George Mervosh

After they pass something, what's required for conveyance? Another motion? Why isn't it automatically sent to the President for his decision? (I don't know if we're going to be able to provide you with any RONR guidance but I do find this topic interesting)

These questions should be directed to the city's attorney/solicitor, since these questions are legal ones and don't involve parliamentary procedure.

Well, Ian may be long gone, but now we have Nancy and Mr.(we're not on a first name basis) Scorpion to deal with.

RONR states: " This section may also provide that certain officers—for example, the president—"shall be ex officio a member of all committees except the Nominating Committee." In that case, the president has the right, but not the duty, of participating in the work of the committees (see also pp. 483–84, 497)." RONR (11th ed.), p. 579. emphasis added by me. Perhaps it's not a duty which needs performed by your VP. That said, I agree with Mr. Martin that it's up to your group to ultimately decide.

Or, in the assembly, they could simply make a motion expressing no confidence, which is why I basically ignored the word petition, but I appreciate Mr. Honemann's followup, because after the fact, I think they were in fact talking about a real signed petition.

Start by looking at this http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#7 Other than the fact it's a main motion, no other special type of rule applies to it.

I think you can untangle yourlesf.

While the vote required to leave may be different than entering, it needs to be treated as the motion to enter it would, or, if not, how would you ever get to it in the middle of dealing with a pending main motion?

And you would have been correct. It will be on your RP test......guaranteed.

It's too late now to raise a point of order that the member who made the motion was not on the prevailing side, even if it could be proven true. Edited to add - The chair should always ask a member making a motion to Reconsider how they voted.

No it does not. The authority to cancel such a meeting and any re-scheduling would have to be found in the council's other rules.

I agree with Dr. Stackpole. If the meeting starts before the appointed time I'd suggest you'll have an issue with the rights of absentees who aren't present before that time.

Did you read the cited material from RONR where it uses the word Constitution?

"Rules contained in the bylaws (or constitution) cannot be suspended—no matter how large the vote in favor of doing so or how inconvenient the rule in question may be—unless the particular rule specifically provides for its own suspension, or unless the rule properly is in the nature of a rule of order as described on page 17, lines 22–25. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 263 The bylaw you mention does not fit into the exception cited above, so the answer is no, it cannot be overruled by the President, the Board or the Society. The bylaws would need to be amended to provide for a suspension of this rule, or it can be removed in its entirety.

About 95% of the work is preparing and assisting others prior to the meeting. The meeting is the easy part when it's well organized and proper preparation is a must.

No they are not. I believe we have discussed this before but I'm far too lazy to do a search (and it might have even been on the old forum).

I think you can just say - "A count having been ordered, there were _________in favor and __________opposed and the motion was adopted."

RONR contains no requirement for multiple readings at different meetings, and therefore offers no rules to cite for you. You'll need to check with council's attorney (or solicitor if you live in PA or in some parts of the Free State of Maryland) to help find the answer.

The resolution can be amended. See §35. Rescind; Amend Something Previously Adopted, beginning on p. 305 in RONR (11th ed.).

I think RONR sums it up best, since everyone takes a slightly different approach to these things: " It is also the duty of the parliamentarian—as inconspicuously as possible—to call the attention of the chair to any error in the proceedings that may affect the substantive rights of any member or may otherwise do harm. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 466.

1) Yes. 2) Exactly what happened, which doesn't sound like much. They'll be approved at the next meeting, assuming a quorum is present.

I'm not exactly clear as to all of the facts but if this is an issue of notice not properly being given so that the regular assembly can act, could they go into a committee of the whole, or quasi-committee to at least discuss the proposed changes without taking action?

If special meetings are authorized by the bylaws, yes. Other than noting that the reason for special meetings "is to deal with matters that may arise between regular meetings and that require action by the society before the next regular meeting, or to dedicate an entire session to one or more particular matters", RONR contains no restrictions as to what they can be called for.

This usually relates to an assembly not approving one set, but it would apply in your case as well: " If the minutes are not thus taken up before adjournment, they are read and approved at the following meeting, before the later minutes are taken up." RONR (11th ed.), p. 474 and as to abstaining - " It should be noted that a member's absence from the meeting for which minutes are being approved does not prevent the member from participating in their correction or approval. " RONR (11th ed.), p. 355 That absence would include not being a member at all. You really must think of the board as an ongoing entity, and harass them to approve the minutes properly.

"In an assembly, except when applied to a constitution, bylaws, or special rules of order, require (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when notice of intent to make the motion, stating the complete substance of the proposed change, has been given at the previous meeting within a quarterly time interval or in the call of the present meeting, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice." RONR (11th ed.), p. 306 I'm not sure where you got that statement from. Yes, but since it was apparently declared defeated because of a misunderstanding of the vote required to adopt the motion, it's too late now to raise a point of order.