Tim Wynn

Thanks, George. Turns out no prison can hold me (though the NP came close). 🙂

Perhaps in a subsequent meeting, depending on the nature of the violation, but not between meetings.

If the bylaws don't allow for additional standing committees, you'll need to amend the bylaws if you want to create additional standing committees. "If this article names certain standing committees, no other standing committees can be appointed without amending the bylaws, unless a provision is included . . . permitting the establishment of such other standing committees . . ." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 578, ll. 21-27

Sure. The chair could recognize the reporting member of the committee to explain each section as they are being considered: something akin to Article One is the Name, and nothing was changed there; Article Two is the Object, and only two changes were made, this and that; Article Three is Members, and every word was changed.

Check your bylaws to see how vacancies are filled. Any vacancy-filling provision in your bylaws will have to be followed. If the bylaws are silent on the matter, see RONR (11th ed.), p. 467, l. 25 - p. 468, l. 8. Keep in mind that if your board finds itself without a presiding officer or without a secretary, the board can elect a temporary presiding officer and a temporary secretary to serve for the session. This applies whether the officers left office or simply didn't show up to a meeting. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 452, l. 4 - p. 453, l. 16, and p. 459, l. 33 - p. 460, l. 2.

😂 Heard that.

First, you have to be clear on whether you will be considering separate amendments to the bylaws or a revision. Why are you saying "initial meeting"? Does the organization have a rule that requires multiple meetings for the consideration of a bylaw amendment? Yes the bylaw amendment, which is a particular case of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted, is amendable by primary and secondary amendment. Just like any other examples of the subsidiary motion to amendment, these amendments do not require an additional meeting for their consideration and can be adopted in the same meeting at which they are made. Such is not the case. Notice (or Previous Notice) is not needed for the subsidiary motion to amend. The only question is whether the proposed amendment would amend the main motion outside the scope of notice . . . if there is a scope. There is no scope of notice for a bylaw revision. The text you quoted is not referring to the subsidiary motion to amend. It's referring to a bylaw amendment, which is an incidental main motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Oh, they're definitely to be compared with the current bylaws. That's the whole point. But the current bylaws cannot be perfected through separate amendment while the revision is being considered, which would be the case if it were the subsidiary motion to substitute instead of a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. Where do you perceive a conflict? The lengthy document proposing to replace all or part of the bylaws is considered at first in its various parts instead of as a whole.

Certainly bylaws cannot be amended in discord with the process for bylaw amendment prescribed in the bylaws (or higher governing document)? 🙂 I would consider the rules of RONR for amending bylaws that are silent on bylaw amendment to be in accord with bylaws that are silent on their amendment.

If the election was not completed, it should be completed at the next meeting. Since an item of business that is prescribed by the bylaws to be considered at a certain meeting can be regarded as a special order for that meeting, such a special order, if left unfinished at the adjournment of the session, would be taken up under Special Orders at the next session (i.e., after reading and approval of the minutes and after reports).

I'm not sure what you mean by "acclamation of vote is mistakenly not made directly." Could you give a little more detail?

Where does this come from? This is not from Robert's Rules of Order. Items of business do not have to be on an agenda. Ordinarily, A committee does not have the authority to dispose of the assembly's motions. The motion to Lay on the Table (sometimes referred to as "Table") is applied to a pending motion. It sounds as though the motion was never pending. "When any paper is laid before the assembly for action, it is a right of every member that it be read once; and if there is any debate or amendment, that it be read again before members are asked to vote on it." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 299, ll. 4-8

Bylaws can only be amended in accordance with the process for bylaw amendment prescribed in the bylaws (or higher governing document). Check to see what the bylaws say about their amendment.

"The power to appoint or elect persons to any office or board carries with it the power to accept their resignations, and also the power to fill any vacancy occurring in it, unless the bylaws expressly provide otherwise. In the case of a society whose bylaws confer upon its executive board full power and authority over the society's affairs between meetings of the society's assembly . . . without reserving to the society itself the exclusive right to fill vacancies, the executive board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies between meetings of the society's assembly." RONR (11th ed.), p. 467, ll. 25-25

Thank you, sir. It's good to be home.

Actually, this has the feel of Nominations by the Chair in appointing a committee: "Nominations by the chair (with confirmation by voice vote). This method is used when the assembly wishes to take advantage of the chair's knowledge and judgement as to suitable appointees, yet wishes to have veto power." - RONR (11th ed.), p. 494, ll. 24-27

This is not an accurate definition of majority.There needn't be more in the negative to prevent a candidate from receiving a majority. An equal amount in favor and opposed would also fail to achieve a majority.

As a practical note, if everyone shows up for what turns out to be something other than a properly called meeting, don't send everyone home. Have them sit down and informally hash out the details and make up their minds about whatever they came to decide. Then, five days later, when you have the properly called meeting, the matter can be handled in thirty-five seconds.

Are you sure? The adoption of "The Standing Rules of the Convention" is part of the formal organization procedure at the convention. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 609, l. 34 - p. 610, l. 3. And the rules apply to only the convention at which they are adopted. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 618, ll. 3-6. Many conventions use the same set of rules, year after year, but adopt that set of rules anew at each convention. If this is the case with your convention, you may want to take your concern to the Committee on Standing Rules. It's not clear to me that anything you've posted would have the effect of "silencing the minority". It appears that the delegates' right to debate is intact. Also, your organization goes farther* than RONR in allowing minority reports. RONR allows the objection of a single member to prevent the presentation of a minority report, unless it is then allowed by a majority vote. See RONR (11th ed.), p. 528, l. 27 - p. 529, l. 2. Personally, I'm not a fan of minority reports. *farther than it ought, in my opinion

If the session contains multiple meetings, the time at which later meetings are to be called to order is within the control of the assembly that is adopting the agenda. Therefore, I would say the assembly can take action on calls to order . . . though it'll have less control over one that has already occurred. 🙂

Once again, I concur. However, I believe General Robert made it clear that "all this secretary business" is not a ballot vote. Thanks for this common sense. (I did enjoy the discussion, though.) (And, of course, if an organization I'm serving has such a custom without it being specified in the bylaws, I will advise them of what the rules say . . . which always does the trick.)

I concur. Could you provide some insight into why such a motion (for the secretary to cast the vote of the assembly) would be in order in the face of the rule contained on p. 443, ll. 7-12? Thanks again.

It appears that somewhere in that answer you imply that the assembly, by majority vote, can order the secretary (or another individual) to cast the vote of the assembly in favor of a motion that requires a two-thirds vote. That can't be right.

Thanks for the reference. I have a few follow up questions buried in the paragraphs below. Some of them even end with questions marks. 1. Where page 477 of PL states, "This is not a vote by ballot, but is a viva voce vote, and cannot be done legally if the by-laws require the election to be by ballot," is it your opinion that General Robert is referring to the order, the vote cast as a result of the order, or both of these things together as an inseparable unit? It seems to me that he could be treating them as a single act for the purpose of deciding the question on the motion. 2. RONR (11th ed.), p. 283, ll. 4-5, states, "The object of these motions is to obtain a vote on a question in some form other than by voice . . ." Section 30 doesn't provide for changing TO a voice vote by majority vote. PL states that the process of electing by ordering the secretary to cast the ballot of the club is, at least in some part, definitely a viva voce vote. RONR (11th ed.), p. 44, ll. 30-33, states, "The vote on a motion is normally taken by voice, unless, under certain conditions, it is taken by rising or . . . by a show of hands." p. 45, ll. 23-26, states, "Other methods of taking a formal vote are used only when expressly ordered by the assembly or prescribed by its rules." p. 443, ll. 7-12, states, "if only one person is nominated and the bylaws do not require that a ballot vote be taken, the chair, after ensuring that, in fact, no members present wish to make further nominations, simply declares the nominee elected . . ." It seems to me that the rule that provides for the chair to simply declare the nominee elected is a rule of order that would require a two-thirds vote for its suspension. Clearly, another method of voting could be ordered by the assembly, by majority vote. But this doesn't appear to be a case of changing the method; it appears to be a case of changing the RULES for a particular method. Here's a fun example: Motion to vote by ballot = majority vote Motion to vote by ballot with the nominee with the fewest votes dropped from the list of nominees for succeeding ballots = two-thirds vote Motion to skip declaring the lone nominee elected until after the secretary has pretended to vote = two-thirds vote 3. Let's say an organization has adopted a rule that, in the case of an office having only one nominee, the secretary shall cast the vote of the assembly for that nominee. If, during the election, a motion is made to skip this step and have the chair simply declare the nominee elected, wouldn't this require a suspension of the rules by a two-thirds vote? 4. Isn't the rule governing an election by voice vote in which there is only one nominee strikingly similar to the rule for the approval of the minutes when no (further) corrections are offered? While the minutes were being considered, would it be in order for a member to move that the secretary cast the vote of the assembly to approve the minutes? If so, what vote would be required to adopt such a motion? Thanks

Priceless.

I must learn more about this fascinating incidental motion. What vote is required for its adoption? Is it a majority vote, just like other motions relating to methods of voting? Is it a majority vote even if the question to which it applies requires a higher vote? With you indicating that it's out of order if the bylaws require a ballot vote, we know that it is actually deciding the question, not just a ceremonial gesture. However, you indicated (by quoting a starship captain) that it's merely a ceremony that decides nothing. Which is it? What if the secretary were not a member of the assembly, would the motion to allow him to cast the vote be in order? Who can move to reconsider the vote cast by the secretary (in situations where it can be reconsidered)? Would a motion to not allow negative votes on a main motion be in order and require a majority vote?