SaintCad

Not if the motion requires a 2/3 vote. Both abstain: 20 yes, 10 no = motion adopted. Both vote: 21 Yes, 11 no = motion fails. Or what about if a majority of the membership is required where abstaining is effectively a no vote?

What exactly is the authority for these instructed votes? Bylaws? Custom? Something else?

I think you are missing the point. This is not a general parliamentary procedure board but very specific to Robert Rules. If your question is not addressed by RONR we would not answer it here. Also as an attorney you should respect the fact that we do not know the laws specific to your jurisdiction and thus do not want to recommend practices that may violate the law.

I think it depends why the President is unwilling to sign. In 1990, Boudouin, King of the Belgians felt he could not morally sign a bill legalizing abortion so he effectively abdicated for 24 hours so his Cabinet could sign it. Perhaps something similar could be done here where the President Requests to be Excused from Duty for a limited time so the Vice-President can sign the contract.

How about, "I am abstaining because I don't have a pet llama."

Time to start discipline procedures under your bylaws or Chapter XX. Tradition always fails against the actual rules.

To expand upon this question, what if a committee member is sitting in the audience and the report is not the one the committee agreed to. What does that member do?

I'm not too sure. Isn't there a thread around here discussing if a chair announced the results of a vote that would carry a motion but does not say the motion carried that the motion has not in fact carried nor has it failed?

Sorry not enough coffee. I realized after I left my computer that I didn't make it clear was that I was suggesting the OP call for a Division after the "acclamation" to force an actual vote.

I suppose this could be handled as a call for Division when the member (and Chair presumably) assumes there would be unanimous consent.

Of course it could also mean 2/3 of the entire board viz. if 12 member board it needs 8 votes in the affirmative.

If the member was not notified of the vote then it is a continuing breach. Raise a Point of Order.

If done during a meeting then there would be a motion leading to this debate and any motion about discipline without the accused being allowed to be present sounds like a Star Chamber or being assumed guilty before the trial (because you're taking away the member's rights that can only be done through the full discipline process). Discuss it outside the meeting.

Hold on a second. Did the presiding officer ever announce the results of the vote? If not, I think there are some here that would claim the motion in iimbo until the results are announced by the Chair.

No offense but do you read the questions we get on this board? Here is one I remember off the top of my head with no searching: the OP was concerned that having a husband and wife on the same Board was a conflict of interest. What about the recent one where an attorney's father was on the Board. You are putting a member's rights in the hands of people that don't know what conflict of interest means.

Like I do.

Given many of the questions on this board, I see this as open to abuse despite how it is structured.

Being a town meeting, is there a pertainent law? Also any special rule or bylaw about this?

Then I guess the question is: what is the status of an motion that invokes a deadline for its implementation if the action is never carried out. Does the motion "expire"?

No. It is a majorty (or 2/3) vote of yeses and noes. Abstentions, Presents, Recusals, Blank Ballots, etc. do not count in the vote total.

They do. Minutes are to contain what was DONE, not what was said. If the issue is the wording of the motion then the motion is however the Chair stated this. If I were absent from a meeting but the Chair said, "I said ..." I would vote on his/her wording.

Seems like there is more going on here. Why did the Chair refuse to do their duty before and now why do they want to do it? As for the motion itself, you could always Amend Something Previously Passed just to keep it unquestionable.

I do, p 434 where it says it is recommended, but not required unless through bylaws, for a candidate to have to accept nomination by the committee. Also,p 444 where it give a person the option to decline the office if elected. I think RONR makes it clear that absent a bylaw a person cannot be required to accept a nomination to be eligible except by bylaws.

What exactly are you trying to challenge? The daughter's role as attorney or the father's rights as a member?

I will point out that before the question is stated by the Chair a member can offer an amendment that is solely up to the maker to accept or decline in addition to the maker changing it themselves as Richard points out..