Shmuel Gerber

The latest edition of Robert's Rules is "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised", 12th edition. Although the printed edition has page numbers, the standard method for citing text is by paragraph number, as I did above for RONR (12th ed.) 9:25. The second quotation is from the same book, paragraph 9:28.

It seems that the rule already exists, and the motion is to change it — i.e., it is an incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Therefore, an Objection to Consideration of the Question would not be in order.

RONR (12th ed.) 9:25: "Attendance at an Executive Session or Other Closed Session. Whenever a meeting is being held in executive session, only members of the body that is meeting, special invitees, and such employees or staff members as the body or its rules may determine to be necessary are allowed to remain in the hall. Thus, in the case of a board or committee meeting being held in executive session, all persons—whether or not they are members of the organization—who are not members of the board or committee (and who are not otherwise specifically invited or entitled to attend) are excluded from the meeting. When it is desired to similarly restrict attendance at a particular meeting without imposing any obligation of secrecy (or to remove a previously imposed restriction on attendance), this may also be done by majority vote (see also 61:6–7)." 9:28: "A deliberative assembly or committee is normally entitled to determine whether nonmembers may attend or be excluded from its meetings (even when not in executive session). Many public and semipublic bodies, however, are governed by sunshine laws—that is, their meetings must be open to the public. Normally, such laws have no application to private, nongovernmental bodies."

👍

But if the agenda is simply provided in advance of a meeting for information, with no intention of adopting it, then it would make perfect sense to list any known items of new business under the category of New Business.

Please contact the tech support department at American Legal Publishing.

There is no such prohibition. In addition, a minority within the committee can also provide alternative nominations: "A minority within a nominating committee, as a group, may propose other nominees for some or all of the offices in any case where nominations from the floor are permitted." (46:16)

Clearly the intent was to say "not inconsistent". The organization should adopt a bylaw amendment to straighten this out. Or, if the text was adopted with the correct wording but then a clerical error was introduced later, the secretary (once there is a secretary) should correct the document to reflect the accurate language.

I certainly hope that the bylaws don't actually say this. 😀

It is automatic, unless the bylaws say how a vacancy is filled specifically in the office of president.

And I've forwarded this topic to her for you.

Obviously we think that every member of every organization should get a copy of RONR anyway, for all of its sections. 😀 I don't know if this specific use will be allowed, but the person to contact is @Barbara Holloway.

RONR provides a standard order of business and prescribes that it is applicable in certain situations (41:5-6). It also says how to adopt a special order of business (2:16) to govern all meetings of an assembly, which would supersede the standard order. If such orders of business apply to a given session, clearly it is not *necessary* to adopt an agenda in order to have an order of business for that session. But that doesn't necessarily imply that having an agenda would not be useful. RONR recognizes that an agenda may be useful for information even where the standard order or a special order of business applies (41:7, 41:62). And it also provides procedures for adopting an agenda in a session that already has an applicable order of business, which differ depending on whether the agenda conflicts with the existing order of business (41:61). And it states that an agenda is frequently adopted when the standard or special order of business is not practical (41:60). So I don't think it is accurate to say that RONR suggests that a board not adopt an agenda if it has frequent meetings. I agree that the advice often given on the forum has been that there is no need for adopting an agenda, or even that it would be better and simpler not to adopt one where the standard order applies. But I don't recall any member of the authorship team saying that RONR says so. In fact, if I recall correctly, a member of the authorship team has expressed doubts on this forum in the past about whether the standard order of business even applies to meetings of the executive board of a society. But that's a whole other question.

What is the text in RONR that you read as making this suggestion?

They don't become the official minutes until they have been approved, either at the next meeting or by a committee appointed to approve them.

We shouldn't ignore the particular context that we have been discussing and that I was responding to; but let me ask you, what rule in RONR prohibits the recording of a meeting by a member? So long as the act of recording does not disturb the assembly, why would a member need permission to do it? You all may be able to persuade me about this, but I am asking for reasons to be articulated. Obviously I understand why recording might make some members uncomfortable and why it could lead to a violation of secrecy. That doesn't mean there is a rule against it.

Why? The rule of secrecy as stated in RONR 9:26 is "The general rule is that anything that occurs in executive session may not be divulged to nonmembers (except any entitled to attend)." What is there in RONR that says that a member's permission to record a meeting depends on whether the meeting is held in executive session? Having a recording obviously makes it easier for the content to be shared, but so long as it is not shared I don't see that any rule in RONR is violated merely by the making of the recording.

The forum software has been updated again, to version 4.7.2.1. Previously it was on the 4.6 series. If you want to get some idea of what has changed in recent versions, please see https://invisioncommunity.com/release-notes/ and then click on the individual version tabs for each release. The major changes are listed in 4.7.0. Note that there may be features mentioned there that are not applicable to this forum's configuration, or that have not been enabled. On a small screen (mobile device), you may have to scroll down past the list of version numbers to see the text associated with the selected version number. If none of this means anything to you, just keep using the forum as you have been (and please report any new problems you encounter).

I certainly think this could be done, although I would not describe it as a proviso. Rather, it would be a resolution containing multiple parts - the motion to adopt the bylaws and the motion to rescind the special rule of order. Generally, the requirements to adopt an amendment to the bylaws will be at least as rigorous (if not more so) than requirements to rescind a special rule of order (and we are told this is the case here), so combining the motions in this manner should not pose any particular problems. I agree.

I have no way of contacting guest posters. Steve2610, please use the "Contact a Site Administrator" link at the bottom of the page for assistance in setting up an account.

Blank ballots, ballots on which no candidate has been selected, and ballots cast by persons not entitled to vote. None of these are credited to any candidate, nor are they used in calculating the number needed for a majority.

45:31 "Recording the votes. In recording the votes cast, the principle followed is that a choice has no mandate from the voting body unless approval is expressed by more than half of those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference. Accordingly, the tellers ignore blank ballots and other ballots that indicate no preference, treating them as abstentions. (Blank ballots are sometimes cast by members to conceal the fact that they do not wish to vote.) 45:32 "All ballots that indicate a preference—provided they have been cast by persons entitled to vote—are taken into account in determining the number of votes cast for purposes of computing the majority. ..." ..... The words "those entitled to vote and registering any evidence of having some preference" can be understood in the light of what the rest of the rules in this subsection say. If you read the three four sentences quoted above together with each other, I think the meaning will become clear. And they say nothing about the number of members present, so I don't know why that is part of your confusion at all.

A better question might be, what happened to the rest of the sentence that you're quoting?

RONR doesn't even have the Starbucks version, espresso unius.

No, because there are no substantive actions that can be taken in the absence of a quorum. 🙂 But there's a book that actually contains all the rules of the book that contains the rules; you can see where to get it here: https://robertsrules.com/purchase/