Tomm

Where talking about a Board meeting of 9 members. The rules for establishing a Special Rule of Order requires either: a) Previous notice and a 2/3rds vote, or b) A vote of the majority of the entire membership. Question/Assumption: It's up to the Board chairman/president to decide which criteria he uses in a vote count to establish a Special Rule of Order unless there's some other determining factor that I'm unaware of? BTW...It's known that a 2/3rds vote would cause the motion to fail but a majority vote would allow it to pass!

"From your last paragraph, it sounds like the board is looking to create a Special Rule of Order that will affect membership meetings. The board does not have the authority to do that, whether you have three readings or not." Where can I find the Rule that prohibits the board to establish that Special Rule?

The "Special Rule of Order" would allow non-board members to speak in debate at Board meetings! But if the majority of the Board is considered the "entire membership", then why bother requiring the previous notice and 2/3rds majority, and just allow a simple majority?

"or by a vote of a majority of the entire membership (of the board, in this case). So it may well be that there was no error with the vote." This is only a meeting of the Board, and not the entire general membership. General Membership meetings occur on an annual basis. Since "A board within an organized society, on the otherhand, is an instrumentality of the society's full assembly, to which it is subordinate", my interpretation of (b) on pg. 17, ll 28-31 is that the entire membership would be the "majority of the entire membership". Therefore, IMO a Board meeting requires the previous notice and two-thirds, but the annual general membership meeting only requires majority???? It doesn't quite make sense to me that a smaller Board would be able to drive a motion that affects the entire membership with a simple majority vote on a Special Rule of Order? But it does make sense too me that a much larger general assembly would only require a majority.

Our organizations Board holds meetings open to the general membership. They have a crazy rule that "Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Sessions, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by two-thirds majority of the Board." It's been discovered that a motion, (which would basically establish a Special Rule of Order), and currently read only twice and voted on, used the incorrect vote count. They used a simple majority rather than previous notice and a 2/3rds majority. Question: Since this Motion is still, kinda in-flux, and not yet finalized, is there any recourse? Can the previous two readings and votes still be challenged or is it a done deal? BTW, the motion will pass with a simple majority vote but will fail if 2/3rds is required.

The allotted time to speak in debate is unclear to me! I understand you get to speak twice, but is the 10 minute rule based on each individual speech or a total time for both?

The general members of the organization are allowed to attend Board meetings, which consist of 9 members. The Board recently established a Special Rule of Order allowing non-Board members to speak during debate but with no limits established or stated. Question: Do the limits of debate revert back to speak twice up to 10 minutes each, or do they adhere to the rules for small boards with no limits on time or the number of times you can speak?.

FAQ #20...easier said than done! When you have a Board of only 9 members and 4 or 5 refuse to abide by RONR, a majority vote on any disciplinary action will never happen.

A few members of the Executive Board only halfheartedly believe in strictly adhering to RONR even though it is the governing parliamentary authority of the organization. How can general members hold Board members to account? Can we recommend disciplinary action or does that have to be initiated from within the Board itself?

Can yo please elaborate on this a little? What would be a similar special rule for the general membership?

This was a motion made by the Board that states: "I move to allow Cardholders the opportunity to speak on each Agenda Item as well as Motions that are listed on the Agenda prior to a Board vote." It was not introduced as a Special Rule. It was simply introduced as a motion made by a Board Member as stated above. This is a permanent thing for all future Board Meetings! I'm confused!?!?! Should this have been introduced as a Special Rule of Order? Was the motion out of order because RONR only allows members to speak? I'm trying to make the argument that I don't think this is a good idea. I think it will cause the Board Meetings to get out of control. Any suggestions?

Thinking further!!! Does that mean that a vote to allow non-members to speak during debate is kinda out of order because the real vote should be to Suspend the Rules?

Yes, the Board has voted to allow non-board members to speak during debate. I assume that, that now becomes a "Special Rule of Order". Is 2/3rd's the correct vote to suspend?

A Board Meeting where members of the organization are allowed to attend: If the Board votes to allow non-board members to participate during the debate phase prior to the Board's vote, is that now considered a "Special Rule of Order" that requires a two-thirds majority vote of the Board to suspend?

The Agenda for today's Meeting calls for: Call to Order, - Pledge of Allegiance, - Verification of a Quorum, - Approval of the Agenda, - Approval of the Minutes. The Agenda's are printed and handed-out prior to the meeting. If the Agenda changed prior to the start of the meeting (item eliminated), is the proper motion "To Amend Something Previously Adopted" and when should the motion be made? Should it be made immediately after the call to "Approve the Agenda" and prior to voting on its approval, or is it made after the call for "Approval of the Minutes" and right before the meeting gets under way? Or should it be the the first order of business?

As with general membership meetings, should the Chair refrain from voting in small Board Meetings unless his vote will affect the results?

Although the Board consists of 9 members, I probably should have told you that a quorum requires 6 members be present. Does that make a difference?

The Board consists of 9 members. If the Bylaws state, "Motions made in Board meetings, excluding Executive and Special Session, shall be read and passed a minimum of three times before finalized and acted upon unless readings are waived by two-thirds (2/3) majority of the Board (6)..." Question: Does the qualifier "(6)" as written into the Bylaws make it mandatory that the Board be at full attendance of 9 members when voting?

“Rules limiting the time to which a question can be Postponed…” (RONR pg. 183) From what I can determine, there are basically 3 limits, a) not beyond the end of a present session b) not beyond the next regular business session (meeting), c) sometime in between a & b at an adjourned meeting. RONR defines Postpone as “the motion by which action on a pending question can be put off, within limits, to a definite day, meeting, or hour, or until after a certain event.” Now…, I can understand how the “day”, “meeting” or “hour” can be related to and correspond to the 3 limits listed above, but the term “or until a certain event” has me puzzled! Scenario: Suppose our Club holds regular meetings once a month: Member A: I move we make a $500 donation to Charity X”. (Second) Member B: I move to postpone the donation until after our Clubs fund raising event (which is three months away.) Question: Is the motion simply out of order, because it’s not “within limits” or can the motion to Postpone be deferred until after the fund raising event?

If an emergency motion was passed to hire a contractor to make immediately needed repairs when a quorum wasn't present and the motion was never ratified. The repair job went badly. Are all the members of that meeting personally responsible/liable or only those who voted in favor of the motion?

That was the clarification that I needed. Thanks for taking the time to explain!

But if it's a special meeting of a Board, then isn't it true that every member of the Board must be notified or else any decision made would be null and void? (pg 486, l 33-35)

You guys are brilliant! I don't know how you can remember all these rules or even know that they exist in the first place! I'll just continue reading thru RONR and hopefully it will all begin, at some point, to make sense! Thanks again for your patience.

Thanks so much for your patience! I think, with your help, I've got. A "Bylaw" is a Bylaw and can only be changed, amended or suspended by a rule that allows for such a thing but that rule must be part of the Bylaw. A special rule of order can't change, amend or suspended any Bylaw. "Rules of order" are simply the governing authority used to run the organization, like "Current edition of Roberts Rules of Order." If any of the rules within Roberts Rules are modified or some new rule is established, that would be a "Special Rule of Order." Like changing the amount of time and length of speech in debate. "Standing Rules" have nothing to do with the rules of order but are rules like, Meetings will start at 7:05, or cell phones must be on silent or vibrate.

This seems to be the hardest thing for me to understand, the difference between Standing Rules and Rules of Order and Special Rules of Order!?!?!? Why wouldn't a starting time be considered a Rule of Order, simply an administrative function? Or are the restrictions against changing the time or date strictly a matter of the heading under which they are placed (i.e. Bylaw, Standing Rule or Rule of Order)