Atul Kapur

What is your citation to back up this statement that a Request for Information (RFI) would be out of order? RONR (12th ed.) 33:2(1) (aka SDC 1) says a RFI can, "be made at any time when no question is pending." Ibid 48:24 says: "No action of acceptance by the assembly is required--or proper. . ." It doesn't prohibit a RFI. Ibid 33:6 says that a RFI is a request, "for information relevant to the business at hand". Immediately after the treasurer's report is presented, wouldn't that be the business at hand?

What's wrong with calling the presiding officer, "Chair"? In Canada, I hear it used as a title fairly often. A member who is recognized often starts by saying, "Thank you, Chair. I move that..." It's similar in many of our legislatures, where members often precede their questions with, "Through you, Speaker, to the Minister..."

In particular, I think you will find 45:36 helpful where it says that each section of the ballot is treated as if it were a separate ballot Imagine cutting up a ballot containing multiple elections into each of its separate elections, then counting the ballots for each position's election separately. So an abstention in one section reduces the number of ballots cast for that section. But the number of ballots cast in each separate election are independent of each other.

RONR only allows previous notice to be given orally "at the preceding meeting" RONR (12th ed.) 10:44, 10:47, and 44:10. And, if given at the preceding meeting, "The secretary then records the notice in the minutes." Since the gathering that is being discussed is not a meeting, and there will be no minutes of that gathering, then I don't believe that a notice given this way is valid.

By that standard my emergency physician group could never schedule a meeting, because at any moment at least four of us are on duty. Likewise for a union with members working all three eight-hour shifts covering the full 24 hours. Many such groups find alternatives so that the same group of members are not disadvantaged more than others. Or use work-arounds such as multi-part meetings.

I was trying to be nice and answer the question that I thought Mr. Zook was asking. But since he didn't like my answer, I won't try to do that again. I do agree with Mr. Honemann when he says,

As Mr Honemann says, your question is not exactly related to the OP. However, to answer your question, if the original motion was adopted in 2014 and then rescinded in 2019, that does not "deauthorize" the laying of flowers from 2014-19. It just says that you will not be doing that going forward.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise, only members of that particular committee have the right to attend its meetings. So, they would be the only ones who have the right to be notified.

Just focussing on the question of the signature, I have seen this with several corporations. I recommend you look at the law that applies to your Association to see if there's anything about this requirement in there.

That seems at least a bit unbalanced, in the sense as used in: "PRINCIPLES UNDERLYING PARLIAMENTARY LAW The rules of parliamentary law found in this book will, on analysis, be seen to be constructed upon a careful balance of the rights of persons or subgroups within an organization’s or an assembly’s total membership. That is, these rules are based on a regard for the rights: • of the majority, • of the minority, especially a strong minority—greater than one third, • of individual members, • of absentees, and • of all these together." and the definition of the will of the assembly "Ultimately, it is the majority taking part in the assembly who decide the general will, but only following upon the opportunity for a deliberative process of full and free discussion." RONR (12th ed.) p. xlix

That type of protection only goes so far. On a completely unrelated topic, I hope all of you believers in democracy have voted or made plans to vote on Tuesday.

Yes, true. And in that case, it should only require the 2/3 vote.

My point was that, depending on the detail in the options, filling blanks could be considered by the assembly if they felt it was reasonable. After being chastened by Mr. Honemann's remarks, I still must express surprise at Mr. Zook's assertion that amending is more flexible than filling blanks. Well, debate can occur and suggestions can be made concurrently. The opportunity to make suggestions is until a vote is taken, and that only occurs "[w]hen no further suggestions are offered, and there is no further debate" RONR (12th ed.) 12:99 How is this different from amending? If "firetruck" is voted on as an amendment and inserted before "red" there will be no opportunity to propose "rose red" without reconsidering the vote on "firetruck." SImilarly if "red" is adopted as the chosen colour. I'm not sure how this is effectively different than the alternative method. Once the assembly votes for single-elimination, it is too late to propose a double-elimination format. There is another book that uses a process that would answer your criticism, but that's outside the purview of this forum.

There are a limited number of options that could still reasonably be dealt with by the mechanism of filling blanks. For example, Single-elimination with seeding vs Single-elimination with random allocation. The assembly can decide if this is reasonable for itself by deciding on the incidental motion to create a blank.

There's nothing in RONR that will permit this. The purpose of notice is to allow members to decide whether they wish to attend the meeting to express their views and vote on the measure in question. The rights of members who are not present at the first meeting are violated if you vote at the same meeting where notice was provided.

Let's ask Guest Chairperson to give us a more clear question in a new thread.

RONR, by using the word "among" clearly states that this list is not exhaustive. I think that the only issue that determines whether filling blanks works is whether amendments to the formats are allowed, if not you are just choosing between them. The specification is "which format." Proposals could be a round-robin tournament with no playoff, a single-elimination tournament with seeding, a double-elimination tournament, etc. It doesn't need to be made overcomplicated.

I don't follow your logic. I have, as a member of a board, often asked questions about the treasurer's report. Why does that lead you to suspect the OP is not a member of the board?

You could do a variation of Filling a Blank. That would allow you to choose between A and B. Then you vote on whether the preferred option replaces C. The motion would be That we replace the current tournament format with Format ___." Formats A and B are proposed to fill the blank. Debate and a vote occur. They are voted on in order proposed and the first one to get majority support fills the blank. Then you vote on whether to adopt the, now completed, motion: That we replace the current tournament format with Format [A or B] If adopted, that's your new format. If not adopted, then you're sticking with the current one. An alternative, expanding on Mr. Martin's post, is to propose a motion to replace current format with Format A. Someone can move to substitute Format B for Format A. That allows the assembly to discuss the merits of both proposals and either of the formats could be amended to improve them (maybe even stealing parts of the other format) before the decision is made.

This is true under RONR, as J. J. said, above. You should check your bylaws to see if they say anything about resignations; some say that they are effective once received, without requiring that they be accepted. That would make your situation more difficult, but you should check and confirm.

It is definitely allowed. The Chair does not need to step down from the Chair to present their report. RONR has a standard Order of Business, which includes as the second item: Reports of Officers, Boards, and Standing Committees. The President's Report is usually the first of the Officer's Reports. You mention Chapters 1 and 4, which suggests to me that you are looking at Robert's Rules online. The problem is that is the 4th edition, published in 1915 (and therefore in the public domain). The current edition is the 12th, which was just published in August. In it, the usual order of business is in Section 41 and Reports is in 41:13-14

Note that you don't have to wait for the current individual to finish their term before amending the bylaw. You would just have to adopt the amendment with a motion that states "and this amendment will be effective as of [pick the last date of the term]"

Although those are two different questions (so people who disagree with your interpretation of the rules may support a suspension of those rules), I think that, realistically, if the appeal fails it would be unlikely that you'd get a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules. Depending on the exact wording of the bylaws, yes this could be a reason for the chair to properly reject the proposals/motions.

I agree with Mr. Honemann that there are no minutes to be approved for this improperly called meeting (and on everything else he says above). However, the sentence indicates that there may be a common misunderstanding. Assume that this was a properly called meeting (call it "Meeting A). At Meeting B, all you are doing by approving the minutes of Meeting A is saying that the minutes are a correct record of what happened at Meeting A. The motions passed at Meeting A are effective as soon as they are adopted. The organization does not have to wait until the minutes of Meeting A are approved in order to act on the motions passed there.

It would have to be stated in the bylaws. "In some organizations, the president is . . . ex officio a member of, all committees (with the exception of the nominating committee, which should be expressly excluded from such a provision, and with the further possible exception of all disciplinary committees; see 56:47). But only when he is so authorized by the bylaws—or, in the case of a particular committee, by vote of the assembly—does he have this authority and status. As an ex-officio member of a committee, the president has the same rights as the other committee members, but is not obligated to attend meetings of the committee and is not counted in determining the number required for a quorum or whether a quorum is present." RONR (12th ed.) 47:20