George Mervosh

Hi Ann - At first blush, it appears the nominating committee believes that a nominee does not need to be in good standing prior to the election, just that, at some point during their tenure with the group, the nominee was in good standing for at least two years. I couldn't fathom a guess if that's a valid interpretation of the bylaw in question, but I can't think of any other reason at this point.

If your society is bound by the rules in RONR, the proper thing for you to do is raise a point of order insisting they follow the rule in RONR and not include comments/discussion in the minutes. If the group isn't interested in doing that, they're on their own trying to figure out how to get it right. They won't be successful.

Yes. It violates no rule in RONR. Some call it volunteering.

Here is the rule in RONR: "ABSTAINING FROM VOTING ON A QUESTION OF DIRECT PERSONAL INTEREST. No member should vote on a question in which he has a direct personal or pecuniary interest not common to other members of the organization. For example, if a motion proposes that the organization enter into a contract with a commercial firm of which a member of the organization is an officer and from which contract he would derive personal pecuniary profit, the member should abstain from voting on the motion. However, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting in such circumstances. " RONR (12th ed.), 45:4 emphasis added by me. So it's up to him if he abstains but no member should question the motives of a member in a meeting. I suppose any member of council can ask him to abstain. You should also check with the city council's attorney regarding any applicable provision in statute which may apply as it would take precedence over the rules in RONR.

Not in RONR, but doesn't your rule define it? I think you meant "an agenda" instead of "and agenda".

Nothing in RONR would prohibit it, but he just needs to be careful not to divulge what was discussed in the executive session, unless the secrecy of that session was lifted.

Tomm, I think Messrs. Lages, Martin and Elsman have clearly indicated that nothing is pending or was formally adopted since the main motion, as amended, was withdrawn before it was voted on in its final form.

Yes, it's good to have it handy in case someone raises a point of order regarding the validity of the meeting. There's no obligation to release it ahead of time as far as RONR is concerned.

A member may simply make a motion to hold the vote by ballot. It requires a majority vote to adopt this motion.

So what did your group do?

Just have them read the last sentence in 45:4 and call it a day. If they don't understand that sentence you'll never convince them. Also show them Dr. Kapur's citation of 63:33 e) regarding officer B.

Okay. If the procedures outlined in your bylaws were exactly followed you're good to go and in my view I see no reason why Officer A should abstain.

No and that goes for any member of the society, not just board members. See RONR (12th ed.), 63:11. Start at 63:7 for the full details of the steps in a fair disciplinary process.

I'm confused. Putting aside abstaining for a moment, are you saying one member preferred charges against another? If so, that's not permitted under the rules in RONR. It may be proper under your group's rules, but not RONR.

Robert's Rules do not require anyone attend a meeting or a portion of a meeting held in executive session. We cannot offer any input regarding any Education Act or applicable legislation.

There is nothing in RONR which allows the meeting to be postponed by making some announcement outside of a meeting setting. One member could actually go to the site at the appointed time and call the meeting to order and set an adjourned meeting (another meeting which would be a continuation of the same session) for a convenient time before the next regular meeting. Then let everyone know about it. See §22 in RONR (12th ed.) I'm not sure I'd recommend that if it's not completely safe to do so.

A P2FP credential, methinks. We'll discuss it at the next meeting.

I'm not sure I'll ever see this in real life but I really appreciate the responses.

I agree with Dr. Kapur, but even if the RONR standard of a majority of the votes cast were the requirement to be elected, you could still vote on one ballot. Repeated balloting may be necessary though.

Yes he can make or second motions if he's a member of the board. RONR (12th ed.), 47:3 However, RONR notes with regards to the treasurer's report that it's not required or proper to adopt it, so no one should be making or seconding a motion to do so. See RONR (12th ed.), 48:24-26.

I agree with J.J. The sample rule you're referring to is in line with what RONR itself says regarding debate on an appeal: "Is debatable, unless it (a) relates to indecorum or a transgression of the rules of speaking; (b) relates to the priority of business; or (c) is made when an undebatable question is immediately pending or involved in the appeal." RONR (12th ed.), 24:3 5)

I think the Q & Q Forum has a nice ring to it because sometimes the supplemental Q's get no A. https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/36801-opposing-an-appeal/?tab=comments#comment-219387

At the 2FP we have more civil methods but conflict is rare to be sure.

No takers on a real life example of this motion?

The chair should state the names of all of those who were nominated for each office from your last meeting before asking for further nominations. Then I think the chair should ask for nominees for each office separately at the election meeting before proceeding with the election.