Shmuel Gerber

I don't see where the OP states that the board had prevented the member from voting. She merely said that the member hadn't voted, whereupon she noted the rule that the member could not be compelled to refrain from voting, whereupon the member voted. It seems to me the member was encouraged to vote because he could not be compelled to refrain. If so, that was incorrect reasoning.

If the member believed that he had a direct personal or monetary interest in the motion, then you were not correct, because the rule is that the member should refrain from voting on such a question.

It can be done either way. If the preparation of the tellers' report is expected to take any significant amount of time, then a motion to recess should be adopted if the assembly wishes to wait. If no such motion is adopted, it would be usual for the meeting to continue with other business until the report is ready.

😂

Oh, *that* first column. In the other first column (you know, the first one), it says "Nominations, to make (46)", and honestly I had no idea what Dan was talking about. 🙂

Perhaps they could be (if one interprets the bylaws by applying the words themselves), but that is not what RONR prescribes. « If the bylaws provide that officers shall serve “for __ years or until their successors are elected,” the officer in question can be removed from office by adoption of a motion to do so. The vote required for adoption of this incidental main motion is (a) a two-thirds vote, (b) a majority vote when previous notice (as defined in 10:44) has been given, or (c) a vote of a majority of the entire membership—any one of which will suffice. A motion to remove an officer from office is a question of privilege affecting the organization of the assembly, and so also is the filling of any vacancy created by the adoption of such a motion. The assembly normally cannot proceed to fill the vacancy created by removal of an officer immediately, since notice is a requirement (see 32:7). If the president is removed from office, the vice-president thereby succeeds to the presidency, creating a vacancy in the vice-presidency which requires notice to fill. If it is desired to fill a vacancy that may be created by removal, previous notice may be given in advance of the meeting at which removal is contemplated that, should removal of the officer occur, the resulting vacancy may be filled at that meeting. » (RONR (12th ed.) 62:16, first subparagraph and footnote)

I am tempted to make the slightly opprobrious remark that upon putting the book anywhere, they would likely already know what it is. And I am fallen into the temptation. 🙂

Reading this thread has made me happy too. (Or maybe it's the doughnuts.) 🙂 In any event, I'll just point out that nominations never need to be seconded, even when made by an individual member.

Even if the rules don't specifically allow for such a punishment, I think it could be considered a form of suspension.

Thanks for sharing that word with us, Dan! Did our late friend Gary Tesser will you his dictionary? 🙂

That's an interesting question. If the person is still a member of the organization, I would say yes.

I agree that it was not necessary to submit an unconditional resignation from the first office in order to be nominated to fill the vacancy in the second. But it appears that this election took place to fill a vacancy that occurred during an existing term of office. So presumably the winner would take office as soon as the election becomes final. If so, since the bylaws disallow holding multiple offices, the only way for the election to become final is for the member to resign from the first office. Since the member was present at the time of the nomination, I think it would have been entirely appropriate to ask the member to indicate in advance that he is effectively submitting at least a conditional resignation to take effect upon election to the second office. It would be absurd to allow the member to be nominated, win the election, and then either decline the second office (so that the election has to be repeated) or else submit a resignation from the first office, with the acceptance of that resignation somehow being a separate question from the election that just took place.

Thank you. I was frustrated by the puzzles as well, but we'll have to leave them in place for now because the spammers have been very active lately.

A point of order would be appropriate "when a member thinks that the rules of the assembly are being violated" (RONR 12th ed. 23:1). In this case, that would be only if the chair has announced a result that a member thinks is improper. It is not appropriate to raise a point of order to resolve a theoretical question about the meaning of a particular bylaw provision.

Thank you. (I don't read every message on the forum, but I happened to read this one.)

That looks like what the host sees, not what an ordinary participant sees.

You quoted a rule about the public posting of an agenda, not about notice of a meeting.

Welcome to the official Robert's Rules of Order Message Board, also known as the RONR Question and Answer Forums, in which you may ask specific questions, or suggest answers to questions posted by others, about particular points of parliamentary procedure. If you have a question about parliamentary procedure, first check out the Frequently Asked Questions section at the main official Robert's Rules of Order website — you may get a quick, accurate answer. You may also find definitive answers to selected questions in Official Interpretations by the authors of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. We encourage you to register as a member and set up a profile to take advantage of all features of the site. However, you are free to read and write messages as a guest if you choose. To get started with posting your own question, please see the “IMPORTANT: Read this first” post pinned near the top of the General Discussion forum. If you are having any difficulties with using the Q & A Forums, feel free to start a new topic in this “Questions or Comments about the Message Board” forum, and we will try to help. Disclaimer: Questions posted to the Question and Answer Forums may get an immediate answer or no answer, depending upon whether visitors to the site choose to respond, but you generally will not know the background or reliability of the person answering it. Neither the Robert's Rules Association nor the authorship team assumes responsibility for answers that may be posted on the Question and Answer Forums, and there is no guarantee that these answers are correct as a matter of parliamentary law. The Question and Answer Forums are provided to allow an open exchange of views relevant to specific questions of parliamentary procedure under Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised. Neither the Robert's Rules Association nor the authorship team for Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised necessarily agrees with or endorses any statement posted on the forums. However, while no responsibility is assumed for anything posted, the Robert's Rules Association and the authorship team reserve the right to remove or otherwise edit, in whole or in part, scurrilous, libelous, obscene, or patently offensive messages and any postings deemed by them to be sufficiently irrelevant, erroneous, or misleading to warrant such action. They further reserve the right to discontinue or modify this forum at any time in the future, including by deleting older messages.

An agenda is typically necessary at a session that does not already have a prescribed order of business, and it specifies the order in which, and sometimes the time at which, business will be taken up. The adoption of an agenda does not *exclude* the introduction of other business. When the agenda has been gone through, any member can obtain the floor and move the introduction of new business -- although by that time the assembly is usually prepared to adjourn and will not take kindly to such motions.

It is beyond the scope of this forum to interpret whether this "approval" requires a vote at a meeting at which a quorum is present.

The PRP credential is issued by the National Association of Parliamentarians and has nothing to do with the ability to participate in this forum. If you want to solicit a professional opinion from a PRP, please contact the NAP (www.parliamentarians.org)

Obviously not a question of parliamentary procedure, but … You can open the chat window before anyone sends a message. Then you won't get the pop-up notification. If you don't want to see the messages at all, you can do either of these things: - Open the participants list as well, and then drag the divider to resize the chat portion of the window to be so small that no text is visible. (Don't use the "minimize" control, because that will cause the pop-up notifications to become active again.) - Pop out the chat window and drag the title bar until the chat message area is hanging invisibly off the bottom of the screen.

We don't know what the rules provide. It may be that no motion to consider is necessary, but the chair can assume a motion as in the situation where a member makes a motion that is outside the defined object of the society (10:26(2)).

Well, now you have.

Prepare a motion to adopt a specific rule a rule that reflects how you would like the room to be arranged. When the floor is open to new business, make your motion. If you think the issue needs to be addressed immediately, before other business, try raising a question of privilege for the purpose of offering the motion, as described in §19 of RONR.