jstackpo

And I agree with what he wrote (faster than I did.)

All seems cleared up, I presume.  Go thou and sin no more.

And get a copy of

RONRIB:

"Roberts Rules of Order Newly Revised In Brief", Updated Second Edition (Da Capo Press, Perseus Books Group, 2011). It is a splendid summary of all the rules you will ever need in all but the most exceptional situations. And only $7.50! You can read it in an evening. Get both RONRIB and RONR (scroll down) at this link:

http://www.robertsrules.com/inbrief.html

Or in your local bookstore.

And give it to your chairman as a Thanksgiving gift so he can read page 58ff.

25 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

If I understand correctly, after the Motion to Reconsider passed, another vote should have been taken immediately on the Motion to Amend the Proposal to 21 members again since that was the motion that was Reconsidered.

Picking at pieces of your understanding...

Yes you are (almost) correct as to what should happen when reconsider was adopted, BUT there is supposed to be a renewed opportunity to debate the reconsidered motion - in your case the change 15 to 21 amendment.  It didn't happen, I suppose but no harm -- if somebody had something to say they colud have insisted (or raised a point of order).

29 minutes ago, Guest A Brown said:

But instead, the chair stated we would resume debate on the original proposal of 15 members.

Yes, that is where you went off the rails.  But... done is done (and I see R. Brown has been busy typing his reply as I type the, so I'll see what he has to say.

20 minutes ago, Transpower said:

The assembly could go into a "committee of the whole."  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 531-538.  Another option is to go into a "quasi-committee of the whole."  RONR (11th ed.), pp. 538-542/

I'm not so sure about either of these options.  As I read p. 168, it looks like there is supposed to be a (main) motion pending which is the subject of the referral.  I don't see that the OP suggested there was a (reasonably) explicit proposal to be referred.  I suppose you could treat the motion to commit as an incidental (or just plain) main motion, but that still requires at least a stated topic to be referred.

A possible way to the OP's desires is to bring the (very) general subject up under "Good of the Order", as described on p. 362.

6 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

However, until that day arrives we must live with what I consider, this [a point of order raised too late] less than appealing result.

But consider the alternative:  If a chair misstated the outcome of a presidential election (whether out of bad arithmetic, lack of parliamentary knowledge, invidious intent, or whatever), and a continuing breach was thus established, and a point of order was raised (and sustained) months or years later, this could call into question all the "official" acts of that president, like signing contracts, authorizing payments, &c.    Lawsuit city, here we come!!!

A couple of points that may (or may not!) help...

Primary:  do your bylaws DEFINE what you mean as an "acting president".  If not the person the board appointed to fill the position IS the president, although only until the next AGM.  So if he/she doesn't run or isn't re-elected, he will become the THE immediate past president, displacing your previous one (until another one comes along, of course) .

Second:  Your "appoint / elect" distinction is a bit of an apples and kumquats comparison.  The authority to appoint someone to a vacancy (or other position) just means that the appointing authority exists and can do it. (The authorization is usually found in the bylaws.)  An election is one (of many) ways of selecting who shall be (eventually) appointed.  Other means of selection could be drawing lots, divine intervention (I suppose), trial by immersion, taking the first volunteer, seniority, &c.  (The means of selection, if other that election, should probably be in your bylaws, too.)

Or disband the organization.

Actually...  RONR does not have ANY requirement for an actual reading (out loud, at a meeting, I presume you mean) of bylaw amendments prior to consideration other than stating the motion to amend.  A notice (which is carefully defined in the book) is required. 

No.  The vacancy is in the specific position just vacated.

8 hours ago, Guest LV Girl said:

Section IV -    Committees and Board of Directors,

Article 1 states "the President may appoint the following committees and /or such other committees as may be deemed necessary".  then it goes on to explain each committee duties. 

*****I understand this to be that the President has authority to appoint committees and committee chairman only.

I too agree if we are careful about the meaning of "appoint".  Appointing a committee means to name people to serve on a committee, NOT to establish a committee (out of thin air or anywhere else -- see page 496, line 29ff.). The committee has to have been previously established, presumably, in your case, by the description of the committee duties later on in the bylaws.

But...  this raises the question:  who, or what body, does the "deem[ing] necessary" as stated in the quoted Article 1 bylaw snippet?  If the bylaws don't say then it is up to the general membership to establish committees either by adopting bylaws describing them, or by adopting the parliamentary motion "To Commit or Refer", page 168.

In general "what happens" is that a member, at a meeting, raises a point of order related to the problem and steps are then taken (with luck!) to set things right. But it is up to a member to initiate matters via a point of order.  Just grumbling won't do it.

As for the specific problem about absentee ballots, we could use a bit more information:  are such ballots authorized in the bylaws; how are they "supposed" to be collected; what did (or didn't) happen?

Executive Session minutes should contain the same sort of material as in non-secret meeting minutes:  not very much.  The good catch-phrase is to include "What was done, not what was said"   See page 468ff. for details.

17 minutes ago, Joshua Katz said:

When is the next meeting?

You planning on going?    Might be fun!  

(Remember today is Saturday so serious responses are not mandatory.)

Since it would be best (and a "teaching opportunity") to treat the "table" motion as actually a motion to postpone (which it was), the chair should bring up the motion as a "General Order" -- see page 26 (and 358) in RONR for where General Orders fit in the standard order of business.

Hint:  Right after Committee Reports and before "New Business"  (unless there are Special Orders around too, but let us not get into that quagmire here).

Unless the use of proxy votes (held by attending members) as a contribution to the presence of a quorum is EXPLICITLY found in your bylaws, doing so would be completely improper in RONR-land.  It doesn't appear that they do.

However, RONR has very little to say about proxies so you should probably check with a lawyer about the Condo laws that apply in your case.  Who knows what they may say.  The quorum-includes-proxies rule may be OK, per the law.  You had best find out.

BTW, the definition you do have for a quorum in your bylaws is a very strange one.  I think it means that more than half of the eligible voters have to be at the meeting -- is that where you got the "37" number?  How big is the "entire membership".  Are ALL of them eligible to vote?

How does a "No Confidence" vote remove the president (the erstwhile VP, I presume) from office?  RONR has no such rule; do yours? (It would have to be in the bylaws.)

If the secretary "refuses" to run the meeting -- preside, that is -- elect someone else as president pro-tem and carry on.

I'm pretty sure that RONR doesn't address your question explicitly (so you are not losing your ability to look things up!).

The starting point is the rule (p. 177) that the original member appointing authority has the power to fill vacancies so, by a reasonable extension, the authority can fill a chair vacancy too.

Which doesn't really answer your question -- you'll have to look back in the minutes for the motion that established the committee and, presumably, specified how its members are appointed. That "how" would therefore have the authority to appoint a new chairman.

Now, I am not so sure about what my colleague R. Brown has asserted...

Taking Guest Roberto at his word (and assuming he has described the bylaw provisions correctly), there was certainly a procedural error when the committee was established and a point of order should have been raised (about not getting board approval) at the time that the new committee was announced at a meeting.  However, assuming time has passed, it is too late now (p. 250).  There is nothing in the bylaws (as described to us) that runs counter to paragraph a) on page 251, so there is no continuing breach.  The committee exists and someone, unnamed, is its chairman, although there is some considerable question as to what the committee is supposed to do, obviously.   Until those details are specified, it would be best if the committee did nothing. (That is the kind of committee I like to be on!)

Clearly the board, at a meeting, should get after the (current) Board Chair (Roberto, who inherited this mess) and ask him to supply all the necessary details about the committee, which he nicely listed.   And then the board could approve those details, and get the committee off to a proper start.

Additional details about exactly what happened and when might change my opinion. 

2 hours ago, Guest Zev said:

Rescind:

Two-thirds vote of those present if no notice has been given. 

Nope:  "Two-thirds vote of those present and voting if no notice has been given."  Page 402

Perhaps, if the meeting chairman had been a bit more experienced, he/she could have guided person #2 to phrase his wishes in the form of an amendment to the first motion.  The amendment would propose changes to the first motion that the person #2 would rather see it it.  They would then be debated and be adopted/defeated as the membership wished.  Then the meeting would turn back to the main motion (#1) as possibly amended for more amendments or a final decision.

And furthermore, neither the president's "opening remarks", nor anybody else's remarks for that matter, belong in the minutes at all. All that belongs in is what was done (motions adopted, defeated or otherwise disposed of) and a few semi-administrative matters.  See page 468ff for details.

1 hour ago, Joshua Katz said:

The best, it seems to me, is simply for voters to know what term length they are voting for, and to go ahead and elect people to specified seats for specified lengths, leaving it up to the voters whom they wish to elect to each position in the transition period.

And don't forget, there is nothing improper for candidate A (or B, or Z) to put his hat in the ring for all three sets of terms.  If this happens, its probably best to have the longest (or shortest - your option -- or pick at random) term elections first, then an opportunity for more nominations of candidates, then the middle term length election, &c.  Gives everybody a fair shake.

Please ask a new question in a new topic.  Thanks

OK, I stand corrected.

I request permission to withdraw my initial post.

14 hours ago, Daniel H. Honemann said:

And I'm not at all sure that I agree with my friend Dr. Stackpole that it is proper to make a motion and then, while speaking in debate on it, move its indefinite postponement.

Well, I base that proposal as an extension the explicit statement on p. 393 that if the mover (no longer) likes the motion he made, he can request permission to withdraw it.   Post Indef (if adopted) and withdraw (if permitted) both have the same effect of removing the motion from further consideration by the assembly by a majority decision.

4 hours ago, J. J. said:

I think that was the argument, in part.

Broadly, the question is can a rule of order in RONR (except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws) be superseded by a special rule?  My position is yes, except for those rules required by RONR to in the bylaws.

I presume the "to in" preposition pairs should read "to be in".