Atul Kapur

Creation of new bylaws for an organization that is coming into existence? Majority. Revision or substitution of existing bylaws? The same requirement that the bylaws provide for amendment. If the bylaws are completely silent, then either - previous notice and a 2/3 vote; or - the affirmative vote of the majority of entire membership (of the full organization, if this board is not the full organization).

RONR has nothing to say on the process of granting membership. These are decisions for your department to make. That sounds like a question for your lawyer.

Yes. RONR (12th ed.) says

Please quote, exactly, what your bylaws say about terms of office and about filling of vacancies. How, exactly, do your bylaws define this position? How, exactly, do your bylaws define these officer positions and how they are elected? For example, are the officers elected directly by the membership or are they first elected to the board then the board elects the officers (don't paraphrase or explain what your bylaws say - please quote them exactly)?

The current rule is so badly worded that I can't make any sense of it, so I didn't dare hazard a guess as to what it means - more power to you that you tried.

It's odd, because we're offering solutions based on RONR, but the assumption is that the chair isn't adhering to those rules. In any case: If someone moves to accept the resignation, then the member who "resigned" can rise before the motion is stated and interrupt the proceedings to raise a question of privilege to withdraw the resignation. The deadline for that is before the chair states the question, which is the third step in processing a motion: 1. A member makes ("moves") the motion 2. A member seconds the motion 3. The chair states the motion.

Just be careful how you do that and do not do it as two steps.

I believe that I am agreeing with @Shmuel Gerber when I say that the substance is whether it is related to the business transacted at the meeting. If it is, then it matters not whether it is done by a minutes approval committee or the secretary; the motion is in order either way.

I was referring to a law that did not require a member to vote but changed the denominator of the vote such that an abstention has the same effect as voting No. There is a difference between that and stating that members cannot abstain and are forced to vote, which I could have made more clear. You may not have heard it before. You have now. 😀 Put another way, it prevents a member from allowing a motion to be adopted or lost but "washing their hands" of it by saying I didn't take a position (and therefore have no responsibility for the decision).

Under normal circumstances, yes, it is likely difficult. Here, however, the question is not "How many members were present at that time during that previous meeting?" which may be difficult to ascertain. Here, the question is "How many members were qualified to be members of the board at the time of the meeting?" Depending on the details you have requested, it may be an easy thing to determine how many board members were validly members at each meeting and, if quorum is a fixed number, whether it was achieved. I await the clarifying details.

Which is why I still lean towards it being in order. Otherwise this would appear to be an example where form is overriding substance.

I believe you want to change a word here, because otherwise it's repetitious. On what grounds is this claim being made? It is difficult to comment on its validity without knowing the rationale. For example, is the president saying that the previous vote was just to earmark the funds but didn't actually approve going ahead with the project? That the board needs to vote to approve the contract to implement the project? That the changeover in the board membership requires a new approval? Some other rationale? And when you answer that, it would likely be helpful to provide more details on exactly what motions were voted on at the board and membership meetings.

It is not a rule in RONR. Many municipal governments (for example) change the basis of voting from majority of those present and voting to majority of those present, which means that abstentions have the same effect as voting 'No'. I have heard this "principle" used as the rationale to explain why that is.

RONR (12th ed.) "47:55 A member of an assembly who acts as its parliamentarian has the same duty as the presiding officer to maintain a position of impartiality, and therefore does not make motions, participate in debate, or vote on any question except in the case of a ballot vote. He does not cast a deciding vote, even if his vote would affect the result, since that would interfere with the chair’s prerogative of doing so. If a member feels that he cannot properly forgo these rights in order to serve as parliamentarian, he should not accept that position. Unlike the presiding officer, the parliamentarian cannot temporarily relinquish his position in order to exercise such rights on a particular motion."

As there is no identified person or group, it was used to cover any and all circumstancese (it's a very useful word).

Look at the motion to Rescind or to Amend Something Previously Adopted.

I don't understand how your bylaws can specify 2 classes without defining their criteria or how the classification is determined.

😀 I haven't heard of anyone who wants to mess with your pronouns, so of course you can continue to use the singular for yourself. I understand that they are seeking to have their preferences similarly respected.

I agree with Mr. Martin and reinforce his point that 2/3 of the entire officers is required, not just 2/3 of those who are present. As an example, if there were 15 officers, the 9 who were present could never have achieved the required 10 vote minimum. What was the pretext for repeating the vote? RONR (12th ed.) 30:6 is clear that "It is never in order to move that the vote on a question be taken a second time by the same method." The first vote provided a definitive result.

And where is this quotation taken from?

Removal from office only requires a majority vote under two sets of circumstances (a) if the bylaws specify the term of office as "___ years or until their successors are elected" and previous notice was given; or (b) if the bylaws specify the term of office as "___ years and until their successors are elected" and the person was found guilty after a trial, then the meeting may vote to remove the person from office by a majority vote.

Under RONR, a member who is delinquent with membership dues retains all their rights, including the right to make nominations. RONR (12th ed.) 1:13n3 states "Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19)." As Mr. Lages advises, you should also check your organization's governing documents to see if they say anything about "good standing" or the effect of being delinquent in dues. I believe the OP is asking about the nominator, rather than the nominee.

The Standard Order of Business in RONR includes Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees but this is the second item, after Reading and Approval of Minutes, rather than "In the beginning of our board meetings." RONR (12th ed.) 41:5 While it is not specified in RONR, a member may make a Request for Information after the report.

Hi Cheryl, Robert's Rules of Order (RONR) defers to legislation and special rules of order adopted by the organization. Here in Canada, most municipalities are governed by the applicable provincial law (eg: Ontario's Municipal Act) and then usually adopt their own special rules (in Ontario, this is called the Procedural By-law). Most municipalities specify a parliamentary authority in their procedural by-law but only in situations when the law and procedural by-law are silent. Many use RONR, but there are several that use others. RONR, itself, does not require a recorded vote unless the assembly itself orders one. I know of some municipal and similar councils in Canada that require a recorded vote for all final decisions, but it is not widespread. You mentioned "tradition." RONR uses the word "custom" and the rules of order, special rules and the rules in RONR, supersede custom.

Our experiences differ.