Atul Kapur

The bylaws explicitly state that this committee has an agenda. I think we've seen enough examples on this forum that innumerable organizations use the titles "board" and "committee" in non-RONR ways. I generally try to interpret from context how they're functioning. In this case, it seems clear that, yes, this Central Committee is in the nature of a board. Most of the time I've seen "State Central Committee" it's for a political party and operates as a Board.

I agree with Mr. Brown's opinion I disagree with your parliamentarian, but even if you accept that the "rights of absentees" are being violated, the bylaws of an organiztion can do that. Please note that the vote required is "a majority of the members in attendance". That is different from the more common "majority vote" or "more Yes's than No's". In your situation, you need to determine how many members are in attendance when the vote is taken. For example if you have 50 members in attendance at the time, then you need 26 votes in favour to add something to the agenda, no matter how many negative votes there are (even if there aren't any).

Never mind. I reconsidered my post. I blame it on the late hour.

One example might be a non-contentious group that is not sophisticated in the ways of RONR where the use of the phrase may be seen as trying to intimidate the member seeking recognition.

Thanks for telling us what the first call of the meeting actually said, as was requested earlier. That call was deficient because it did not include the "purpose of the meeting, clearly and specifically describing the subject matter of the motions or items of business to be brought up" (RONR 11th ed., p. 91, lines 32-34). At the meeting, you can raise a point of order that the special meeting was not properly called. However, there is a possible counter-argument. You tell us that the agenda was sent 21 days after the first notice, but not how far in advance of the special meeting it was sent out. If it was sent out a reasonable number of days before the actual meeting, the chair could argue that the first notice was simply a "save-the-date" and that the agenda -- which has all of the required information -- was the actual notice of meeting.

Motions that are withdrawn are not included in the minutes. Don't have RONR in front of me to give you the exact reference.

I used Merriam - Webster, which gives both meanings, although the "twice a year" meaning is listed first.

Just to confirm: I think we're agreeing. Without the motion to refer, the resolutions committee and the resolutions not dealt with would both die with adjournment. With the referral (I do not assume that it's to the Resolutions Committee) they will be brought up at the next convention. BTW, "biannual" is a word liable to confusion. It can mean that the next convention is in six months or twenty-four. From the discussion, it appears that the "twice a year" meaning is the most common one here on the forum.

Because it's a convention that we're talking about, I don't think we can assume that the Resolutions Committee has an ongoing existence beyond the final adjournment of the current convention. So I think a motion to refer is required.

Nothing in RONR gives the presiding officer the authority to veto a decision of the board (or of the membership meeting for that matter). Check to see if your bylaws give that authority, although I doubt it.

That is how I read your original post. As I said, and as Mr. Novosielski agrees, the convention put the proposals / recommendations in the hands of the committee. They are no longer under the control of the submitter. The time for the submitter to try to withdraw the proposal was during consideration of the motion to refer all remaining proposals to the committee.

If it has been referred to a committee, I would say that the submitter cannot withdraw the proposal. The convention took "ownership" of the proposal by referring it to the committee. The submitter could have tried to amend the motion to refer to exclude the submitter's proposal.

Doesn't matter how I feel. That's going to be up to the assembly based on whether the notice was adequate and given a reasonable number of days in advance (I didn't see that your bylaws required a certain number of days notice). I haven't seen the original notice. I also don't know how many days ahead of the meeting the agenda was sent out. As I suggested just above, carefully read pages 91-93, particularly the last paragraph which speaks to the differences between notice of the business to be transacted and notice of the exact motion to be moved. "Although the call of a special meeting must state the purpose of the meeting, it need not give the exact content of the individual motions that will be considered." (p. 93, lines 15-18)

Well, remember that special meetings have a different order of business. "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." (RONR 11th ed., p. 93, lines 3-4) I suggest you read all of the Special Meeting (pages 91-93).

I'm curious as to the logic behind this. I had written earlier that this relief from an obligation (not counting towards the quorum requirement) was available only to the president, based on p. 497 as quoted above. Are you saying that it would be a reasonable interpretation to extend that to any officer who was ex officio made a member of all committees?

It sounds like the Chair has called the meeting for the purpose of Rescinding Something Previously Adopted. We haven't seen the exact wording of the Notice/Call of the meeting to be able to say whether it meets the requirements Mr. Gerber quoted above. Objection to Consideration is not in order as the motion to Rescind is an Incidental Main Motion. And it requires a 2/3 vote to prevent consideration. I think what you would want to do is raise a Point of Order that the notice of the meeting was deficient and therefore the motion to Rescind is out of order. If you Appeal the presumed ruling against you, that only requires a majority vote to overturn the ruling.

Hyper-modern English. Apparently now preferred over "him/her". But not preferred by Unanimous Consent 😉

It sounds like you did this by "general consent". In other words, someone raised the issue, someone else suggested that you direct the manager to investigate and report back, everyone agreed that was a good idea, and it was done by general consent (aka "unanimous consent"). Yes, this gets minuted. If everyone is clear on exactly what has been decided, this can work. The advantages of doing it a little more formally are that 1) the members know exactly what has been decided (avoiding the "that's not what I thought we agreed to do" discussions at the next meeting), and 2) the manager knows exactly what has been asked of them.

I agree with Mr. Harrison, but I've never heard of an Honorary Past President before. Have others?

It's not explicit, so I've edited my post.

The 11th edition is not available online. You will have to go out and purchase a copy. You may want to start with RONR In Brief (RONRIB). I noted the same phrase that Richard flagged. The idea of having RONR as your parliamentary authority is that you have a common set of rules that you all agree to follow (if the superior documents are silent). The phrase "or a ruling made by the person presiding over the proceeding" throws that out the window and says that the presiding officer can rule unilaterally based on whatever they want to base it on. An argument could even be made that this means the presiding officer's rulings cannot be appealed.

I'd suggest that you include the notice of election in the call for your next meeting. Then, when the meeting reaches General Orders New Business the Chair can start the election by announcing that nominations are open.

Roman, the problem here is that the section you quoted refers to ex-officio members who are not under the authority of the society; that's what "latter class" means in the quote above. It refers to the immediately preceding lines 30-34 of page 483. The example of someone who is outside the society's authority is a state governor who is ex officio a trustee of a private academy. The Vice-President is under the authority of the society, so the Vice-President does count towards a quorum. In fact, there is no distinction between the VP and any other member of the committee.

The previous discussion was here The upshot is that When the President is made a member of all committees (with limited exceptions), they are not subject to the usual obligations (= not counted towards quorum), and that this privilege only applies to the President. 

I don't see anything missing from your analysis. But it's late and perhaps others during the day will find an option. The quotation from your is oddly worded - almost sounds like a direct translation from French.