jstackpo

I wish you wouldn't use the phrase "trump the provisions" or "trump the rules [in RONR]" Makes me nervous.

RONR doesn't allow members to "pass" their vote to another member, such that the member receiving the "passed" votes can vote multiple times on a motion. Such a system is called "voting by proxy" and you can see what RONR has to say about it on page 428. Any system of proxy voting has to be spelled out in your association's bylaws. May I suggest you get a copy of your family association's bylaws and see there how your proxy (or "passed") votes work. Proxy voting and making motions are completely independent actions.

Maybe "once and awhile" is Canadian, eh?

And... it isn't proper to have a "Yes/No" in an election. If you don't like the (single) candidate, nominate (or write in) someone else. If you can convince enough folks to do the same, the "other guy/gal" will be the winner. (Don't ask me how to do a "write-in" vote with the usual electronic voting gear, unless you want a long essay to come at you.)

I suspect that the online edition doesn't have the "2/3 permission to debate" rule in it, other than implicitly. It sure doesn't have the footnote.

During debate on a motion non-members can be given permission to speak, but only by a 2/3 vote of the members present and voting. See p. 263 (footnote).

And to be able to say someone is ineligible to be nominated or elected or serve in office, the bylaws had better be transparently specific and clear. Such as "Only members of the Association may serve in office". Don't attempt to define general qualifications ("qualified", "intelligent", "hard working" or the like) or you will end up with endless arguments in specific cases. Those judgments are for the voters to consider and vote accordingly.

... or in a motion authorizing such "representation" adopted by the board. Such a motion would (or should) probably be pretty specific as to the nature of the representation.

First check your bylaws. When you filled the (departed) treasurer's position, it may well have just been for the remainder of his/her term. This is the most common procedure in most bylaws I have seen. Filling a vacancy does NOT start a new full term, normally, unless your association has VERY unusual bylaws. So check them. So it was unfortunate that this was not made clear to you when you accepted the job. Take it with good grace and run for treasurer in the next regular election -- if you win, that'll show them!

Which can put someone in a logical bind: If I wish to defeat the motion but also don't think the motion is worth talking about, there is no way I can express that with my vote. If I vote "Yes" I am contributing to adopting the motion; if I vote "No" I am contributing to the possibility that discussion will ensue. The "combined" motion (motion+previous question) should be simply out of order. Separate votes required on P-Q then on motion.

Could someone supply a page reference for option (ii), please. I'm not arguing the rule doesn't exist, I just can't find it -- no hint of it in the index under "notice". Thanks

It isn't up to the maker of the motion to preclude debate; it is the prerogative of the membership by a 2/3 vote.

I'm baaaaack, but Bruce has said it all better than I could, for sure. I can only add that if the motion was in writing and all the members got a copy, and there were no substantial amendments, the chair could just refer to the document, rather the read the whole thing out loud. Sounds like the bylaws amendment text was handed out both in the previous notice (which if it was three months ago, nobody remembers or can find at home anyway) and as folks came in the door. Good. But the reason behind it all is just to be sure the members are all on the same page when the voting begins.

Presuming the city rules don't speak to the question of procedure in standing committees, then the small board rules (p. 500 & p. 487) apply, and a discussion without a motion is more or less OK. Seems like a bit of a waste of time, however, not to generate a motion to deal with the topic in hand. One would hope that an interested council member would make such a motion and not let the chairman slide over or away from the topic.

In the defense of the "past parliamentarian", he/she may have been thinking of the formal steps use to process your way through a motion, particularly a complex or important one, such as a bylaw amendment. The step of "putting the question", page 44, includes the chair restating the motion as possibly amended, just prior to taking the vote. This is so that everybody knows, for sure, what they are about to vote on. It isn't exactly "two readings" but it comes close. Calling to "Table" that second reading is, however, a misuse of the Motion to lay on the table.

"Not allow ... to cast a vote" was totally out of order -- the vote is utterly invalid. Who do they think they are?

Page 3 of RONR. It is a member's right to vote, and other things. And your bylaws say as much as well.

Well, if you want the title "Moderator" to be the "official" title of the office, then, yes, a bylaw amendment is necessary.

Didn't see your second clarification when I posted my "seems clear" statement. It still seems clear... and will remain clear until (if ever) the bylaw amendment is adopted. Was the motion to amend the bylaws adopted? Were the proper steps for amending the bylaws followed in introducing the amendment? Or has that not happened yet?

Seems clear to me that the motion to deny you a (single) vote is totally out of order. Unless there are some other "conflict of interest" provisions in your bylaws that pertain to your situation -- you didn't mention any.

Since you, the COST, appear to be a governmental entity, HHH's last phrase is very important. Ask your staff lawyer about the laws.

But before you step forward, you might want to see if you have any friends willing to vote for you. And maybe one of them could nominate you if you are squeamish about self-nomination.

Grammar Nazi here: "in said texts" isn't necessary and implies a plurality of "texts". But there is only one text. Also no need to list all the groups meeting (you might miss one - then what?). The word "Society" - see my next paragraph - covers them all. Better to you use the phrasing found on p. 580, as augmented by the footnote.

... provided the club rules have nothing to say on the subject. RONR doesn't have anything to say.

OK, you do indeed have a first edition (There was a Second edition published in the same year - 1876 - with 16 additional pages.) But I'm afraid I can't help you with any idea of its value, or a "market". (Don't accept any first offer you might get!)