Shmuel Gerber

Public speaking by non-board members is not governed by the ordinary rules of debate. Often the rules are stricter. Regardless, this is a judgement call for the chair and members of the board.

Although there is no specific rule in RONR against bringing the same charges twice, it does say this: "63:5 A member or officer has the right that allegations against his good name shall not be made except by charges brought on reasonable ground. If thus accused, he has the right to due process—that is, to be informed of the charge and given time to prepare his defense, to appear and defend himself, and to be fairly treated." And "if the charges are not substantiated, the officer or member is exonerated and any authority, rights, duties, and privileges of office or membership that had been suspended are automatically restored." (63:30) I think it is reasonable to assume in most cases that it would be unfair, and a violation of due process, to prefer charges again and hold another trial at a later time for the same offense. But if (very) good cause can be shown, then it's possible that another investigation and trial might be justified. For example, if criminal proceedings were brought and the member was found guilty in a court of law, I don't think the society would be required to keep him as a member simply because its own investigation and trial were insufficient to prove guilt.

It seems clear from your description that the debate that happened at the meeting is independent of the question being presented by ballot. I would not describe this at all as "only the voting process is being delayed." However, I don't think any of that is relevant. Your bylaws say that they can be amended by a mail vote by the membership. If one or more members think that this is not in accord with the law, let them show you the exact law that they think prevents it, or at least some reasonable evidence of the existence of such a law as it pertains to a vote of the membership in your particular type of organization, and then the organization can make some judgment as to whether it is applicable and means what they claim it means.

What do you mean by "Chair starts debate"?

There's nothing wrong with a member's reading his motion from papers. In fact it is recommended.

😁

I'm not particularly fond of this formulation, although it conveys the correct idea in practice. I think what it really means is something like "For example (assuming that there are no voters having fractions of a vote…) … If 19 votes are cast, 10 is a majority (more than 9½), as are 11 through 19, but 0 through 9 are not." But I'm not saying you should expect to see such wording in the 13th edition. 🙂

Atul, can you be sarcastic?

I doubt that this provision relates to amendments adopted by the board. We are not here to interpret statutes, but I get the sense that this issue has been raised in the past and that we are continually retreading the same ground.

So far, all we know is that the quorum requirement is "more than 2/3 attendees". That's not exactly a lot to go on. I guess we also need to know whether or not in this board "fractional persons" exist. 🙂 This logic is almost unassailable, yet everyone here (including me) seems to think it is probably wrong in this case.

9:6 "Each regular meeting normally completes a separate session, as explained in 8:4 (see Adjourned Meeting, 9:17–19 below, however). Some societies have frequent meetings for social or cultural purposes at which business may be transacted, and also hold a session every month or quarter especially for business. In such societies, the term regular meeting applies particularly to the regular business session."

Yes, I misread that part. So for purposes of this election, is this person, in fact, a "voting member?" That's an interesting question. I don't see why it would be unfair to allow such delegates to vote in the election, unless the votes are secret and there is some concern that the delegate will disregard the instructions from the members. Another approach is to provide for alternates at the convention, which is a typical bylaw provision anyway. Such a provision could also include the possibility of the delegate reclaiming his seat from the alternate some time after having excused himself from acting as a delegate (which he could do after the election is conducted).

Your bylaws take precedence over RONR. So, what would be more correct is to go according to the existing bylaws, unless and until the relevant provisions are amended to say something else. A quorum depends on the number of voting members present. I don't think the fact that, in a particular scenario under your bylaws, a certain member is restricted in casting a vote for himself, would prevent him from being counted toward the quorum.

That depends on what the bylaws say regarding amendments.

Yes. I'm asking you to explain why the book says what it says. 🙂

How does this first point affect a rule of parliamentary procedure?

The bylaws in question do not require previous notice and require a 2/3 vote to amend. In the 7th and 8th editions of RONR, this paragraph began with "No amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or rule to be amended." In the 9th edition, this became "Unless the bylaws permit their amendment without previous notice (which they should not do), no amendment is in order that increases the modification of the article or rule to be amended." That was clearly an improvement over the previous editions, but it didn't directly address the possibility of considering a bylaw amendment under the default rules in RONR when no notice is required but notice was given, in which case the ability to adopt amendments to the pending bylaw amendment that goes outside the scope of the notice depends on whether a majority of the entire membership is present. In the 10th edition, the text was changed to what it still currently says in the 12th edition. I agree that it can cause confusion, and so can what is said in 35:4.

A motion should be made and adopted to appoint a committee to revise the bylaws. When the committee is done with its work, the secretary of the organization should include notice of the proposed revision with the call of the meeting at which it is expected that the revision will be considered. At the meeting, the committee chair would move "to amend the bylaws by substituting for the existing bylaws the committee's proposed revision as given with the notice of this meeting."

If the governing documents give alternates that right (even when not acting as voting members), then yes. Otherwise, no.

Robert's Rules also says that financial assessments cannot be imposed on members except as provided in the bylaws.

Yes, in that case the alternate is essentially a guest and would have only such rights as are granted in the bylaws or equivalent governing document.

Questions regarding the application of a statute should be directed to legal counsel. As far as Robert's Rules is concerned, non-board members do not have any rights with respect to notice of or participation in meetings of the board or its committees.

It goes into effect the moment the chair declares that it has been adopted.

It seems inappropriate to me to specifically allow the member with a conflict of interest to preside. "47:10 Whenever a motion is made that refers only to the presiding officer in a capacity not shared in common with other members, or that commends or censures him with others, he should turn the chair over to the vice-president or appropriate temporary occupant (see below) during the assembly’s consideration of that motion, just as he would in a case where he wishes to take part in debate (see also 43:29–30). The chair, however, should not hesitate to put the question on a motion to elect officers or appoint delegates or a committee even if he is included."

Somebody was way ahead of me on this one. https://legalkeyboards.com/products/legalboard