George Mervosh

Does the rule in 25:10 apply to a convention of delegates? Tapestry mentions that this is a convention so that's why I ask.

So this parenthetical material is actually written in the bylaws?

Let's start with this - Do your bylaws define "in good standing" or provide that members are automatically dropped from the membership rolls if their dues are not paid by a certain time? This is RONR's definition of a member in 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 (emphasis supplied by me).

"A member of an assembly, in the parliamentary sense, as mentioned above, is a person entitled to full participation in its proceedings, that is, as explained in 3 and 4, the right to attend meetings, to make motions, to speak in debate, and to vote. No member can be individually deprived of these basic rights of membership—or of any basic rights concomitant to them, such as the right to make nominations or to give previous notice of a motion—except through disciplinary proceedings. Some organized societies define additional classes of “membership” that do not entail all of these rights. Whenever the term member is used in this book, it refers to full participating membership in the assembly unless otherwise specified. Such members are also described as “voting members” when it is necessary to make a distinction." RONR (12th ed.), 1:4

I'm not trying to nitpick, but Mr. Atkinson didn't say it was a special meeting. Your hunch may be correct though.

I'm afraid to ask, but why is it "Unauthorized", Tomm?

I agree with Mr. Brown. I took Mr. Lee quite literally when he said 7 votes were required to adopt. More information will provide a more accurate response to be sure.

With 11 members present they certainly had enough members present to achieve a threshold of 7 votes. But since only 6 voted yes the motion is defeated. Sometimes choosing to abstain affects the result of the vote. Also, under the rules in RONR no one is required to recuse themselves so the two must have done so due to another rule applicable to the board. Nothing seems improper here based on your facts.

I asked about who made the initial decision to have it at location A because: “In any event, no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see 56:41 and 23:9).” RONR (12th ed.), 49:7. It may be that some member or members do remember how the initial decision is made. If they feel it was made by the membership a motion to declare the board’s action null and void may be adopted by the membership by a majority vote at a regular or properly called meeting. RONR (12th ed.), 23:9. If that doesn’t happen and the board doesn’t rescind the motion they adopted, the membership can move to rescind the board’s adopted motion to move to location B at a regular or properly called meeting of the membership. “Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society's assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)." RONR (12th ed.), 49:7. Since your group plans on having a special meeting regarding this matter be quite careful on how the call for the meeting is worded. See RONR (12th ed.), 9:13-16.

Let's start here. Did the board or the membership establish Location A as the original location for this show?

No. It doesn't even discuss the president signing contracts.

NAP adopted a special rule of order to eliminate the maker of motion from board meeting minutes, and it seems clear it was done to reduce transparency. But I digress.

Robert's Rules do not require an officer to be a member, however any qualifications for office are properly found only in the bylaws themselves. "In most societies it is usual to elect the officers from among the members; but in all except secret societies, unless the bylaws provide otherwise, it is possible for an organization to choose its officers from outside its membership. " RONR (12th ed.), 47:2

Not unilaterally. "Before a motion has been stated by the chair, it is the property of its mover, who can withdraw it or modify it without asking the consent of anyone." "After a motion has been stated by the chair, it belongs to the meeting as a whole, and the maker must request the assembly's permission to withdraw or modify his own motion" See RONR (12th ed.), 33:11-19

The members decided it should be allowed. What rule do you think was violated? The terms discussion item and action item are not defined in RONR. Are they defined in your HOA rules? RONR allows members to bring up items of new business whether they are an emergency or not.

See RONR (12th ed.), 9:26-27. You don't need to read it in a locker room.

Omitted as in "oops, forgot to type that part in", or did the department members vote to remove the meeting schedule?

No motion or vote is necessary or proper to have it filed for audit. The presiding officer should simply note it will be filed for audit. "Action on the financial report. No action of acceptance by the assembly is required—or proper—on a financial report of the treasurer unless it is of sufficient importance, as an annual report, to be referred to auditors. In the latter case it is the auditors' report which the assembly accepts. The treasurer's financial report should therefore be prepared long enough in advance for the audit to be completed before the report is made at a meeting of the society." RONR (12th ed.), 48:24

It makes it easier to have things added while the agenda is pending adoption. See FAQ#14 here https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/

"If a motion is offered in a wording that is not clear or that requires smoothing before it can be recorded in the minutes, it is the duty of the chair to see that the motion is put into suitable form—preserving the content to the satisfaction of the mover—before the question is stated. The chair must never admit a motion that the secretary would have to paraphrase for the record. The chair—either on his own initiative or at the secretary's request—can require any main motion (10), amendment (12), or instructions to a committee to be in writing before he states the question." RONR (12th ed.), 4:18 Reading 47:14-19 is helpful along with 47:7-8. But it just takes some patience and practice and you will be fine. Many I know got dragged into it like yourself.

If the presiding officer declared the original motion with the added criteria adopted, then it should be considered adopted. It is too late now to raise a point of order about improperly handling an amendment. I think amend is the most complicated section in the book but RONR In Brief, 3rd Edition, Chapter 5 on amendments is quite readable and not too hard to understand. Perhaps the presiding officer should review it carefully then move onto the big book.

After the amendment was adopted, the original main motion, as amended, should have been the pending motion and open to further debate and possible amendment (or other secondary motions being made) before being voted on in its final form.

I am trying to understand what is proper here, and I did not know we were on the clock.

Yes, it is a separate meeting, but my next question (or the other one restated) is, if the first meeting of a session is not a regular or properly called meeting, isn't the adjourned meeting which was established at other than a regular or properly called meeting, equally procedurally improper? I still think the answer is, yes.

That is exactly my question, Dr. Kapur.