Ask a Parliamentary Question

Based on the premise that a household has only one vote, then each household is a single "member", so no, a member cannot second the member's own motion. But note this has little impact because frankly the second of the motion is not very important. It only means "yes I would like to talk about that also". Lack of a proper second is never a basis for undoing a vote. Once any debate or a vote occurs on a motion, the second is no longer relevant.

Robert's Rules of Order does provide a default definition of a quorum, which is a majority of the voting members. You can override Robert's Rules by putting an exception in your bylaws, or by adopting a Special Rule of Order. Both of these usually require a 2/3 vote. You could use either to set the quorum requirement for committees at whatever you want. You cannot change the quorum requirement with a simple majority vote. You cannot change the quorum requirement in the same motion as appointing or creating the committee (in the case of a special committee) unless approved by a 2/3 vote.

First we need to know if Robert's Rules of Order applies to your organization. Bylaws do not replace Robert's Rules but there should be something in the bylaws that recognize Robert's Rules as the "parliamentary authority". Where Robert's Rules conflict with the bylaws, the bylaws rules. If you need the correct language that should be in the bylaws for this, please email me at kirby@parliamentarian.com Under Robert's Rules you would have a secretary at each meeting who keeps minutes and distributes those to the members. Whether the minutes should be available to the members depends on who has the power in the organization. In some organizations, the board is the center of power, and in other the members are the center of power, and the board is accountable to the members. The easy solution in that case is for the members to amend the bylaws to require the board minutes to be sent out to the members. But you could also do this by passing a Standing Rule, which only requires a majority vote, directing the board to do so.

Yes it is. The only reason for a second to a motion is so we don't waste time discussing something that only one person wants to discuss. A second only means "I would like to discuss that". As soon as there is any debate, or if a vote is taken on the motion, there is no longer any need for a second. There are special rules for small boards or committees, less than a dozen people, where a second is never needed. Also in small boards or committees it is permitted, and even common, to have some discussion before a motion is made. But many groups mistakenly think that they can't make a motion until there is a consensus. Such groups tend to have aimless discussions and long meetings. You will find that the sooner you get to a motion, the sooner you can focus the discussion and come to a decision. In large meetings, over 12, you never have any discussion without having a motion first.

Unless your President is granted some special powers by your bylaws, it is the Chair of meeting who would have the power to rule a motion out of order, and in this case the duly elected 2nd VP was the chair, and as such, had full and complete authority in that role. In terms of the comment about a motion that "reduces this Presidential authority", that may be in fact out of order if it contradicts the bylaws. A motion that is passed in contravention of the bylaws can be ruled out of order even at a later meeting. If the members are indeed trying to pass a motion affecting the President's duties (while he is not there) that may, or may not, be out of order. I would have to see your bylaws and the exact wording of the motion in order to fully answer your question. You can send to kirby@parliamentarian.com Finally, it is the body, not the chair, that has the final decision on what is, or isn't, out of order.