George Mervosh

Would this be considered an "indelicate act"?

I read this and my first thought was - Shmuel Gerber got me again.  Excellent work, Mr. Huynh.  

Such a motion is treated just like any other main motion.

 

The "accused" member has as much right to enter into debate on the motion as does any other member. Although he probably should refrain from voting on the motion, he cannot be compelled to do so (RONR, 11th ed., p. 407, l. 21 to p. 408, l. 7).

Can he move to strike censure and insert commend? 

I wondered what Robert's Rules has to say about meeting and voting by email.

RONR also says this for groups that conduct business that way:

"A group that attempts to conduct the deliberative process in writing—such as by postal mail, electronic mail (e-mail), or facsimile transmission (fax)—does not constitute a deliberative assembly. When making decisions by such means, many situations unprecedented in parliamentary law will arise, and many of its rules and customs will not be applicable (see also pp. 97–99)."  RONR (11th ed.), p.1 fn.

Your group seems to have avoided that pitfall.

The president is telling me now that there's no voting via email.

Bruce, Edgar

I appreciate your response. We have a chairman of an airport board (non paid) who says he has the authority to create, and appoint members of an ad-hoc committee with no motion or discussion at all. There is nothing in the bylaws that addresses this issue. The committee is for updating bylaws.

The second paragraph of Mr. Gerber's post in another thread regarding the power of an officer to do something might be useful to you, Guest Jeff.  http://robertsrules.forumflash.com/index.php?/topic/25871-canceling-meetings/?p=146660

The topic isn't the same the point is.

What is the proper way to form an ad hoc committee, who appoints members and can any member call an ad hoc committee at any time without full board approval?

The creation itself is usually done by a motion and as Mr. Huynh notes it can be populated in a number of ways.  Sometimes bylaws authorize the chair to appoint the members but if they don't he can't assume that authority.  See the citation above.

" 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

I think it bears keeping in mind that the bylaws of many organizations provide that resignations are effective upon receipt by a certain officer.  In those cases, there is no need to formally accept the resignation. 

 

We  tend to repeatedly tell people on here that a resignation is not effective until it has been accepted.  That is simply not always the case.  It depends on the bylaws.  It's one of those "unless your bylaws provide otherwise" situations.

 

I know:  Just about everything in RONR can be said to be "unless your bylaws provide otherwise".  But, I have seen enough bylaws that provide for a resignation becoming effective upon receipt that I think  it bears pointing out that caveat in our answers.

Hmmm.  We don't hang around with the same crowd.  Nevertheless, unless you like to type, it's just as easy to put a caveat in your signature.  Then you can provide the one word answers that we've come to know and love here on the RONR board.   

There was an item agenda item to hold an informal discussion. The agenda was accepted. When the discussion item was reached, the head of council directed the councillor to put a motion on the table to open discussing. The need for a motion was questioned given there was no action involved. A motion was put forward and was defeated.

There does not seem to any procedure that clarifies the need to put a motion on the table.

Thank you.

What I need is the actually portion of Robert's Rules that spells this out.

Considering the first quoted post, don't look for anything under the rules in RONR.

Can a member of a committee or assembly, when making a motion to suspend rules suspend the use of Robert Rules? Are rules of order also known as Policies and Procedures?

No and no.

Gary, how do we know they have no right to attend, since Guest Susie didn't answer Guest Edgar's question in post #2?  IF they have the right to attend, doesn't that affect the procedure for removing them for disruptive behavior?

Wait, so it's my fault?  Oh boy. 

I got elected President of a local chapter and didn't know about this strange motion to Reconsider.  Posted a question on the old forum and Mr. Honemann and Dr. Stackpole answered it, and I never left this place.  I've learned more from everyone here than I could have ever learned just reading the books.....and I still learn every day here.   I'm a tad better at understanding the motion to Reconsider, thankfully. 

If a person/member was not in attendance at a meeting, can they make corrections to the minutes, or should corrections only be made by members in attendance of the actual meeting?

This is the rule - " 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

Assuming your bylaws provide for absentee voting, then yes you would have a quorum for the voting:  90 + 15 > 100.  But RONR (11th ed.), p. 423, ll. 16-22. strongly advises against absentee voting.  

Ron, I think you got caught in that all too common trap of equating the number votes cast with the number of members who must be present to conduct business.  She needs 100 bodies in the room for the quorum requirement to be satisfied, regardless of the number of absentee votes submitted, under the rules in RONR.

Can something be added to the minutes of the meeting after the fact. For instance: if it is agreed that mr x will be responsible for some duty and later you find that statement was not part of the minutes. Can an addendum be made to the minutes to reflect that it was discussed that mr x would be responsible? If so how? Thanks.

If you are referring to the unapproved draft the Secretary will prepare for your next meeting, the Secretary can simply put the correct information into his draft for presentation at the next meeting.  If you are referring to minutes that have already been approved, but need correcting, the motion to amend them will have to be done in a meeting, and the correction is only listed in the minutes of the meeting where the correction took place.  RONR (11th ed.), p. 305ff and FAQ#16  http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#16

Can the meeting agenda be amended by less than the entire membership of the board of trustees?

Yes.  While it's pending approval, it can be amended by a majority vote.  After its adopted it will take a 2/3 vote, a vote of a majority of the entire board, or unanimous consent, either of which will suffice.

Ann, short of suspending the rules to permit debate in between rounds of voting, do  you agree with the statement Dan made in post #2?  If so, does that not limit us to one incidental motion that already exists?  I'm confused how the non-existent incidental motion would get us there.  Instead of viewing it as game playing let's view it as a usage no one thought of, until now. 

I think it is entirely in order to make such a motion between rounds of balloting, and if such a motion is adopted, members who have not exhausted their right to speak in favor of a nominee may do so (or, with the assembly's permission, may speak again even if they have).

Dan, I agree with you that nominations can be reopened by majority vote, and would open all nominations up for debate.  I also agree that there is no motion to reopen debate.  The question that have been raised is if the motion nay be made even though no member wishes to offer a nomination.  Your answer is apparently, yes.

It seems so and I appreciate the additional clarification.

In the last sentence of post #18, I forgot that RONR states "When for any reason it is desired to reopen nominations, this can be done by a majority vote."  (p. 288 emphasis added by me).  Any apparently does mean any. 

I was typing this as Mr. Honemann posted his reply.  What about this for an example, Dan?

In an election for Treasurer, where the incumbent, Member A, is running for the Treasurer's post again -

"Member B, if elected Treasurer, will ensure that the society can once again begin receiving timely reports of our bank balances and dues payments received, and make sure that our bills will now be paid on time. I urge you to vote for Member B."

(I don't want to inundate you with what-if's, but I agree there's a way to do this great care)

In my opinion, debate on nominations should be limited to speeches which are made when making or seconding (even although not required) nominations. This, I think, is indicated by what is said on pages 206 and 207 of PL (and on pp. 165-67 as well).

 

I'll admit that nothing in RONR says that this is a rule of some sort, but there is precious little in RONR concerning debating nominations.

 

Isn't George Mervosh supposed to be our resident expert on this subject?

I wish, but I don't mind you doing the work for me.   

I have PL sitting right in front of me today at the office because of this good question and yes, there is precious little about debating nominations (just what you quoted) in PL, and precious less about it in RONR. 

It seems crystal clear that neither book provides for debating the qualifications of candidates other than when nominations are in order (as you noted in post #2),  but I have to be honest, I had and still have my doubts about the propriety of re-opening nominations solely for the purpose of debating existing nominees, for the reason you noted in your first sentence of post 17 quoted above, but if you say its proper under RONR, I'll just note it and move on.

It's interesting to think that a motion to reopen nominations would be used for some purpose other than its express purpose of trying to nominate someone else, but rather, to use it to debate the qualifications of those already nominated instead. 

I guess FAQ#18 wasn't helpful?

Was trying to find a way to contact website to inquire about the availability of a RONR app for the iphone or android.  Does anyone know if a functional app is available?

 

Thanks

Scott

Accessing it via my iphone is easy and it's easy to read etc......but I can't sign on as a member for some reason and I'm sure it's my fault.  I guess Guest_GM3 will have to do.  Putting the pretty pictures together in the re-captcha isn't hard either.  Perhaps if this gets move to the "Questions or Comments about.........." forum the Boss Lady will save the day, as she always does.

Can a member of a Board who abstained in the original vote, subsequently "move a reconsideration" vote?

 

It was mentioned in my previous post that this type of action was not allowable, but where can I find this ruling in Robert's Rules of Order?

 

We have a Board meeting tonight and I need to find this asap!!!!.....Thanks.

"It can be made only by a member who voted with the prevailing side. In other words, a reconsideration can be moved only by one who voted aye if the motion involved was adopted, or no if the motion was lost"  RONR (11th ed.), p. 315

If "tonight" is a new board meeting, no one can make it, because it's too late to do so.

"The making of this motion is subject to time limits, as follows: In a session of one day—such as an ordinary meeting of a club or a one-day convention—the motion to Reconsider can be made only on the same day the vote to be reconsidered was taken."  RONR (11th ed.), p. 316

The proper procedure is "If only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares that the nominee is elected, thus effecting the election by unanimous consent or "acclamation.""  RONR (11th ed.), p. 443