Tim Wynn

Without suspending the rules? Would this be an incidental motion, covered under section 30? To vote by instructing the secretary to vote? I thought you concurred that this was a ceremony that decides nothing.

Sure, it's no more out of order than the chair responding to a solicitation for unanimous consent "to donate $100 to the ABC Foundation" by saying, "since there is no objection, the secretary will cast a vote for the motion that $100 be donated to the ABC Foundation . . . All secretaries in favor, say aye . . . The aye has it. The motion is adopted." I maintain that it's out of order.

In my opinion, it is prohibited. The procedure referenced by George in post #3 is followed, and the individual is declared elected. Any nonsense about the secretary casting a vote to elect the office that was already elected would be out of order. If the chair does not declare the unopposed nominee elected, a member could make a point of order that the chair is to do so. This point should be ruled "well taken." Apart from all that, the concept of the secretary casting "a single vote" to elect an unopposed nominee apparently springs from the idea that a vote must be taken in order to elect. However, holding an election in which the secretary is the only one voting and is instructed how to vote breaks about as many parliamentary principles as you can throw a stick at. The secretary, if a member of the assembly, is free to vote as he pleases; he also has the right to abstain. If not a member, he cannot be allowed to vote. An election cannot be held in which members are prevented from voting, even by unanimous consent. This means that it would have to be a genuine election in which all members present are allowed to vote but in which all members abstain, except the secretary. If, for some strange reason, a ballot vote was conducted in this situation, no motion would be in order that would force the disclosure of a member's vote. A motion to instruct the secretary how to vote would certainly fall into that category. Violations of these rights and rules would nullify the election. In summary, it appears that this strange mechanism of having the secretary cast a vote is not a vote at all. It is merely a ceremony that decides nothing.

It is the number of members that adjusts, the quorum stays at "50% plus 1," which is different than the RONR default of a majority. The quorum, which is to say the percentage requirement, stays the same, but it is based on the current number of members. A resignation is a request to be excused from a duty, and it goes into effect when it is adopted. A meeting can and should be called to order if a quorum is not present. However, no business can be transacted without a quorum. Generally, a committee would not have the authority to accept the resignation of one of its members. This would be the province of the appointing power. In any event, a body without a quorum cannot accept a resignation. Check your bylaws for provisions on how committees are to be appointed and for provisions on how committee members may resign. It also may be important to know how the committee was established. Generally, the body or the individual doing the appointing has the authority to do the removing and the accepting of resignations.

Nit pickers very rarely require justification.

The maker of the main motion can move to Postpone Indefinitely and speak in favor of the main motion during the consideration of its indefinite postponement. Is that what you're asking?

Exactly.

Yes, I know. But it makes the mistake of confusing the role of a minority of one third in determining the result of a two-thirds vote. In other words, if a rule protects a minority of one-third, that rule cannot be suspended by a two-thirds vote. Tinted page 27, therefore, must have mistakenly assumed that one third in the negative would defeat a two-thirds vote. For why else would it have excluded it?

Ten minutes later, of course. Don't believe what is said on tinted page 27 #80. A minority of one third cannot prevent the adoption of a motion to limit or end debate.

The tinted pages of RONR list 86 motions which may be dilatory based on the specifics affecting any given situation. The motion to Postpone Indefinitely is not in any way immune to what is said in section 39. If the real question is as follows: Why is the dilatory use of Postpone Indefinitely considered not dilatory? The answer, logically, is that it isn't.

By the way, 4.6 is not sufficient to satisfy a two-thirds vote, when 7 votes are cast.

There's been no indication that this is a small board or committee or that the assembly has adopted rules similar to what is described on p. 16, ll. 12-16, so the formal rules would apply.

The fact that the subsidiary motion to amend is in order when it proposes to change a ratification or commendation to a censure does not change the status of censure from a form of punishment.

I'm sorry my post failed to entertain you, but that was not its purpose.

It's the duty of the chair to rule on such a question, subject to the appeal of the assembly.

The footnote does not change the fact that it's a form of punishment.

... and also p. 643, ll. 12-13, if the fact that censure is a form of punishment remains in question.

P. 227, first four words of line 21.

In small boards and committees, the chair is allowed to make motions, but under the formal rules he would have to relinquish the chair to do so. A better alternative in such a case would be for another member to make the motion or for the chair to include the text of the motion as a recommendation in his report (such as the President's Report, if he is the president), and the adoption of the recommended motion should be moved by another member.

The motion to censure would be a question of privilege and would be in order when another motion is pending.

According to RONR, nonmembers of the board do not have a right to attend a board meeting or access the minutes of a board meeting. However, the assembly of an organization can make rules regarding these issues as it sees fit. If your organization is a property owners' association, these types if rules are probably already in place. Check the governing documents, including applicable procedural rules contained in state statutes.

The assembly (the board members in a board meeting) decides whether or not to go in executive session by a majority vote. There need not be a reason.

Executive session is a meeting or portion of a meeting at which the proceedings are secret. Members are subject to disciplinary action for violating the secrecy if executive session. I don't know what you're asking about limitations.

1. Yes 2. Executive Session means that the proceedings are secret. That is not a valid purpose for a special meeting to be called. It is no different than calling a meeting for the purpose of holding a meeting. At a special meeting, only business mentioned on the call can be transacted. So, such a call would not allow for any business to take place. At any meeting, special or not, the assembly may go into executive session. 3. Minutes of the proceedings in executive session should be kept. They do not have to be separate from minutes of the portion of the meeting that is not held in executive session, but they must be kept secret.

Perhaps, the pause should come after the members know to what they would be objecting.