Atul Kapur

Under the usual Order of Business in RONR, Reports From Committees are heard well before New Business and the recommendations from the committee, in the form of motions, are considered immediately after the committee reports. So, in short, yes the board should deal with the motions from the committee before dealing with other motions that someone chooses to bring. The motion from the committee can, of course, be amended including amendment by substitution if someone else thinks they have a better idea. You will notice that I have not talked about whether printing the motion in the agenda makes a difference in how it is handled. This is because it doesn't affect the priority of motions coming from a committee. Many organizations do put a higher importance on what exactly is printed in the agenda than RONR does. It sounds like yours is one of those organizations. I dont know if there is anything in your bylaws or rules of order or the B.C. Societies Act that requires that approach or if it's a custom in your organization (often from a belief that that is what is required). BTW, Happy Election Day, tomorrow! Did you vote in advance or by mail or are you doing it traditionally?

Well, it does follow the principle of "Majority Rules." If a majority of the entire membership wants to move in a particular direction, why should a minority prevent them from doing so? And remember, that the 2/3 vote is the standard definition: of those present and voting. So a vote of 2Y 1N would meet the 2/3 requirement but fall well short of a majority of the entire membership. And if your concern is that "a majority of the entire membership is often less then 2/3" then I don't understand your question about vacancies. If all 11 positions are filled then a majority of the entire membership is 6 and two-thirds needs 8 votes if all 11 vote.

If the motions are coming as recommendations from a committee, then they don't need seconding. When the committee reports, the reporting member should move the recommendations as motions. I'm not clear what alternative procedure you're planning on. If the motions aren't "put on the floor" how would you deal with the committee's report and recommendations/motions? Do you plan on trying to suppress those motions from coming up for consideration? BTW, what province are you in?

Well, that's what the 12th edition says. Who knows what the rule was in the summer of 200?

Where are you getting this from? In gross does not equate to "undebatable and unamendable." As Mr. Martin has noted above, a special rule of order may very well be written "which provides that members may speak in debate on any motion on the consent calendar (without any request to consider that item separately), but that the items are then voted on in gross." This would be unusual, yes, but definitely possible. And note that 41:32 says, "The special rule of order establishing a consent calendar may provide that, when the matters on the calendar are called up, they may be considered in gross or without debate or amendment."

This is, as per the top of this page, "The Official RONR Q & A Forums" Mr. Martin, on the bottom of his every post, clearly says "Even when this is not specifically noted, all answers should be assumed to include the caveat 'unless your organization's rules or applicable law provide otherwise.' "All answers provided above are based upon the 12th edition of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised."

Let's ignore the executive session for the moment. If someone says something that's not true, that's still debate, not a point of order, no matter how clear the fact may be. Member T says, "The moon is made of green cheese. That's what people have told me." Your recourse (and Member B's) is to make arguments supporting what you understand as being true "99.999999% of scientists agree that the moon is made of moonrock. That's a Fact Fact, not an Alternative Fact." You cannot impugn during debate the motives of Member T but you can definitely do what you can to argue for the facts. You can make a motion to censure Member T for saying things that are demonstrably false, at which point you can discuss the motives. If you wish, you could start the process of disciplining Member T for lying to the meeting. You can also make a motion to censure, or start disciplinary proceedings against, Member T for revealing information that should be kept secret, or purporting to do so, even it was false.

You need to be careful with formatting when copying from The Book. In RONR, the section number is (bolded). Otherwise it runs the risk of being interpreted as saying it is known that 50 standing committees will be required.

and / or a Certified Professional Parliamentarian

I'm assuming that the special rule of order provides that the matters are considered in gross. RONR (12th ed.) 41:32 I see that you deleted a reference to the incidental motion Division of a Question, which explicitly says it is in order after the previous question has been ordered. If the items are unrelated, I would say that the demand to divide is in order until "the question on adopting the series has actually been put to vote." RONR (12th ed.) 27:10 The period of time between the previous question being ordered and the question actually being put is short, but such a demand would be allowed during it.

I have seen many organizations where the roles of presiding over meetings and being the leader of the organization are separated. The Chairman's only role is to be the presiding officer for the meetings (perhaps including pre-meeting preparation such as preparing the agenda).

FAQ #1 explains this.

They are very different. The only things they share in common is that they are subordinate to the assembly and are generally smaller in size than the assembly. RONR (12th ed.) 1:24 explains this, and starts "The distinction between a board and a committee must be briefly noted here for an understanding of what follows." "Unlike a board, a committee is not itself considered to be a form of assembly." RONR (12th ed.) 50:1 There is often confusion because, in the real world, many boards are named "committees" and, less often, committees are named "boards".

It depends on the rules regarding notice that are in your bylaws whether you could even vote on them at the meeting. We haven't been given the details necessary to answer these questions (whether you can vote on them at this meeting and whether, if you don't vote on them at this meeting, they may still be voted on at a later meeting.

Okay, then stop calling them requirements. Job ads often differentiate requirements and "assets" or "ideal characteristics." And recognize that if they're not written, then there is a significant risk that they will be forgotten or mis-remembered.

As long as they follow the rules for amending the bylaws, which usually require notice, they can. In an earlier post above, I mentioned that that would be the effect of what they are doing. However, we are now considering whether the change was valid at all. Rescind means that you accept that the original change you want to rescind was valid.

The Executive Committee is considered a "board within a board" under RONR (12th ed.) 49:13 So its decisions are subject to review by the larger board, which sounds like your Council. The rest of my comments assume that the situation contemplated in RONR applies. The Council can give the Executive Committee instructions and can rescind or amend any action of the Executive Committee if it's not too late. Ibid 49:7 The other exception would be matters where the bylaws give the Executive Committee exclusive authority; this would be exceedingly rare in my experience. The Council can require the Executive Committee minutes to be read to the entire Council by a 2/3 vote (2/3 of those present and voting) or a vote of the majority of the entire membership of the Council (you conduct one vote. If either threshold is met, then the motion is adopted). If notice has been given,, then this only requires a majority vote. Ibid 49:19

I cannot think of a clearer pathway to never-ending revisiting of the same issue than by allowing recalling of an adjourned convention.

Votes cast for ineligible candidates are considered "illegal votes." They are counted as votes cast but are not credited to any candidate. RONR (12th ed.) 45:32 Remember, under RONR, a candidate must win a majority of the total votes cast, including legal and illegal votes but ignoring blanks and abstentions (or ballots that otherwise indicate no preference). Ibid. 45:31 Knowing the above, did an eligible candidate get a majority of the votes cast (total of legal and illegal)? If so, then you have a winner. If not, then you need to do another round of voting. It would be useful to tell the voting body that two of the nominees have been determined to be ineligible.

If you have to infer the intent of the assembly, and after the fact at that, then I can't see how you can successfully argue that the intent is evident. For two main reasons, I accept the circumstances. First, the events during the meeting may have altered the assembly's feelings about the motion. While they originally adopted the motion with the intent to take it from the table at a later time in the meeting, something happened that has changed their mind since. It would be a huge and erroneous assumption by the chair to infer that the intent was improper at the time the motion was laid on the table. Second, even if the intent was improper, your proposed action as chair is futile. Assume that you rule that the previous tabling was not in order. As a majority just defeated the attempt to take the motion from the table, it's reasonable to assume that the same majority will overturn your ruling on appeal. But let's take it further and assume that you, as chair, refuse to entertain the appeal (which I would not advise). As soon as the motion is again before the assembly, the same majority can immediately adjourn the meeting. Any of these ways defeats your intent as chair.

You do not need to give advance notice for a point of order. I would try to raise it at the earliest possible time during the meeting. Initially, your point of order needs to be ruled on by the chair. Assuming that the chair rules against you, then you need to appeal from the decision and have someone second the appeal. There is limited debate on an appeal and then the body gets to vote on whether to sustain or overrule the chair's decision. While you may not want to give advance notice of this, that does not mean you should not be discussing it with said least some of your fellow council members so that they will be able to second your appeal and so that they will understand the process and be able to participate fully instead of being confused or bullied into supporting the chair. Again, I will suggest that you bringing a professional parliamentarian to do some training for you in how the rules of order are supposed to be properly used. This does not need to be an official decision of the group; those of you who are interested in the training can get it informally. One of the things that you could also get trained in is how to use the provisions of RONR that apply when the chair is acting improperly, such as not considering a valid point of order.

As a practical matter, J.J., how would you go about determining the intent of the assembly? The chair can ask the mover what the intent of the motion is, but members cannot explain their votes.

First, to answer the unasked question, your constitution outranks your bylaws so if the provision for a special meeting is in the constitution, that meets the requirement that it be in your bylaws. (I am also a little concerned about your online research because the version of RONR that is available online is the 4th edition, the latest one that is in the public domain, rather than the current 12th edition.) It certainly sounds like the special meeting was improperly called, both because it wasn't called by the executive committee and because public notice wasn't given. However, that it's not a determination I can make but needs to be made by the organization, by the raising of a point of order and, if necessary, an appeal from the presiding officer's ruling on that point. The remaining question now is whether it is too late to make that point of order. The point of order would have had to have been made at the special meeting, unless there is a continuing breach of the rules, either in the holding of the special meeting or in the way that the bylaws were amended at that meeting or both. I don't have time to consider that question at this moment but, if no one else opines, I will return to it when I get a chance. I will note that this situation is complex enough that you would probably benefit from having a professional parliamentarian give you a formal opinion. This would allow them to fully review the events and your governance documents.

I don't see why it needs to take this long. The simplest solution would be to propose changing the bylaws back to the original language. This is, effectively, the same as rescinding the change you just made, but using proper procedure. After the proposal has been posted for the required amount of time, call for a special meeting to consider and vote on that proposed change. If your first change (the one you now wish didn't happen) only took a couple of weeks, then there's no reason why this one should take longer. If majority of the council has misgivings about the change they just adopted, then you should definitely have enough people to require a special meeting to be held.

Usually, I see the term "simple majority" used to differentiate it from "two-thirds majority". So I do not presume that it adds clarity to the meaning. Rather, the opposite: it indicates a complete unfamiliarity with the standard terminology.