Shmuel Gerber

We cannot provide legal advice on this forum.

Sorry, we no longer allow posting to external sources or uploading of documents to the forum. Please see https://robertsrules.forumflash.com/topic/38364-welcome-to-the-official-ronr-q-a-forums/ regarding the purpose and scope of the forum.

We pick the spelling we like best, and then find a proper American dictionary that supports it. 🙂 "Cancelled" is generally considered the more British spelling, and I doubt you will find an American dictionary that lists it as the first or preferred alternative.

I don't know -- say, with the assembly's simply following the rules that exist, including any provisions which permit suspension of the rules when desired? If Mr Elsman had simply stated that the rule could be suspended, I don't think I would have disagreed. If I had been in an agreeable mood, I might even have agreed. But I don't think that is what he said.

The fact that the rule protects absentees (if there are any) doesn't mean that's the only thing it does. Giving notice of the purpose(s) of the meeting to all members a reasonable number of days in advance allows them to prepare in other ways than simply showing up at the meeting, and it also provides an expectation that time will not be consumed at the meeting with other business. In 4:58, RONR speaks of "the principle that rules are designed for the protection of the minority and generally need not be strictly enforced when there is no minority to protect". It does not say that rules of order become moot when there is no minority to protect.

What I mean is, that sure seems like a rule that would interfere with transacting business that has not been specified in the call of the special meeting.

I don't understand this. RONR 9:15 says, "The only business that can be transacted at a special meeting is that which has been specified in the call of the meeting." That sure seems like a rule to me.

If the entire membership is present at a valid meeting, and all but one of them want to consider the question, I suspect the feeling might be "Go ahead and leave solely to prevent consideration of this question ... but don't bother coming back ever again." Of course that does not actually answer your questions. 🙂

The rule applying to small board meetings that "motions need not be seconded" means that the chair is supposed to state the question on all motions properly made, even if no one has seconded the motion, regardless of whether the motion is one that normally must be seconded. See RONR (12th ed.) 49:21, as well as footnote 7 of 4:9. If a motion is one that normally does not even require a second, then of course it still does not require a second at a small board meeting. Majority means more than half; two-thirds means at least two-thirds. Assuming 7 members vote, a majority vote is 4 and a two-thirds vote is 5. Assuming 10 members vote, a majority vote is 6 and a two-thirds vote is 7. In any event, the requirement does not change even if a majority would be the same as two-thirds, such as when 1, 2, 3, 4, or 6 votes are cast.

"Reserved to the membership" means that only the membership can exercise the power and not the board. So the fact that a certain power is not reserved to the membership doesn't mean that the membership cannot exercise that power; it just means that the board can.

It also cannot be interrupted by a general order set for a specific time (such as a motion that was postponed in the normal manner, without being set as a special order), and it cannot be interrupted by a special order set for a specific time that was set after this matter was set as a special order.

I suggest that you get the book (or ebook), look in the table of contents or index, and read the relevant portions. Or find the references in RONR In Brief. See https://robertsrules.com/purchase/ for purchase links.

See RONR (12th ed.) 21:14–15.

An assembly's ratification of action taken without a quorum at one of its own meetings is a kettle of horses of a different color than its ratification of board action validly taken that requires the assembly's confirmation in order to become final.

I hadn't seen Mr. Elsman's response when I wrote my own, but I agree.

It's the lack of a quorum that invalidated the amendment. The board is simply recognizing that fact, albeit at an inconvenient time.

Why?

I think the answer will be very fact-specific, and there is nothing in Robert's Rules that directly addresses the question. It seems that the original motion was fully carried out, and it will take some effort and expense to put the sign back up, which may not have been anticipated when it was first decided that the sign should be erected. What were the exact words of the motion that was adopted?

Can't you folks take a hint (or should I say a sign)? 🙂

Sorry; by the time I got to that part of the sentence, I forgot that I was supposed to be serious.

Sorry, but this conversation was admitted under the topic title "Question on USPS informed deliverty." 🙂 But seriously: Actually, I think the email for Informed Delivery® by USPS® (Reg. Penna. Dept. Agr.) is sent well after the post office gets the mail, when it is being processed for delivery to the home. (Not that that detail makes any difference either.) I take your question "who cares?" to mean that no one should care that an envelope that has clearly gone through the post office within the prescribed time, the fact of which has been acknowledged by the post office, has no actual postmark on it. But randigb has said, "The board is planning to reject the nomination application because of the lack of a bar code," so evidently the board members care about this, or are at least purporting to. That is a bit puzzling because the bar code actually has nothing to do with the postmark; a sender can pre-code an envelope with the bar code before it gets to the post office. But an Informed Delivery email is clearly not a postmark in the traditional or official sense, because it is not tangibly applied to the mail piece itself. Should that matter? Everyone here who is willing to express an opinion seems to think it shouldn't.

Well, to the extent that your reply indicates a willingness to rely on purposivism as opposed to textualism, let's see what we can do to persuade you from doing that. The purpose of a rule can help inform what it means and how it should be applied, but that doesn't mean the provisions of the rule should be ignored, in favor of carrying out its general purpose, whenever the person(s) interpreting the rule thinks that the result would otherwise be ridiculous or contrary to the general purpose. If the drafters of bylaws actually want all nominations that are not postmarked to be discarded, regardless of when received, then as far as RONR is concerned they are entitled to adopt a provision to require that, despite how ridiculous it might seem. The question here is whether the language is specific enough to accomplish such a (perhaps ridiculous) outcome.

But you took the position that the only way a textualist would decide the question is to deem the petition inadequate under the bylaws, and I disagree. I also agree with what the other posters have said about this. We simply do not know whether or not the body conducting or supervising the election is the board. Clearly the election is happening outside a meeting, and so it is being conducted by some person or persons without the immediate direction of an assembly of the membership. It could be the secretary, an elections commissioner, the executive board, an elections committee, a management company, etc. Even if there is some superior body that will be the ultimate judge of the results, the people sending out the ballots will have to make the initial determination as to which names should appear on the ballot if no meeting of a superior body takes place before the ballots are sent.

@MayIask, I think you are confusing "special meeting" with "executive session". See my reply in your other post.

No. I think that in this topic as well as your other one here, you may be confusing "special meeting" with "executive session". "In any society, certain matters relating to discipline, such as trials, must be handled only in executive session. A meeting enters into executive session only when required by rule or established custom, or upon the adoption of a motion to do so. A motion to go into (or out of) executive session is a question of privilege, and is adopted by a majority vote." (RONR (12th ed.) 9:24., internal references omitted) Your president may also be under the impression that no motions are in order in executive session. As far as the rules of RONR are concerned, this is not the case. See FAQ #17 at https://robertsrules.com/frequently-asked-questions/#faqs.