Ask a Parliamentary Question

After a meeting is brought to order, and the roll has been taken, if a member is absent during roll call, and later arrives at the meeting, are they permitted to vote on any business?

At a recent meeting of a board on which I serve, an agenda item (a report by a member about their recent attendance at a conference ) was postponed until the next meeting due to the illness of the board reporting member. A motion was made (and approved) to postpone the report until the next meeting. My question: when the item appears on the agenda of the next meeting, is it new business, or is it unfinished business?

Hello, Thank you for taking time to read my post and possibly answer my questions. I am very new to Robert’s Rules and I am tying to fully understand the procedure for holding a trial under Robert’s Rules. If a member wanted to bring charges against another member they would have to submit it to the Executive Board. Would the Executive Board need to hold an investigation to validate the charges? If the Executive Board deemed that the charges indeed were valid, would they then need to present a report to the membership and their suggestion for proposed action? Hypothetically, a member brought their charges to the Executive Board at the regularly scheduled E-Board meeting (which occurs 1 hour before the general membership meeting) and the Executive Board said “Aight these charges are valid.” But then during the general membership meeting, they failed to report to the body their meeting minutes because “oh well we are still talking and are not ready to present our minutes.” They then proceeded to read the charges of the Accused and then notify the Accused of the date and time of their trial. Is this hypothetical situation a violation of Robert’s Rules? Is not giving the General membership a report of their proposed action and allowing the body to decide if a trial is acceptable, also a violation of Robert’s Rules? I hope this all makes sense. I’m sorry if my thoughts are not compiled in an organized manner. I have been thinking about this a lot and would love the input of a parliamentarian or anyone who is familiar with Robert’s Rules. Thank you so much for your time and assistance in this question.

At the end of the meeting of our denominational body, a motion is made and approved for the secretary to be able to “finalize” the minutes (can’t recall the actual wording). Does the range of rights normally given to the secretary include the right to substantively alter a motion approved by the assembly if the assembly itself did not vote to so alter the motion before adjournment until next year’s gathering?

I have a question about presidential succession. Under our bylaws, elections are held in March and the new Board takes office after the annual meeting in June. So there is a 2 month gap between the election and assuming office, which is usually used for training, etc. Susan is our president. Nancy is the president-elect. Mary has just been elected president-elect. Which means Mary would become President-elect in June, when Nancy became President. Nancy has resigned effective immediately as President-elect with 2 months left in her 12 month term. Our bylaws state : Director dies, resigns or is removed, they shall hold office until the expiration of their term and until their successor is elected and qualifies, whichever is later . If Mary is appointed by the Board to fill the remainder of Nancy’s term will Mary then become President in June, the way Nancy would have if she had not resigned? Or does Susan do an extra year as president until Mary has finished a full year as president-elect? And, btw- what does it mean to be “qualified”?