George Mervosh

On 12/13/2022 at 9:17 AM, Richard Brown said:

Whether the contract has been signed has everything to do with it because the motion to rescind it’s out of order if something has been done which cannot be undone by means of the motion. If the motion was to approve a contract and the contract has been signed, The motion to rescind is out of order.

If I recall correctly (please correct me if I'm wrong), RONR used to say that but it no longer does, so I'm not sure I agree with this blanket statement.  

On 12/12/2022 at 3:29 PM, Atul Kapur said:

You would just want to read the provision carefully.

Others allow it unless prohibited in the bylaws, in which case you're okay.

Are they?   Doesn't the adoption of RONR as the parliamentary authority mean it is prohibited by the bylaws, since the original poster has noted there is no bylaw provision allowing it?  Thanks.

On 12/12/2022 at 4:08 PM, Guest Paige said:

An employee submitted a resignation, the board approved it, and now the employee has changed their mind.  Now what?

It cannot be withdrawn or rescinded under the rules in RONR, so there is no further guidance RONR has to offer.

On 12/12/2022 at 3:54 PM, Tomm said:

I understand that, but my original question was if they proceed in the manner that I described in my OP is that considered to be a breach of a continuing nature or does it simply pass and is too late to do anything about it? 

It is not a breach of a continuing nature so the point of order must be timely.  Ideally, the presiding officer should rule it out of order when it is made.

On 12/8/2022 at 7:59 PM, Dan Honemann said:

Using exclamation marks at the end of just about every sentence must be contagious.  🙂

If I recall correctly, the only time it is acceptable is with the sentence -  Go Army, Beat Navy!   Sound right?

On 12/8/2022 at 2:41 PM, Don York said:

I recall an old version of RRs stating the minutes do not have to be voted on to approve.  Is that still the normal practice?  I see a lot of firms that state otherwise in their rules.  Thanks!!

Yes.  See RONR (12th ed.) 41:9-12

On 12/7/2022 at 4:28 PM, Guest SMKI said:

SITUATION: At the November Board meeting, there was a motion on the agenda that a committee chair asked to be sent to their committee in lieu of a Board vote on the motion. So the Board voted on the amendment and sent the motion to that committee. However, that motion does not appear on the committee's December agenda. 

Is this an issue that is covered by Robert's Rules of Order or any other parliamentary procedures? 

This part confuses me.  What it just one vote to send the motion to the committee for further review?  If not what exactly was the first thing the board voted on?  Some additional facts would be welcome.

Either way, no rule in RONR requires a committee to post an agenda for their meetings in the first place.

On 12/7/2022 at 2:49 PM, Richard Brown said:

Based on the language you quoted, an abstention  does not affect the outcome. The quoted language requires an 80% vote of those members who are present and Voting.  Abstentions are ignored.

This is one of those times where I wished you insisted on verbatim language.   

Here are the rules in RONR:

"14:5    Limits on Postponement and Their Relation to Meeting and Session. Rules limiting the time to which a question can be postponed are related to the terms meeting and session (8), as follows:
14:6    In a case where more than a quarterly time interval (see 9:7) will elapse between meetings (for example, in an annual convention of delegates or in a local society that holds only an annual meeting), a question cannot be postponed beyond the end of the present session. In cases where no more than a quarterly time interval will elapse between sessions, a question can be postponed until, but not beyond, the next regular business session. For example, in a society that holds regular business meetings on the same day of each week, a question cannot, at one meeting, be postponed for longer than a week.

So the motion to postpone to a date unknown would not be in order.

Perhaps a better motion to use is Postpone Indefinitely. §11 in RONR.  If that motion is adopted be certain to follow your bylaws and provide the required notice again to the members before making a motion to amend the bylaws again at a future meeting.

Here is what RONR says about good standing:

" Members in good standing are those whose rights as members of the assembly are not under suspension as a consequence of disciplinary proceedings or by operation of some specific provision in the bylaws. A member may thus be in good standing even if in arrears in payment of dues (see 45:1, 56:19). If only some of an individual's rights as a member of the assembly are under suspension (for example, the rights to make motions and speak in debate), other rights of assembly membership may still be exercised (for example, the rights to attend meetings and vote)."  RONR (12th ed.), 1:13 n3.

If the bylaws define good standing in a different way, that definition would take precedence over the rule in RONR.

Since no facts have been provided regarding what these issues are I would recommend looking at RONR (12th ed.), 46:48-50 "Contesting the Announced Result of an Election."

On 11/29/2022 at 3:18 PM, Tomm said:

If not authorized with a special rule of order, would it be appropriate to call a point of order to deem the consent agenda out of order?

Of course. Any board member may do so. 

On 11/29/2022 at 3:02 PM, Tomm said:

Is it not true that a consent agenda must first be approved for use by a special rule of order?  

Yes.  

On 11/29/2022 at 3:02 PM, Tomm said:

The Board in our organization occasionally uses one, however, it has not been authorized for use by a special rule of order! Our bad! 

Your board is not alone.  It should adopt a special rule authorizing the use of a consent calendar (agenda) if they wish to continue to use one.

On 11/16/2022 at 4:51 PM, MHurd said:

So basically, they would have to bring it back up again as if it is a new application, correct? Can you advise where I would find this in the book? The City Attorney seems to be clueless.

As already cited above.  RONR (12th ed.), 35:2 2) with regards to the fact a motion to rescind can only be applied to an adopted main motion.  And §38 Renewal of Motions if your council wants to make the motion again to grant approval at a subsequent session.

On 11/16/2022 at 4:44 PM, MHurd said:

Thank you George. To confirm, under your first comment: "A motion to rescind can only be applied to one or more adopted main motions, not one that was defeated" does that mean because none of the three motions were adopted that none can be rescinded? Even with a motion to rescind?

Under the rules in RONR that is correct.  Rescind only applies to adopted main motions per the citation provided.   Any or all of the main motions can be made again at a subsequent session of council by any member, subject to any notice requirements your council has.

A motion to rescind can only be applied to one or more adopted main motions, not one that was defeated.  RONR (12th ed.), 35:2  2)

Under the rules in RONR, a motion to grant the permit can be made again at any new session of council.  See RONR §38 Renewal of Motions. 

You should check with the council's attorney regarding any new notice requirements or other procedural rules in statute which may apply.

On 11/16/2022 at 8:59 AM, Guest Kenneth said:

Should the president of an organization name be in a checking account?

This is left to the total discretion of the organization.  RONR does not speak to this.

There is no need to withdraw anything.  The motion died at the end of the 2021 annual meeting.  RONR (12th ed.), 17:8

Also, your group is not using the motion to lay on the table properly.  See §17 in RONR.

On 11/11/2022 at 10:18 AM, Guest *****@*****.tld said:

is there a requirement that minutes of meetings should be issued within 30 days of the meeting

There is no such requirement in RONR.  

On 11/10/2022 at 11:35 AM, Guest John Vinal said:

Our organization is in the process of voting for an amendment to our by-laws, which requires a 2/3 vote.  There is a possibility that during the meeting when the voting takes place, a motion will be made to postpone the vote on the amendment to a later date.  Another possibility is to revise some wording in the proposed amendment.  Are such subsidiary motions permitted? If so, do they require a 2/3, or would a simple majority vote be sufficient?

Subsidiary motions are permitted.  The vote required for both the subsidiary motion to amend and the subsidiary motion to postpone is a majority vote.  See RONR (12th ed.), 12:7 7) and 14:4 7).

I would also recommend you review 57:10-13 regarding amending a proposed amendment to the bylaws.

On 11/10/2022 at 12:52 AM, Alicia Percell, PRP said:

What do your bylaws say about the powers of the board relative to employees?  If the bylaws give the board exclusive control, then it limits what the membership can do in that realm.  Also, is there an executed and in-force contract with this employee?

This is interesting.  If the bylaws allow the board to have exclusive control over negotiating and approving such a contract (I'm not sure the latter is the case based on the initial post), what would prohibit the membership, who has full control over the budget, it seems, from not fully funding that line item?  It would cause chaos I'm sure, but I'm not sure the board having exclusive control over the contract issue itself is enough to prohibit amendments to the budget on the line item in question.

I endorse Mr. Martin's suggestion because it seems the cleanest way to at least try to prevent amendments.

The only exceptions to Mr. Brown's answer are with regards to discipline/trial.  See RONR (12th ed.), 61:17 and 63:33 e)

On 11/8/2022 at 2:59 PM, Guest Arletta said:

An external member of the non-profit association board was up for re-election. At the July meeting the vote was unanimous for his re-election. However, we have since found out that he had notified the executive director prior to that meeting that he did not wish to be re-elected and that this message hadn't made its way to the board meeting. Is a vote to accept his "resignation" still needed even though the re-election shouldn't have occurred?

According to your facts this was almost 4 months ago.  When was he notified that he was elected and what did he say when he was notified? 

"Time at Which an Election Takes Effect. An election to an office becomes final immediately if the candidate is present and does not decline, or if he is absent but has consented to his candidacy. If he is absent and has not consented to his candidacy, the election becomes final when he is notified of his election, provided that he does not immediately decline. If he does decline, the election is incomplete, and another vote can be taken immediately or at the next meeting without further notice. After an election has become final as stated in this paragraph, it is too late to reconsider (37) the vote on the election."  RONR (12th ed.), 46:46

You are correct.

"Some societies elect several vice-presidents in an order of precedence—first, second, third, and so on—in which case the highest-ranking one present has the duty of serving in place of the president when needed. In case of the president's resignation, death, or removal, the first vice-president then automatically becomes president (unless, as indicated above, the bylaws expressly provide otherwise for the office of president). Likewise, in case of any vice-president's resignation, death, or removal, or upon his or her automatic promotion to a higher office, the next-highest-ranking vice-president, if there is one, is automatically promoted (unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise). Thus, for example, if the first vice-president resigns, the second vice-president becomes first vice-president, the third vice-president becomes second vice-president, and so on, with the vacancy to be filled occurring in the lowest-ranking vice-presidency. A vice-president cannot decline to take the higher office to which he has been automatically promoted; if unable or unwilling to carry out the duties of the new office, his only recourse is then to submit his resignation, upon the acceptance of which he will no longer hold either office."  RONR (12th ed.),  47:29

On 11/8/2022 at 10:05 AM, Guest Lila said:

My union will be holding a bi-election for the President position. I’m aware the one of the current executive members is planning to run for the position. My question is whether this person needs to resign from their current position prior to running or are they able to retain their current position if not elected in the role?

No rule in RONR requires a member to resign from their current office to run for another office.