Ask a Parliamentary Question

If a motion is made which violates Robert's Rules of order (not just because the chair does not like the motion) the chair can rule the motion as "out of order" and no debate is required.. Any member can then, without waiting to be recognized, state "I appeal the ruling of the chair". If this is seconded, then a debate is required and the debate is about is the motion in order or out of order according to the rules. Then there is a vote by the body on the question if the ruling of the chair is sustained or not. At your next meeting there are two things you want to do. First when the minutes of the prior meeting are ready to be approved you would state "I have a correction to the minutes. The chair ruled that the motion of _____ was out of order and the reason for the chairs ruling should be stated in the minutes". The purpose of this is to get the chair on record as to why the motion is out of order - maybe it is for a legitimate reason. The next thing you do is at the appropriate place in the meeting you make the same motion again (whatever was the original motion that created the problem). Then if the chair rules it out of order again, then you use the "appeal" process described above. Lastly it seemed you were trying to say that the chair quickly adjourned the meeting last time. The chair does not have authority to adjourn the meeting against the will of the body. If the chair tries to say "the meeting is adjourned" without valid authority then anyone can say "point of order the chair cannot adjourn the meeting without a vote, where there is a pending motion".

There is no rule in parliamentary law that prevents this, so long as the person is not accounting for their own expense authorizations. So you would look at the bylaws for any rule prohibiting this. If you have a more specific question you can write me at kirby@cerenimbus.com

First, there is no contradiction. Grok is not Robert's Rules. Wikipedia is not Robert's Rules. These are only summaries of people's comments about Robert's Rules from the internet, which is full of garbage posted by ignorant people. There is no need to explain differences between the actual rules and internet garbage. Second, as often happens with AI, you are not getting and answer to the question you asked, you are getting an answer about a different question. Your question is about a quorum for a CONVENTION. The AI answer is about a regular meeting of an organization, where the quorum is indeed a majority of the membership. But a quorum for a CONVENTION is a majority of the delegates who showed up. Here is the actual rule. From RONR (12th ed.) 3:4 In the meetings of a convention, unless the bylaws of the organization provide otherwise, the quorum is a majority of the delegates who have been registered at the convention as in attendance, . . . Parliamentarian beats AI every time.

The question in nonsensical because you don't make a motion and THEN put it on the agenda. If you want to adopt an agenda you put the topic on the agenda and then when the item comes up you make the motion. Adopting an agenda is not required for regular meetings and generally is a time waste of time. This podcast explains why: https://creators.spotify.com/pod/profile/parliamentarian/episodes/Why-you-dont-adopt-an-agenda-under-Roberts-Rules-e2e0o86 Just wait until New Business, get recognized, then make your motion.

There is no vacancy in the VP position now, unless you resign now. If you are elected at the meeting the VP Vacancy will occur at that meeting, which I assume would be after the first year of the term, and the President can appoint.