MadamMember

I'm looking for the citation of when an election is final. Who can help me? I'm also hoping to get direction of when it is discovered AFTER an election that one of those who voted may not have been eligible to vote, yet was credentialed to vote by the body..

Thank you, Josh. I don't understand Quasi Committee of the whole. Is it just the size as you detailed?

What is the purpose of going into a Committee of a Whole?

If a committee tasked with an investigation finds cause for discipline, would a trial be required to recommend a private or public censure?

Thank you. It seems clear that the organization itself should interpret the meaning.

Section 7. State Organizing Convention E. In the event that three or more candidates are nominated for the same single seat office, the convention may use multiple ballots or preference voting to choose officers. The State Party Central Committee shall certify the method of election. at least 6 months prior to the convention. 1. Would this "Method of Election" refer to the type of ballot meaning electronic or paper ballots? 2. If the method of election was not presented for a vote prior to the six-month deadline, would it be required to use a method used for a previous convention?

Thank you. It appears to me that a summation (speaking first and last) goes against the For/Against evenly split for debate.

Sometimes people are allowed in our meetings to give summations of a motion and sometimes they are not. I have not found the word summation in RONR. It seems that that is allowed in Mason's Rules, but not Roberts. It appears to me that the right to summate violates that a person can only speak once to a motion unless no one else wants to speak to it. It seems odd to me that someone may think that if they make a motion, they are entitled to the floor to have the last say on their motion. Would this be correct? My instincts are that this is not permitted. Can someone point me to the place where I could find the answer? Thank you in advance!

Would this include if we want to add something to the agenda after its adoption? I look at it like it says those in "attendance" may add to the agenda, but it doesn't specify when in the agenda. The item that was wanted to be added to the agenda was a resolution about censuring the chair. The chair advised by the parliamentarian did not want this added and used Robert's Rules to not allow it on the agenda.

Yes, that is a definite possibility. Good point. A motion to amend the bylaws, for example, is probably something that requires previous notice per their bylaws. It was a motion that does not apply to the governing documents.

An organization I belong to has a rule in its constitution that allows for members of a committee to add to the agenda by a simple majority. " We've had members want to add a resolution to the agenda, but the Chair said it couldn't be because of a notice requirement. However, the Constitution quote above specifies an exception of "if a majority of the members in attendance vote to add to the agenda. We have a parliamentarian who says that the rights of those absent are being violated if we add something to the agenda (requiring notice). Should we be able to add something to the agenda? If so, does it require the motion to add to the agenda be prior to the adoption of the agenda? The Constitution does not limit the majority to only add to the agenda by a majority at any time in the meeting. Please advise.

THANK YOU!

Chris Harrison, it appears that our bylaws do specify the minority that can adopt the motion to use a roll call vote. THANK YOU for the RONO citation.

Guest Zev, and by doing so, it is meaningless, right? Is that what you mean?

When can a member rise to make a motion about something that is not on the agenda? Thank you, everyone, for your replies.

This is an interesting topic. If members asked to have a discussion, wouldn't it be okay to have a motion arise out of the discussion?

Understood. Still asking the question. Can a person rise to make a motion during a discussion?

The maker of this bylaw years ago moved this bylaw to allow for a minority to call for a roll call vote. The parliamentarian now says that this vote must have the 25% in order to even make the motion, and then that requires a majority to call for the roll call vote. This in effect makes it require more than one person (25%) to second a motion, and then go for a majority vote. Does that seem correct to require 25% to second a motion with this language instead of allowing the minority to call for the roll call vote?

Recently, we've had a parliamentarian tell our organization that our chairman has a fiduciary duty to the organization (a political party), but no such duty is listed in our governing documents. The body adopted a bylaw and the chairman published a version of the bylaw that the governing body never adopted which is substantially different. I searched for the word fiduciary in RONR, but the word is not in the book. When I asked the parliamentarian to cite the location of such duties so I could review and understand it better, she said she didn't know and that I should go look it up myself, hence my research.