Gary Novosielski

Well, you can't blame them for taking the word "weekend" literally and putting it at the end.

According to ISO standards for week numbers, all weeks start on a Monday, and week #1 of the year is the week containing the first Thursday of the year. So for 2019, the 27th of January would be counted as the last day of week #4. It is also the fourth Sunday of January, which might have inspired whoever set the date.

And the phrase "shall be comprised of" is ungrammatical. It should read: shall be composed of or shall comprise

If the rules in RONR apply, the membership would not be voting on minutes of the executive board. Each body approves its own minutes. And approving the minutes means that they are an accurate record of what was done. It does not mean approval of what was done. So accepting the minutes does not indicate approval or disapproval of any of the actions taken by the board. If the membership approves of the actions of the board, it need take no action. If it wishes to overturn or amend a decision of the board it would use the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. See RONR §35. The chair was therefore incorrect in ruling the motion out of order. In fact, if the board's motion did not say or imply that those names and no others would attend, it might not be necessary to use the Amend motion, but simply make a new motion that Mr. N. would attend the convention. And either motion would be in order under New Business. You should probably familiarize yourself with RONR §24 Appeal (from the decision of the chair). And in general, a failed motion may be renewed (made again in the same form) at each new session, until the proponent gets tired of moving it. That's according to RONR. Are any of your somewhat strange procedures specified in your bylaws?

The whole point of a roll-call vote is to record who voted how. If that's not necessary, then why use a roll-call vote?

If, as you describe it, this is a voice vote, and the chair announces "The Aye's have it," how do we know that those who kept silent were "counted" as saying yes when it was not a "counted" vote?

Isn't that what I said? Oh, I see. I said substitute as shorthand for amendment in the nature of a substitute. And you're saying that the substitute (the language to be substituted) is really only half of the amendment. Quite so. That's a fine quibble indeed. As a confirmed nit picker myself, I salute you.

The secretary does not copy down the actual words spoken by the voter. He enters check marks or numbers or Xs in the appropriate columns, or enters nothing if the member responds "Pass". At the end of voting, he calls again the names of those who passed. Upon completion of voting, the secretary reports to the chair the number of members responding Aye, No, and Present. He would not recite back the Pledge of Allegiance but would increment the count of those responding Present.

I'm not sure what the conflict is. The substitute is the primary amendment, and any other subsequent amendments are secondary. it is interesting to note which half they are secondary to, but the salient fact is that you have, at that point, run out of levels, since tertiary amendments to either half not in order.

Oh, I think so. If the response is one that does not express a preference for or against the pending question, then in my view it may properly be recorded as an abstention. Whether it is Present, or Abstain, or the Pledge of Allegiance, or a verse by Emily Dickenson, or literally "Whatever!", there is only one column where the check mark could appropriately be placed. If I were the Secretary calling the roll, I might ask the member, one, to repeat or clarify, but if the member had a history of "protest voting without actually taking a stand, I'd just state it as Abstain, and mark it down. Well, it's up to the assembly what to include. RONR does not allow "explanations" to accompany voting. If you have a conflicting custom, and nobody objects, well, you'll have to live with the results.

A main motion may have two levels of amendment pending at any one time. If an amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered, that uses up one level, and at that point, you can have only one more level of amendment to the substitute.

There's nothing in the quoted material that refers to restricting candidates from the same branch. The language that provides for that restriction may be important too. Does it restrict eligibility for holding office, election to office, or merely nomination for office? Is it possible that a candidate could not be nominated and appear on a ballot, yet could be elected on write-in votes?

That is what I was getting at. Customs vary with respect to whether reporting members, or the chair, invite questions, and to what extent they are welcomed and fully responded to. But it is always appropriate to raise them, and a very good idea to answer them fully.

...extended indefinitely--so that it would remain timely for what is admittedly a looong time. Or until the breach was otherwise resolved or rendered moot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "note that". As DH posted, a response of Present would be entered in the minutes, along with the other responses during a roll-call (recorded) vote, whether the member wishes it or not. And in other types of voting, there is no opportunity to have one's individual vote recorded. The traditional way of withholding approval is to vote No. It would not be proper to note in the minutes that the non-vote was an act of protest. If a member wishes to express disapproval of the way a matter is handled, the time to do so is during debate on the question. If the way of handling it breaks a rule, then the appropriate action would be to raise a Point of Order, which would be entered in the minutes.