Shmuel Gerber

Membership status is determined by the rules in the bylaws of the association. Being delinquent in dues does not necessarily result in removal from membership, but it very well might, depending on what the bylaws say. I doubt that the lack of such registration has any effect on whether bylaws are effective, but that sounds like a legal question, which we don't deal with on this Forum.

The term "governing document" does not appear in RONR (except in the index). But in general, the charter of an organization chartered by the government supersedes all of the organization's other rules. RONR (12th ed.) 2:7 A quick Google search also came up with this, which you may find helpful.

This (i.e., in response to Mr. Elsman's question) is all very interesting, but I don't see how it comports with what is said in RONR (12th ed.) 37:30–31, read together with 12:11, 12:51, 12:70, and 37:19: 37:30 "… If it is desired to reconsider the vote on a subsidiary or incidental motion (an amendment, for example) after the main question to which it adhered has been finally disposed of … the vote on the main question … must also be reconsidered … In such a case, one motion to Reconsider should be made to cover both the vote on the subsidiary or incidental motion whose reconsideration is desired, and the vote on the main question … 37:31 "The same principle applies to the reconsideration of a secondary amendment after the related primary amendment has been voted on. If such a reconsideration is desired while the main question is still pending, the primary amendment must also be reconsidered. If it is desired to reconsider the secondary amendment after the main question has been finally disposed of, the secondary amendment, the primary amendment, and the main question must all be reconsidered, and one motion to Reconsider should be made covering the votes of these three motions." A motion to strike out and insert words in the original resolution, made when a motion to substitute is pending, is clearly a secondary amendment, not a primary amendment — despite the facts that it proposes a change in the paragraph to be struck out rather than in the paragraph to be inserted, and that the changes made by secondary amendment remain in the resolution if the substitute is voted down. It seems to me that the proper course, when possible, is to just do things as the book says, i.e. to make a motion to Reconsider that will put things back the way they were immediately before the relevant vote was taken. Similarly, I would say that if the motion to substitute had been adopted, and a member wants to reconsider the vote (in 12:85–86) that added the words "within sixty days" to the substitute, it would be necessary to move a reconsideration of both the vote to adopt the substitute and the vote to add the words "within sixty days" (and also the vote on the main motion, if it is no longer pending). A member could not move to reconsider only the vote on adding the words "within sixty days" (and on the main motion) simply because those words now appear in the resolution as amended by the motion to substitute.

Thank you for the report; I've put in a request to technical support for Invision Community Services. In the meantime, you may be able to bypass the problem on your end by doing something like what is shown on this page: https://www.danami.com/clients/knowledgebase/112/How-can-I-disable-Amavis-bad-header-tests.html?language=english

One more time.

Testing this for myself.

Man, that footnote to 37:19 keeps getting longer and longer. 🙂 But I'm not sure I agree. In this scenario, the "risk" that Mr. Elsman wishes to avoid is that of accounting for the preferences of other factions within the assembly. There may be members who are adamantly opposed to the original form of the main motion but would be agreeable to either the amended form or the proposed substitute. If the question is reconsidered, they ought to have the opportunity, as well, of reconsidering the vote by which the substitute was rejected. Although I suppose the next thing we'll learn is that this is not a problem, because a member can simply move to reconsider the vote on the motion to substitute, as if no secondary amendment had been previously adopted at the time of the original vote, immediately after the new vote is taken on the secondary amendment that was reconsidered as though it was adopted when no primary amendment was pending. 🙂

Here is one possibility. Move to adopt A. Discuss and take the vote on A. If A gets adopted, move to adopt B. While B is pending, move to substitute C for B. Discuss the relative merits of C vs B and take the vote on making the substitution. Then vote on the main motion (which will be either B or C). If A gets rejected, move to adopt D. While D is pending, move to substitute E for D. Discuss the relative merits of E vs D and take the vote on making the substitution. Then vote on the main motion (which will be either D or E).

Changing "no less than 10%" to "no fewer than 10%" is a highly controversial proposal, in my opinion. 🙂

Here is a report from a TV station that had cameras at the meeting, and here is a write-up from National Review.

Indeed, RONR does not say anything that would give the right to an impromptu public gathering in the lobby at the announced location of a public school-board meeting to elect new board members. Yet the person leading the "meeting" can be heard on the video claiming several times that Robert's Rules of Order gave the assemblage the power to do that. And I don't think there is actually any legitimate dispute as to the validity of that "election," which seemed to me more in the nature of a protest.

Note: The post that was recently added to this topic has been moved here.

If there is a valid method of "dissolving" the board, then the board's failure to call a scheduled meeting to order might be cited as the rationale for doing so. However, if you are referring to the incident discussed and shown from the viewpoint at https://knst.iheart.com/featured/garret-lewis/content/2021-04-27-vail-school-board-flees-parents-elect-new-board-vote-to-end-mask-mandate/ then you should know that there is nothing in Robert's Rules of Order to suggest that a new board was validly elected. That episode was quite ludicrous from a procedural perspective.

That's exactly it.

Well, it worked out for one of the banks; not so much for the other. 🙂

[Note: I've moved this topic to the Advanced Discussion forum.] I, of course, agree with Mr. Honemann. It leads to a related question. What vote would be required for the assembly to direct the executive board to follow a similar rule? Or, to generalize, what vote is required for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself (for example, requiring the board to include the names of seconders in its minutes or to lower the threshold to require a ballot vote, without changing the rule for membership meetings)? This is an interesting question. The new rule in the 12th edition alluded to here regarding instructions to committees (13:8(d)) states, "The motion to Commit requires a majority vote for its adoption even when it contains instructions that suspend, modify, or conflict with rules of order that would otherwise apply to meetings of the committee. (See 9:35 regarding the adoption of instructions authorizing a committee to hold electronic meetings.)" And RONR also states (12th ed., 49:7), "[N]o action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly of the society, and any such action of the board is null and void (see 56:41 and 23:9). Except in matters placed by the bylaws exclusively under the control of the board, the society’s assembly can give the board instructions which it must carry out, and can rescind or amend any action of the board if it is not too late (see 35)." So I would be inclined to think (although I am open to hearing the counterarguments) that the same principle applies with respect to a subordinate board, and that for the assembly to set a special rule for the board that does not apply to the assembly itself requires only a majority vote (or the vote to Amend Something Previously Adopted, if applicable). In other words, from the society's perspective, rules of order imposed on its board would be at the level of standing rules of the society.

I did just briefly encounter the problem myself, but after clearing my browser as well as a cache on the forumflash site, it seems to have gone back to normal, at least for now.

I did change the message at the bottom of the screen (in the copyright line) but I don't see any problem with the layout. Have you tried clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page? Is anyone else having this problem?

Which website? The forum site, or robertsrules.com?

It seems highly improbable to me that this is what the provision was understood to mean when it was put into the bylaws, and I think it would be ruled out by RONR principle of interpretation #6 in 56:68.

I don't see the point of guessing about all these things without knowing what the bylaws actually say, but according to this part of the question it doesn't seem to matter whether 4 years is one term or two.

A society is allowed to take action outside of its defined object if permission to do so is granted by a two-thirds vote, but I don't see what that has to do with the present discussion. We were talking about the basis for the chair's ruling that a motion is dilatory or frivolous, and that the chair's determination on that question should be objective and not based on whether the chair believes the proposal is wise or foolish.

Well, you said that the purpose was to test the fire department's response time, which on the face of it seems like an actual proposal and not something totally frivolous.

This is not quite correct according to RONR; see 41:2.

The terms overlap. 1) If no agenda is proposed for adoption (or if a proposed agenda is rejected), then the session has only the order of business, if any, that is prescribed for that type of session in the parliamentary authority (such as RONR's "standard order of business"), special order of business, or bylaws of the organization. If none is prescribed, then there is no binding order of business: "If the assembly has no binding order of business, any member who obtains the floor … can introduce any legitimate matter he desires (within the objects of the organization as defined in its bylaws) at any time when no business is before the assembly for consideration." (See 3:16–3:20 and 41:6.) 2) "In cases in which an agenda is adopted, usually this is done at the outset of a session and the agenda is intended to cover the entire session" (41:61). In this case, the agenda becomes the order of business for that session. (See also 41:2.) 3) "At a session having no prescribed or adopted order of business, such an agenda is followed as a guide by the chair pending its formal adoption." (41:61)