George Mervosh

If this council is a government body, its solicitor should advise the council on this, since applicable procedural rules in statute or council's own rules may speak to the matter and they take precedence over the rules in RONR.

If the rules in RONR control the matter, 2-1 is sufficient.  Also, nothing in RONR would require a member to abstain from voting for a relative to fill the position in question.

On 10/31/2023 at 1:01 PM, DKW said:

Thanks for your replies.

Aren't "old business" and "unfinished business" just a different way of saying basically the same thing? Asking because I have heard them used interchangably in different clubs/organizations.

No. Unfinished business is defined and covered in RONR In Brief, in Chapter 2, C. 3. and in RONR (12th ed.), 41:21-26.   

Regardless of the size of the board, I maintain my position that he should not preside in this case.

If, as Mr. Elsman suggests, this is a board that operates under the rules for small boards (RONR 12th ed., 49:21), then I respectfully disagree with him that the matter may only be discussed when a relevant main motion is pending. RONR (12th ed.), 49:21 4)

On 10/30/2023 at 9:22 AM, Guest John said:

Can a previously voted on issue be reconsidered and if so what is the proper way to bring it up?

At this point it is almost certain a motion to reconsider is not going to be in order given the timeframe required to make it.

A previously adopted main motion that is still in effect may be rescinded or amended.  See RONR §35 for full details.

A motion that was defeated may be made again at any future session.

Here is the rule in RONR - ""Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included."  RONR (12th ed.), 47:10  

Even though this is a discussion, rather than a motion pending regarding his conduct, my opinion is he should not preside.  

If other members will have an opportunity to speak to the comments, the chair is certainly able to participate in the discussion as well, and all members are bound by the rules of decorum.

He absolutely should preside over an motion to adopt a standing rule on the matter because the rule would apply to all members, including him.

On 10/20/2023 at 10:13 AM, Roman.76 said:

Hello everyone!

Would someone help me find the rule in RONR regarding the right of members of the society to attend meetings of the executive board (of the same society)?  Is there such a right and does the board have the authority to exclude anyone (including members of the society) from its meetings?

Please let me know if more information is needed.  Thank you in advance for your time and assistance!

There is no such right under the rules in RONR.  The board decides this on their own.  If this was a public body, the answer may be different.

On 10/20/2023 at 7:18 AM, Guest Tina said:

If a Chair wants to bring a motion to the assembly that involves them personally are they allowed to do so? I know it would be best to relinquish the role of Chair but is it required?

Here is the rule:  "Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly's consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included."  RONR (12th ed.), 47:10

So if the motion does not involve other members (except as noted above for commending and censuring him and others), but just the chair alone, he needs to relinquish the chair, yes.

The quorum is still 6 unless the bylaws are amended to change it.  It is not required to change it based on fluctuating membership numbers.  If your group wants a quorum to be a majority of the entire membership, it can remove the quorum language altogether and RONR's default of a majority of the entire membership would be applicable.  Normally that's not a wise idea in a larger society, but in your small group it might be a good fit.  Your group can decide what is best.

On 10/5/2023 at 1:28 PM, Guest A. Mason said:

I was recently voted into the President's role. My question is:

A vote to change our bylaws (set new term limits) was cast 3 years ago; before I joined the board. The bylaws were never updated to reflect the change. A board member is now insisting we update the bylaws to reflect said change. Is a vote/decision to update bylaws still valid 3 years later, or is that proposed change subject to a new vote by the current board members?

Thank you

 

An amendment to the bylaws takes effect immediately upon it being adopted.  It remains in full force and effect until it is rescinded or amended.  Your board member is correct that the bylaws should be updated immediately to reflect the change from 3 years ago.

On 9/25/2023 at 1:27 PM, Guest newtoRR said:

Our chair sent an email to board members stating that all agenda items have to be discussed with them first. "Anyone who has something they wish to add to the agenda needs to have a conversation with me in sufficient time before the meeting so I have knowledge of what the agenda item entails. This is the right of the president who presides over the meeting to ensure time is available to discuss such additions." There have been several instances of this chair refusing/neglecting to add submitted agenda items. The written directive claims time management as the reason, but in practice it seems to actually be more about political expediency in terms of blocking agenda items to prevent discussion that may lead to motions and outcomes this individual doesn't want. Does the president have this power under RR? (Our bylaws do not speak to this at all except to say that meetings will be conducted using Roberts Rules of Order).

Absolutely not and he won't find anything in RONR that even comes close to implying he does.

On 9/8/2023 at 4:06 PM, RLE56 said:

Our "United" Methodist Church is about to have a large, contentious meeting (a disaffiliation vote).  The meeting notice specifies that the only business at the meeting is to vote on disaffiliation (which I presume will be raised as a main motion).  The meeting will be chaired by the district superintendent (DS) who has no voting rights.

I believe that the DS is planning to speak about the motion, giving the "leadership" point of view, not to disaffiliate.  He also plans to prevent anyone else from speaking or debating.

If he tries to speak after calling the meeting to order but before a motion is made, that's pretty easy to handle: make a point of order that there is no motion on the floor, hence no discussion permitted, covered elsewhere in this forum.  But, what if the DS is RONR saavy and tries to make a speech at the appointed meeting time, before calling the meeting to order? Short of simply saying "the meeting hasn't been called to order" and having loud (and perceived as rude) conversations, is there any procedure to deal with this?

As far as his desire for no debate: what if he simply states the question, waits 10 seconds politely, then calls the question (seeing no debate)? Or worse, doesn't wait at all? Is there any requirement that he actually call on the person who made the motion, or state in any way that the floor is open for debate? I'd much rather raise a point that he didn't follow some particular procedure rather than raising a point that he didn't wait long enough, which is nebulous.

If the floor does open, may the DS talk as a non-member?

And, my understanding that the proper way to forbid or close discussion is to make a Previous Question motion, 2/3 vote required. (That may not be hard to get from a congregation who simply wants to get on with voting.)

I'm in the North Georgia conference where a judge has already slapped the DS's and the bishop for not following procedure, but they are still playing games, so I want to be prepared.

Thanks,

Rob

This is a bit long but just a few points:

1) The procedural rules in RONR are not applicable prior to the meeting being called to order.

2) On a debatable motion, the chair must recognize the member who made the motion if that member desires to speak to it.  See RONR (12th ed.), 42:9.

3) A non-member presiding officer has no right to speak in debate on a main motion that is before the assembly. It will require a suspension of the rules by a 2/3 vote for that to be permitted.  See RONR (12th ed.), 25:9 n7.

If he becomes a huge problem while presiding, a majority vote is all that is required to declare the chair vacant and elect a new chairman. See RONR (12th ed.), 62:10-11 and n4.

Any member may call the meeting to order, then proceed directly to electing a chairman pro-tem and a secretary pro-tem.  See RONR (12th ed.), 47:11 3).

If a quorum is present the assembly can go about its order of business and complete the meeting.  if no quorum is present, see RONR (12th ed.), 40:6-10.

On 9/8/2023 at 12:21 PM, Rob Elsman said:

Surely @George Mervosh is not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules of order because all such rules are to be equated to instructions given to it, though they all are given to it.

 

No, I'm not suggesting committees cannot suspend rules.  If the bylaw states that their task is approving a plank (whatever that is), but did not provide the specific details Ms. Harlos cites in her initial post, rules of order relating to the approval of a plank could be suspended.   

What is the practical or procedural difference, if any, between the instructions given to this committee as to how it must consider these motions, versus instructions given to it as to how to consider a motion as discussed in 13:8 d, because I don't see how these instructions, no matter how given, are suspendable.

On 9/2/2023 at 12:13 AM, JohnR said:

It is telling that Robert says "officers" and not "offices." While, as has been wisely expressed,  there is no explicit rule against the same person presiding and performing as secretary, it is obviously against the spirit of the rules.

It is very nice to see that JohnR has found his way back to this place. 

On 9/6/2023 at 11:43 AM, Guest Katrina Evans said:

Hello!

I presented recommendations to our local chapter's bylaws that are in line with our organization's national bylaws.

This matter was to be voted on in June at our last meeting. I was not present, but learned later it was not voted on

because we did not follow parilamentary procedure in that the matter was to be read outloud three times, or presented 3 times,

before voting. There was no resolution, so the matter will be brought up in our September meeting.

 

I have the current edition of Robert's Rules of Order, but I am not finding anything related to this procedure.

Does this sound familiar to you? Is the repeating of the recommendations three times before voting still required?

If so, or if not, please kindly direct me to where it mentions this is Robert's Rules of Order. I am asking for specifics

because I want to share this with the group so that we can be on the same page.

I appreciate your feedback and assistance so much! 

Nothing in RONR requires that a motion be read aloud 3 times, or presented 3 times before voting on it.  Check your bylaws carefully.  There should be an article in them detailing exactly how to amend the bylaws.  Your answer may be there.

On 9/5/2023 at 11:34 AM, Josh Martin said:

A link to the thread would be helpful.

Here is a link to Mr. Elsman's reply, but of course you might want to read the whole thread.   https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/34629-change-of-board/#comment-204784

An exact quote from the bylaws would be nice, but I agree with J.J. here.  We know that it is a fundamental principle of parliamentary law that action can only be taken at a regular or properly called meeting, so saying "held at a meeting" is really nothing different at first blush.

I don't think that at all precludes having a polling place outside of a meeting setting, but the results would certainly need to be declared at a regular or properly called meeting for them to be valid.

Do your bylaws require a vote by ballot for elections, Guest Eileen?

On 8/10/2023 at 12:05 PM, Dan Honemann said:

As far as the rules in RONR are concerned, I see no reason why not, but care will need to be taken to avoid leaving the question as to how to handle uncontested offices unanswered. 

The motion to amend might be something such as a motion "to amend the pending motion to hold the pending elections by ballot by adding 'provided, however, that in instances where there is only one nominee for an office, the chair shall declare the sole nominee elected to that office, and no election for that office shall be held.'"

Thank you very much, especially for the added caution.  Yes that proposed amendment seems very clear.  

On 8/9/2023 at 4:16 PM, Dan Honemann said:

When the assembly orders that elections (or an election) will be held by ballot, it means the entire election, not just part of it unless it has specifically said so.  It makes no difference whether some positions are or are not opposed.  All positions must be voted on by ballot.

When a motion to hold the elections by ballot is immediately pending, is it in order to offer an amendment that would provide an exception for uncontested offices?  I'm trying to understand the scope of proper amendments for a motion related to the method of voting.

On 8/9/2023 at 1:31 AM, Guest Leanna Carrillo said:

If Rules were not followed in the meeting, do votes for new board members count or can we have a revote?

Since you have not provided any specific facts, I would recommend a careful read of "Contesting the Announced Result of an Election." found in RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-50, particularly 46:49.

1) The proper method to try and overturn a ruling of the chair is to make an appeal.  See §24 in RONR.

2) The President cannot cancel a meeting.  The vice president, if there is one, should have taken over the meeting and presided over the remaining matters as long as a quorum was present.  If there is no VP, the assembly would elect someone to preside.

3) See FAQ#20 elsewhere on this site regarding removal of an officer.  There are also ways to simply remove him from presiding over the current meeting. Yours seems like a good candidate considering his actions.

On 7/2/2023 at 10:29 AM, Guest MEP8 said:

We have a situation that our Bylaws do not address. Our President-Elect submitted her resignation in March, but it was not to be effective until September 30.  She was to become President January 1, 2024. The Board accepted her resignation and called for a Special Election as specified in our Bylaws. The Special Election would take place after our regular election in August. (This is not be the year to vote on President-Elect) 

The President -Elect now states that she can fulfill the duties as President, and would like to retract her resignation. The current President is giving us a very short window in which to consider the question : Can a Board Member who has resigned, and the resignation been accepted, simply retract the resignation and go on to fill the office? 

I am a member of the Bylaws Committee, and we do not have any specific guidance in our Bylaws. However, our Bylaws do state that we will adhere to RONR.  At this point, the Bylaws Committee is leaning toward the position that there is nothing in the Bylaws about a retraction, therefore it isn't possible for her to retract the resignation.  She could, however, run for the position in the Special Election if she chooses to do so. 

Thank you for any opinions you can offer. References to specific chapters, pages would be appreciated.

No.  The action of accepting the resignation cannot be rescinded or amended.  RONR (12th ed.), 35:6 c)

On 6/30/2023 at 3:09 PM, rulesasker said:

If someone is chairing a meeting in the absence of a president who resigned, and someone nominates that person as president, should he give up the chair for the duration of the election?

No. RONR (12th ed.), 47:10