George Mervosh

If that's all it says, I agree with Mr. Martin that the vote was advisory.

Was this a properly called meeting? I still can't tell from the facts, and as we've learned here, ratifying an action taken at a meeting that is not properly called to begin with is not proper.

You might want to review at least the first four paragraphs on p. 481 for more of what RONR does say.

Yes, I've been out of the room counting during a convention, but if I was in the meeting otherwise I'd want the tellers focused solely on correctly counting the votes and preparing their report, so it is a good thing if they count them elsewhere, in my opinion.

First I'm Bob, now I'm Mr. Mahvash. Bob Mahvash? I kind of like it.

There isn't any need for a double approval process and really no need to put this in the bylaws. The membership can simply authorize the board to approve the minutes at each annual meeting. They can still make additional corrections in the future. "When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day, or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership, the executive board or a committee appointed for the purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes. The fact that the minutes are not then read for approval at the next meeting does not prevent a member from having a relevant excerpt read for information; nor does it prevent the assembly in such a case from making additional corrections, treating the minutes as having been previously approved (see third paragraph below). " RONR (11th ed.), pp. 474-475 "If the existence of an error or material omission in the minutes becomes reasonably established after their approval—even many years later—the minutes can then be corrected by means of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted (35), which requires a two-thirds vote, or a majority vote with notice, or the vote of a majority of the entire membership, or unanimous consent." RONR (11th ed.), p. 475

Why would there be a vote prior to going through your three reading process? Or did that take place already?

Aside from the simple fact that the purpose of a motion to lay on the table is entirely different from a motion to postpone, the postponed matter will automatically come up under the heading of general orders at the next meeting unless it is made a special order. At that time it can be postponed again to the next session (assuming it is within a quarterly time interval). No need to even debate or make progress on it.

"The privileged motion to Adjourn: 1. Takes precedence over all motions except the privileged motion to Fix the Time to Which to Adjourn; but it is not in order while the assembly is engaged in voting or verifying a vote, or before the result of a vote has been announced by the chair, except that, in the case of a vote taken by ballot, a motion to Adjourn is in order after the ballots have been collected by the tellers and before the result has been announced" RONR (11th ed.), p. 235 (and see the footnote)

What we can't tell you is if your rule is intended to be some sort of requirement of previous notice.. I suspect not but we don't get to decide that, as Mr. Elsman and Mr. Harrison have noted.

I think I get more answers correct as Bob, so I might stick with it.

This is from Parliamentary Opinions (A Compilation and Revision of Opinions of the Opinions Committee, American Institute of Parliamentarians 1958 to 1982), published by the American Institute of Parliamentarians. Members of the opinions committee of this publication were Virginia Schlotzhauer, William J. Evans, and John R. Stipp, Opinion #7 "Change of meeting place", page 4. Facts and Question: "Notices were sent of the annual meeting of a condominium in accordance with the bylaws. It was then discovered that the local election had been scheduled in their meeting place on the same day. No hall available would accommodate the number who usually attended, but some board members doubted that a quorum could be obtained. Under the bylaws, the meeting date could not be changed. Is there a practical solution within the rules?" Opinion: "The most reasonable alternative is to hold the meeting in the largest hall available, with notification of the members in advance and a notice posted on the door of the original meeting place. In a last-minute emergency, the latter might be the only notice of the change. If the assembly overflows the meeting hall, or if there is no quorum, a motion should be adopted to fix the time to which to adjourn."

No rule requires the committee to answer the question at all, and it should not. "No one can make allusion in the assembly to what has occurred during the deliberations of the committee, however, unless it is by report of the committee or by unanimous consent. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 528

If all you have are letters of resignation, nothing is resolved. Those resignations must be accepted by the body authorized to do so before they are official. I'd make sure that is tended to quickly before one (or all) of them changes their mind. http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#18

I agree with Dr. Stackpole that nominations are debatable but I don't think a Q&A between the assembly and the committee is proper. If a member of the assembly thinks the committee should have nominated Jane instead of John, they should simply nominate Jane from the floor and tout her qualifications for office.

Rob and Bob are quite the team.

"When the next regular business session will not be held within a quarterly time interval (see pp. 89–90), and the session does not last longer than one day, or in an organization in which there will be a change or replacement of a portion of the membership, the executive board or a committee appointed for the purpose should be authorized to approve the minutes." RONR (11th ed.), pp. 474-475 The authorization mentioned above must come from the members at the HOA annual meeting. They should never wait a year to approve these minutes.

I'm close to exceeding my word count for this quarterly time interval.

I agree with Mr. Elsman, and as to your second numbered point, if they are being read aloud as part of the process of approving them, this should not be the case. The assembly should authorize the society's board (if there is one) or a committee to approve the minutes of the AGM promptly rather than waiting a year to do so. See RONR (11th ed.), pp. 474-475 for full details.

A good friend of ours offered this tidbit about the In Brief book to someone who wanted similar advice: "I expect I'm not alone in suggesting emphatically that you first get your RONR - In Brief, without delay, and read it at once. I keep saying, if you go to a store to buy it, read it standing there. Maybe move away from in front of the cashier, to allow the other customers to buy their copies. It should take you an hour or so, unless you're a college graduate -- they can take all day, tomorrow also if they have to tie their shoelaces themselves. If you're on a lunch break, you'll just have to get back a little late. If people are depending on you to feed them -- relax, they won't starve. If you're there by car, give your keys to that cashier, who will be allowed to return them to you when you're finished. If you have ordered it by mail, don't take the time to get a box-cutter to open the carton: just have at it with your fangs and claws -- you're going to chair an AGM, so you need the practice anyway." Classic.

Based on this I agree with Dr. Stackpole's post that it seems like some sort of automatic postponement, but it doesn't fit neatly into any of the categories of how business can go over from the earlier session to the later one (pp. 90-91). However, I also agree with Dr. Stackpole that the matter likely falls to the ground and you'll need to start over with that particular motion.

Since the matter was not referred back to the bylaws committee I can't see this being in order at all. When the motion is taken from the table, any member may propose amendments within the scope of the notice provided to the members. As I understand your facts so far, the committee is no longer involved in this matter.

No, unless he intends to enter into debate during the general assembly meeting.

No they cannot raise either of those things. " Any nonmembers allowed in the hall during a meeting, as guests of the organization, have no rights with reference to the proceedings (pp. 644–45)." RONR (11th ed.), p. 648 This applies to board meetings also. Only members of the board have any rights during a board meeting.

The search feature on this site is pretty good.