George Mervosh

Seeing Mr. Mountcastle's postings reminds me that we miss him being here, for sure.

See your other thread. http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29971-committees/

Someone else should give the report and move for the adoption of the recommendation. Then the committee chair can argue against its adoption. "In the case of a committee, the committee chairman is the reporting member unless—because he does not agree with the report or for any other reason—he does not wish to give it, in which event the committee chooses another one of its members." RONR (11th ed.), p. 506

I agree. It's probably not going to go well when you replace him but order is required, even for law enforcement personnel. The pages Mr. Martin cited should help. I don't see the need to hire someone, to be honest. It's your job to maintain order and a calm firm demeanor with command of the proper rules is your ammunition.

I don't think that opens any doors. RONR says the business must be specified in the call.

p. 38 indicates the "more" proper, albeit less formal statement is - "Is there any debate"

Since you (yes, you) seem to have a command of the facts, read the earlier cited pages to help determine if there was indeed a violation of the rules where a point of order can be raised later. Right now I just don't see it.

I didn't mean you personally, sorry. From what I can tell based on your facts, nothing on p. 444-446 in RONR (11th ed.) applies.

So you want to invalidate the election of the VP, but not the other officers who were on the same ballot? Personally I think the election should stand as is.

Which rules are those? Typically, the membership handles the discipline of members.

As long as a quorum is present, the motions adopted are not null and void solely because of the absence of the Secretary.

As long as a quorum is present, certainly. Someone else should take the minutes until his return.

I'm just an old fuddy duddy that's always addressed the presiding officer by their title when recognized, regardless of what motion or question I have. I'm also a fan of using the forms and examples in the book as closely as I can remember them. They're there for a reason.

The form and examples in the book have the member saying "Mr. President" in both cases. RONR, pp. 229 and 294. Oh, and it's a Request for Information in the 11th Edition, not a Point of Information ( though that term is not improper), The example shows both..

The chair can assume a motion to adjourn. The chair should have said - “ If there is no objection, the meeting will adjourn due to the lack of a quorum” and paused to be sure there was no objection before declaring it adjourned, as there are other actions the assembly could have taken prior to adjourning.

Yes, as long as the committee has more than one member of your group in it, no second is required. Check your bylaws as most require a 2/3 vote for an amendment to be adopted, but whatever they say is required is what's required.

A member will make the motion to adopt the amendment and another will second it, unless it came from a committee in which case the reporting member will make it and no second will be required. The chair states the question. The motion is debatable and perhaps amendable to a limited degree. When there is no further debate or amendment the chair will put the question to a vote. A rising vote is taken since a 2/3 vote is usually required and unless it's nearly unanimous, that rising vote should be counted.

Yes. The board can decline to waive the secrecy of the proceedings and since you had no right to attend you have no right to know what they adopted. The person who took the minutes during the executive session will have a record of those resolutions.

Such a rule is not in the nature of a rule of order and cannot be suspended, therefore the adopted motion is null and void and a point of order should be raised at your next meeting. RONR (11th ed.), p. 251 (a). The bylaw must be amended if they want to allow this in the future.

Forget about it. There's no statement that says "nominations are debatable", but they are, as previously cited. The Secretary says no such thing without opening the floor for nominations for the office. If there was one nominee, and there were no further names put forth, the Secretary would simply declare the lone nominee elected No member may object to that declaration unless they wish to nominate someone else. RONR, p. 433

What's the difference between this thread and the one you made earlier? http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/29850-election-runs-over-meeting-time/ Not that it matters much since your group doesn't follow RONR, or just good common sense, and they allow the presiding officer to be dictatorial. Do what you've been doing as a group - make it up as you go along.

As Mr. Coronite asked, what is there to debate? Do you want to debate whether or not to have an election for chair pro-tem? That's not proper. Do you want to debate the nominees? That is proper. Do you want to debate on how the vote is taken (ballot, or some other method)? That's not proper. So, Leo, exactly what is it you're wishing to debate?

For nominations being debatable? RONR, tinted pages 18-19, motion 49.

No but the nominations for the position are debatable while nominations are open.

#3 is correct but just state the facts - The board member raised a point of order that Guest B's interruption by attempting to raise a question of privilege was not proper. Include the presiding officer's ruling and reasoning, if any. Since Guest B isn't a member of the board they have no input with regard to the minutes, plus they can't make motions, raise questions of privilege, points of order or any such thing, but the fact they tried does not need to be further memorialized.