Shmuel Gerber

I think the chances are slim to none that Hannes's bylaws say you disagree with Mr. Mervosh. 🙂

Yes. Anyone who has acquired the paperback, hardcover, or deluxe edition can do so. 🙂

That's a barnstormer of a question.

Yes, they are supposed to be numbered. There is something about the way it's displayed on mobile devices that makes the numbers invisible. For now, to see the numbers please browse the desktop version of the site. Or buy RONR In Brief. 🙂

I thank you for catching all the mistakes you've found so far, plus you get two attaboys and exclamation point!

Either it was a temporary problem, or the size of the browser window might have changed a bit. In any event, I added the strikeout button to all screen sizes now, so hopefully it will work at all times.

OK, I'll see what I can do about that. Thanks for reporting the problem.

The options available depend on the screen size. Are you using the same browser and device to create and to edit?

I don't think this makes any difference. If the regular meetings are held monthly, and notice is given at the January meeting that a certain motion would will be moved at the next meeting, that means the February meeting. It doesn't mean "the February meeting or whatever meeting we happen to hold next". And that would certainly be the case if the wording of the notice specifically mentioned "the February meeting".

41:46 Relation of Orders of the Day to the Established Order of Business. In assemblies that follow the “standard” order of business explained above, orders of the day for a given session, day, or meeting that are not set for particular hours are taken up under the headings of Special Orders and Unfinished Business and General Orders (see 41:18–26). In cases where an ordinary society has adopted its own order of business for regular meetings, it usually includes similar headings covering such orders of the day. Where an organization’s order of business does not provide such headings, special orders not set for particular hours are taken up before unfinished business and general orders, or (if there are neither of these), at all events before new business. Under the same conditions, general orders are taken up after any unfinished business (that is, business pending at the adjournment of the previous meeting, if any, and orders of the day not disposed of at the time of its adjournment), and before new business unless a later hour is specified (see below).

Someone already did jump to point that out, but I don't think anyone else will. 🙂

I don't think so. Meeting 2 is the next meeting after meeting 1; or, if you prefer, meeting 2 is the meeting which meeting 1 is the preceding meeting of.

Even if the amendments deal with different subjects, they can be offered in one motion if no member objects. Once introduced as a package, it would be appropriate for them to be considered seriatim, meaning that they are open to debate and amendment one at a time, in sequence, but only one final vote is taken on adopting the entire series. If any member suspects that some of the amendments would fail but others would pass if voted on separately, the member should demand separate votes at the outset, before the chair announces that the amendments will be considered seriatim.

But the term "regular meeting" generally refers to the entire session.

Indeed, you've found several typos in the index. Thanks! Actually the entry for "reports: auditors" contains a short dash followed by a hyphen. 🙂

Presumably the report either would be considered a report from a special committee or it would be received as new business, so the question is then are there any reports from boards and other committees, and are there any special orders or unfinished business? If there is no business in those other categories, then the question would appear moot (unless there is objection to receiving the report at this meeting at all).

Quoted from https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=16823802252198695200 : … The Board consists of nine members. The order challenged herein was the result of a vote of three in favor of the determination and three dissenting therefrom, with one member absent and two abstaining. The three who voted for the order consisted of two representatives of the real estate industry and CAB's 852*852 impartial chairman. The three who opposed the order were all tenant representatives. However, pursuant to CAB's rules and practices only two of their votes were counted. Therefore, the order was issued by a vote of 3-2. This procedure offends the law for a number of reasons. CAB is a public body, set up by statute, and is governed by General Construction Law § 41. Said section sets certain guidelines concerning the number of members of a public body whose presence and/or participation is required to make legally effective the action taken by that body. It states, in pertinent part "Whenever * * * three or more persons are charged with any public duty to be performed or exercised by them jointly or as a board or similar body, a majority of the whole number of such persons * * * shall constitute a quorum and not less than a majority of the whole number may perform and exercise such power, authority or duty" (emphasis added). The "whole number" is the total number of members with no vacancies or disqualifications. While the language used is not entirely clear as to whether a majority of the whole number must vote affirmatively or whether a majority of the whole number must merely participate in the voting regardless of their actual vote, the ambiguity has been eliminated by the courts. The statute requires that a majority of the Board's total membership vote in favor of the action to be taken. (See, Matter of Town of Smithtown v Howell, 31 N.Y.2d 365; Matter of Whitman Game Room v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, 54 AD2d 764; Matter of Squicciarini v Planning Bd., 48 AD2d 687, affd 38 N.Y.2d 958; Rockland Woods v Incorporated Vil. of Suffern, 40 AD2d 385; Matter of Temporary State Charter Revision Commn. v Board of Elections, 83 Misc 2d 1029, affd 49 AD2d 845, affd 37 N.Y.2d 859.) In the instant case, the fact that only six members participated did not invalidate the procedure since only participation of five, a majority of the total, was required for a quorum. (Rockland Woods v Incorporated Vil. of Suffern, supra, at pp 386-387; see also, Matter of Whitman Game Room v Zoning Bd. of Appeals, supra; Matter of Temporary State Charter Revision Commn. v Board of Elections, supra, at p 1031.) However, the Board's determination was ineffective since less than a majority of all the members voted in support of it. In other words, support of a majority of the total membership (5 out of 9) not merely a majority of those who voted was required. The actual member of affirmative votes was three. …

Absent additional language in your Charter or Village code, in my opinion, General Construction Law Section 41 controls, requiring at least three yes votes for your Board of Trustees to take action. I would note that the title of this section is "Quorum and majority", and in New York the courts, the attorney general, and the Committee on Open Government have all promulgated Mr. Brown's interpretation. I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly confident that that is the current state of the law. I'll quote from one opinion (in my next post), because I think it's interesting in that it acknowledges the ambiguity but also exhibits the same type of general looseness or confusion of terms often found in court opinions related to parliamentary procedure.

Thank you. I've reported the problem to the forum company's tech support.

The biggest problem I can think of with using the word "shall" in the bylaws happens when they say something like "The president shall be a voting member of the society." This is totally ambiguous as to whether membership is being conferred on the president or is a prerequisite for the office.

Okay, I'll try again. If the member could nominate someone else, and if someone else could nominate him, then he can nominate himself.

That is assuming that the president is a member of the group of people who are generally eligible to make nominations for president. (This would normally be the members who are eligible to vote in the election.)

Where are you in the pecking order? 🙂 I don't know what the first 30 or so words of the quoted text (up to the last comma) mean, but I would say that the last part means that the Council, or at least any decision-making, is governed by Robert's Rules of Order. And that means that decisions of the Council must be made at in-person meetings, by the members actually present at those meetings, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise.

I don't see these situations as the same at all. The minutes of a meeting are obviously available *only* after the meeting, not during the meeting.

Actually, this question is discussed in RONR (12th ed.) 56:68(8).