alanh49

Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply. I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply. Well, no because we don't know why the OP thought the amendment was out of order and there are cases in which the timeliest rule would not apply. I was thinking of those cases in which it did apply.

But, if you need a majority of the members present to adopt the motion an abstention will have the same effect as voting no

IMO the chair was correct, and the point of order was untimely, but I also think that the appeal was debatable. However, any debate should have been limited to whether or not the point of order was timely and if the chair is overruled the chair would then have needed to rule on the original point of order.

I'm sorry but if that is the purpose of giving notice and I always thought it was how does postponing a motion to the next meeting not also give interested members time to ensure their attendance and prepare their arguments. It seems to me that postponing a motion to the next meeting is tantamount to giving notice that it will be considered at the next meeting.

What you the voters are told that while they may vote for up to 3 nominees they should not vote for the person they want to see file the short term. If the one in 3rd place still has a majority, he is elected, and if he does not have a majority you hold a run-off election in which he is the sole nominee. In which case, the rules in question do not require a vote by ballot.

But, what what about the words Saying something is seldom done is not the same as saying it can't be done and in this case you are voting on names. I would vote to overrule the chair.

I think that they should be recorded in the minutes because if you don't it could make it look like the main motion was adopted before it really was.

The committee is proper but, I know of nothing in Robert's that would keep the membership from creating its own committee on the subject of revising the bylaws or from rescinding the motion that created the Board's committee

But, in this case doesn't the section in question expire after December 31, 2014 and once it has: 1. is it still apart of the bylaws? and 2. can a rule that has expired be amended or rescinded?

I haven't been to a meeting at which someone moved that the secretary casting the ballot since the 1960's maybe early 70's and while said motion was always adopted the secretary never did cast a ballot or say that he was doing so.

I'm I correct in think that's true no matter when the second meeting of the session is held as long as it's before regular session?

Just moving and seconding the previous question will prevent all amendments well it is pending. If lost, amendments would again be in order.

Do you really need one? How do you make a vote unanimous by anything but a unanimous vote?