Atul Kapur

Committees, whether standing or special, may have subcommittees. I assume that a standing committee could have a subcommittee that is of a standing nature. For example, I have seen a governance committee have a nominating subcommittee.

This is a question about the application of Washington State law, is it not? That being said, I don't think the committee is being "born again" at this organization meeting. It's still the SomeCounty OneParty Central Committee. [This is not and is not purported to be legal advice and should not be relied upon as such. In fact, it's probably best that you forget you even read it. Move along, nothing to see here.]

While I was looking up the reference to support Mr. Brown's statement, I came across this paragraph instead: "When the minutes are approved, the word Approved, with the secretary’s initials (or the signature of the chairman of the approving committee) and the date, should be written below them. If the minutes are approved with corrections, the secretary should prepare a fully corrected version and distribute copies to the members as well as placing it in the minute book." RONR (12th ed.) 48:14 (emphasis added) This is a change from the language in the 11th edition: "A draft of the minutes of the preceding meeting can be sent to all members in advance, usually with the notice. In such a case, it is presumed that the members have used this opportunity to review them, and they are not read unless this is requested by any member. Correction of them and approval, however, is handled in the usual way. It must be understood in such a case that the formal copy placed in the minute book contains all corrections that were made and that none of the many copies circulated to members and marked by them is authoritative (see also p. 355)." RONR (11th ed.) p. 474, lines 19-29 (emphasis added)

I will answer this one point. The motion is not "on the floor" until the chair states the motion. However, as I said above, this does not mean that someone else has an opportunity to jump in with their own motion ahead of the committee presenting its recommendations. It sounds like you are considering having a discussion on the subject and then, after some discussion of unknown length, someone generating a motion to reflect the consensus of the discussion. While this is common, RONR is clear that the discussion will be more focussed and efficient if you start with a motion and debate it, with amendments being used to improve it and make it more acceptable to a larger number of the members present. With a large group (> 30 you said) and with a virtual meeting, the differences in efficiency are even larger.

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.