-president, serve as the secretary for this meeting and ask if there's any objection. If there's no objection, then it's done.

Presumably, any member. So no one is excluded, not the president nor anyone else. The president, chairing the meeting, may prefer to make arrangements beforehand to have someone else make the actual motion. Presumably it refers to a previous general membership meeting, assuming that it is the membership meeting that can vote to amend the bylaws (not clear from the excerpt you've provided). As Mr. Honemann has noted, this isn't found in RONR so please cite your source. In any case, bylaws supersede the rules found in RONR.

In the bylaw it referred to a "voting member" who may propose changes to the bylaws, and "voting members" in the section that is causing this thread. So this suggested that it was a specific term (rather than "voting" being a superfluous adjective), which Guest PP has confirmed above. My suggested wording resolves the ambiguity by making the bylaws clearly reflect Guest PP's leaning: If the intent was to have it the other way (that is, if abstentions were meant to have the same affect as Nays), my suggested wording would be, " ... by a vote of 2/3 of the members present at a meeting of ..."

I wonder if the "inactive" status was just someone's bright idea at the meeting or if it is actually a term in some legislation that applies to the organization. Is ABCD incorporated? If there is applicable legislation, then hopefully it will state how to restore active status to the group. If not, then I would have hoped that someone had asked at the November meeting what exactly inactive status meant and how it would be changed. In the absence of both, I agree with Dr. Stackpole.

Is the term "voting members" defined anywhere in your bylaws? That Is, is it a specific category or classification of membership? If so, that would tend to go against your leanings. Either way, I agree that this is ambiguous. The best thing to do is, before it becomes an issue, amend it so that the wording is more clear. My suggestion would be, "... with a 2/3 vote of members present and voting at a meeting of ..."

Well, you now see and are dealing with what happens when you don't use a parliamentarian. Congratulations on working towards getting credentialled. Even so, I recommend that you hire a parliamentarian to advise/assist with this work. You can get referral lists from either the American Institute of Parliamentarians or the National Association of Parliamentarians.

I think you meant "required open quarterly meetings", no?