Tomm

The person was elected by the Members to serve on the board but the board elects their own officers. Tradition has typically elevated the previous years VP to president! If, at a General Membership meeting where the board president normally sits as chair and the Membership then suspends the rules to replace him, can the motion to suspend include the name the person who the membership wishes to serve as their new chair or does the board VP automatically fall into that position?

Although 9:24 doesn't stipulate specific reasons why and when a meeting may go into executive session, this seems to be (IMHO) an inappropriate use of executive session and perhaps a review of the state statutes may prevent its use under those conditions?

The board just held a meeting in Executive Session to elect their officers. Is this an improper use of Executive Session? It doesn't seem to be the type of personnel issue that requires Executive Session especial because the bylaw that addresses executive session also states that "all issue's discussed in executive session shall remain confidential indefinately."

During the Covid lockdown and guests were no longer allowed to attend, the standing committees were recorded and posted on the internet even though there was no documented rule/bylaw that ever established that requirement. Now that guests are once again allowed to attend committee meetings the board has decided to no longer record and post those meetings. Many members found those posted videos beneficial. Board meetings are recorded as stated/required in the Bylaws but no mention of committee meetings. I kinda figured 50:26 would prohibit a committee to make that request.

Can a committee in fact make its own rule to video record its meetings(50:26) even if the parent assembly doesn't have that same rule, or only if it was authorized to do so by the board who established the committee?

But it can be suspended by a majority vote but only for that one meeting?

Would a rule mandating that committee meetings shall be video recorded be considered a Standing Rule? A Standing Rule would allow for only a majority vote to change it rather than the more stringent requirements to change a Special Rule of order or Bylaw?

Got it...2:21

I see that but with all due respect, doesn't that contradict 25:2 (2)?

Please explain 25:2 (2)

However, if the chair of the board is specified as being the chair of the annual membership meeting in the bylaws, then that rule cannot be suspended. Correct? The bylaws states: SECTION 3: PRESIDENT The President shall preside at and conduct all meetings of the Corporation by a formal order of business. The President shall have general supervision and direction of the affairs of the Corporation in accordance with the Corporate Documents. The President shall have authority to administer all matters not otherwise expressly delegated, and may call special meetings of the Membership and/or Board.

If the assembly believes that the presiding officer is not thoroughly familiar with the duties of the presiding officer as stated in 47:14, is that reason enough to suspend the rules and ask for another chairperson? I'm thinking in terms of a president of the executive board who normally will preside as chair at the annual general membership meeting.

Roger-That! Page 67 was pretty succinct! I should have taken a look at that earlier. The book I mentioned previously (Idiot's Guide) doesn't even mention "majority of the entire membership"!?!?!? Looks like the Jennings book will be available February 9th. I'll get a copy then!

Thanks, I'll look into it. I have a copy of "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Robert's Rules" by Nancy Sylvester, PRP, CPP-T, but I guess I'm still an idiot. Perhaps with a copy of the Jennings book I can move up the rung to "dummy"? All you guys are great and have the patience of Job! If I were younger I would probably take a course on becoming a parliamentarian, but at 72, I just try to understand it!

Thanks very much Josh for taking the time to isolate and untangle my confusion. The way you broke it down to explain it really made a big difference. I will document your response for future reference. Thanks again...Happy, Healthy New Year to you all!

Yeah, I read it several times. I guess I'm confusing things when I read the rules for such things as 35:2 (7) where it give you 3 different voting options. But I guess it too is referring to the entire membership regardless of whether or not every member, or a majority of members are in attendance! I get the part where 44:9 (b) talks about the difference between an executive board and the entire society, but when you consider that boards typically have a small membership, those 3 options listed in 35:2 (7) seem to take on a different understanding?

So if I understand you correctly, a term such as "the majority of the entire membership present" would only be possible if it were specifically specified as a bylaw or special rule of order?

As too the rule "the majority of the entire membership" Is there such a thing as the "majority of the entire membership present?" or does the "majority of the entire membership" always refer to every member whether or not they are in attendance of the meeting?

It appears that the rules for adopting and amending, Bylaws and Special Rules of Order are pretty much the same. Can someone perhaps provide a little more specific explanation as that provided in 2:20-2:22 as to why a Special Rule of Order shouldn't just be specified in a Bylaw?

If a special meeting is called and it's known the entire meeting will be held in executive session, is it still necessary to call for a vote to do so?

Thank you. I agree with this clarification. My response assumed that the information in question was something the chair learned through their duties as chair of the Election Committee. And that's exactly how the chair learns of that knowledge. He would call those candidates who were running for the board to see if they needed anything and if they were still running.

If a standing committee has a member of the board as the chair, does he/she hold anymore authority than the rest of the members of the committee? Can the chair alone decide perhaps what the rest of the committee should know or is it up to the entire committee, by vote of course, to decide? It's my understanding that the chair is their to simply facilitate the meeting and not make personal opinion decisions? Had an incident being a non-board member but member of the Election Committee where the chair would not reveal who was running for the election of the new board until the day after all applicants had to turn in their paperwork. I saw no authoritarian reason why the rest of the committee shouldn't know?

How would you post those corporate documents on a web site? Assuming there would be Standing Rules that would apply to every member, and there would also be different specific Standing Rules that would apply to membership meetings and board of director meetings. Would the following manner of listing be appropriate? Can you have a general list of Standing Rules that would apply to everybody and also the specific listings? Corporate Documents * Articles of Incorporation * Bylaws * Standing Rules, General * Membership Meetings * Special Rules of Order * Standing Rules * Board of Directors * Special Rules of Order * Standing Rules

Just trying to determine whether our organizations board policies can actually be considered and listed under Standing Rules? The corporation is nothing more than a corporation that provides 8 recreation centers and 8 golf course. It was first established (1960) without RONR as its parliamentary authority and now we are trying to better organize all the rules and regulations that are listed as Board Policies. I'm wondering if they can actually be considered Standing Rules? Each BP starts out as a resolution (Where as: giving the board of directors the ability to create and amend them) but I don't believe being in the form of a Resolution makes any difference. There are about 17 with titles such as: Bid Procedures and Contracts Chartered Clubs Posting Signs and Literature Golf Bowling Press & Media Etc. Each BP lists the do's and don'ts quite extensively. Since we are hoping to establish a committee to review and update our corporate documents, to get them more in line with RONR method of documentation, could these be considered to fall under the heading of Standing Rules? Right now the corporate documents lack any heading, category or documentation for Standing Rules or Special Rules of Order. The Board Policies are listed as simply as that...Board Policies! I'm just not sure whether these types of rules are those that RONR would consider to be Standing Rules, or do Standing Rules pertain more towards the conduct/participation of a meeting such as time, turn off cell phones, no food or drink allowed in the meeting room?

Believe me, I know exactly where you're going with those comments and question and don't think the same question of their authority hasn't crossed my mind as well. That is perhaps a question for another day. My main objective was to understand how the difference between a majority of the entire membership and a 2/3rd's vote with previous can sometimes seem to go upside down depending on the size of the membership.