Weldon Merritt

Agreeing with Dr. Kapur, I will add that if the correction is likely to be noncontroversial, you may be able to use general consent. ("Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the minutes of the [date] meeting be corrected by [state the proposed correction].") But if anyone objects, then you will have to use the full process as described by Dr. Kapur.

I don't see any way you could include the IPP position on the board without risking the negative consequences that most of us here routinely warn against. I have seen organization's that include the position and have not yet experienced any of the potential negative consequences. But the fact that they have not does not mean that they will not. Just in case you have not seen a full list of the potential problems, following is a list compiled by the late Dr. John Stackpole, who was a frequent contributor to this forum: If those arguments don't convince the others, then good luck. Just hope none of those eventualities occur.

Yes, of course. Sometimes we overlook the simplest answer. But technically, isn't that still adoption, by unanimous consent, of the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted?

OK, OK; I get it. I think you've milked that one for all it's worth. Darn spell check!

The minutes should be as accurate as possible, and if I were the person whose name was misspelled, I wood would want it corrected. But how to do it depends on where you are in the process. Three scenarios: 1. If the draft minutes have not yet been presented for approval, and you are the secretary simply make the correction before presenting them. 2. If it's the next meeting and approval of the minutes is at hand, you (or any member) may propose the correction, which I assume would be non-controversial. 3. If the minutes have already been approved, they still can be corrected by means of a Motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. That's a bit more complicated, and I don't want to go into the details unless that's you situation. If it is, let us know and we can provide more guidance.

Agreeing with Mr. Mervosh, I will add that most likely, there should have been no nominations for president in teh first place. Rather, the vice president became president immediately, and teh nomination should have been t fill the vacated office of VP. The only exceptions to that procedure are: (1) if your bylaws specifically say that a vacancy in the office of president is filled by elections or some process other than automatic succession by the VP; or (2) at the time of the vacancy, you had no vice president.

Actually, there is another way if the candidates agree. The tie could[d be broken by an agreed upon random method (e.g., coin flip or card draw.) But again, the candidates would have to agree.

And the reason for that is that special meetings cannot be called at all unless your bylaws authorize them. And if they are authorized, the bylaws will need to specify who may call them and with how many days' notice. (Three is one exception where a special meeting may be called even if the bylaws are silent. But that involves disciplinary proceedings, so is unlikely to be applicable to your situation.)

A motion is effective the moment it is adopted, unless the motion itself or some applicable procedural rue says otherwise. Approval or non-approval of the minuities has no bearing on the validity or effecti9e date of the motion.

Indeed! And that's one of the arguments I made that (I think) helped persuade them to ditch the rule.

I was once a member of an organization whose bylaws required the NC to nominate two candidates for each office. A very bad idea IMO, and one that I eventually was able to convince them to eliminate. There was once member in particular who saw the proposed change as an attempt to "limit their choices." Fortunately, most of the group did not buy her argument.

If there indeed was unanimous consent (the chair asked if there was any objection and no one voiced and objection), the action was just as binding as if it had received an actual vote. And its inclusion in the minutes was proper. As they should have been. But that has no bearing either way on the validity of the action. The action was valid the moment the chair asked for and received unanimous consent, regardless of whether the minutes included it. And if it did not receive unanimous consent, the fact that it was (improperly) included in the minutes does not validate it.

Not necessarily. It looks to me more like a misuse of "table" when they really meant "postpone." Especially when they included a specified time (even though the time was far beyond the period for which a motion could be legitimately postponed).

First of all, 13:1 says that Commit "is generally used to send a pending question to a relatively small group of selected persons—a committee—so that the question may be carefully investigated and put into better condition for the assembly to consider." (Emphasis added. It does nit say that the motion can be used only for that purpose. But even if 13:1 is interpreted that way, who says that delaying it for a year was the sole purpose? Guest Mike_L said that "more information was needed." Seems to me like a perfectly good reason to use Commit.

Depending on the results of the election when it is held, they may be out of office anyway. Or, depending in the wording of the term of office, they may already be out pending possible reelection. But otherwise, removing them certainly would send a strong message to future board members. Whether that is the most appropriate action is for the assembly to decide.

Even if there is nothing explicit about nominations, it seems to me that you need to have them anyway. Otherwise, how do you know what candidates to vote for? Technically, nominations are nit necessary, as members could simply write in the names of those hey would like to have as officers. But that is likely to lead to a protracted election process. Without nominations to narrow the field, it is less likely that anyone would achieve a majority without multiple rounds of voting.

But apparently it was "placed before the board," and the December meeting was not held. So the answer to the specific question is that the nominations and election should, indeed, be held at the January meting. I agree. But that is a separate issue from what to do about the elections that should have been held in December.

If you want a different threshold for a particular class of motions that what RONR provides for that class, then yes, you would need to adopt a special rule of order. But note that there are already a number of motions for which RONR already requires a two-thirds vote. And you might want to carefully consider whether you really want a higher threshold than a majority for any other motions. Remember that majority role is the "gold standard" for democratic decision making. When you require a higher threshold, that allows a minority to block action that a majority favors.

Unless your bylaws say otherwise (which I assume they do not), you count people, not positions.

I have never denied that RONR says what it says or that it means what it says (at least not once the specific language was pointed out). But I do think there is an inconsistency in the handling of an unseconded motion and a withdrawn motion. And II have yet to see a more convincing reason for the rule than "because it's what the book says." Nevertheless, whenever I am confronted with the issue, I will continue to advise what the rule is, regardless of my personal view. And if asked, I will also advise how to adopt a special rule of order to vary from the rule.

But 49:7 says that, "I no action of the board can alter or conflict with any decision made by the assembly." (Emphasis added.) I suppose the lack of a second could be construed as a decision to not approve the motion. But if so, then why is withdrawal of a motion also not equivalent to a decision to not approve it? It is the seeming inconsistency between the two rules that is particularly puzzling to me.

I, too, think that the text could be more clear, but I (reluctantly) have to agree with the OI. Nevertheless, I have trouble understanding the logic of including a motion that was never before the assembly at all berceuse it was not seconded, but excluding a motion that was before the assembly but was withdrawn.

I have long though that that's the way it should be. But Official Interpretation 2006-7 says that it is recorded.

They can "control" the other officers only of the other officers allow them to do so. But to answer your questions, take a look at FAQ #20. (You may need to scroll down to find it.)

That's the way I read it, too. But it's still too late to raise a Point of Order. The result of the vote on the MM stands.