Gary Novosielski

Yes, I have seen, and in some cases have moved, an amendment to acceptance of a resignation, by inserting the words "with regret" after the word "accepted".

As Mr. Martin pointed out, there are ways that a motion disposed of at one meeting can again be brought before the assembly at the following meeting. I would point out that, as long as there was a quorum present at the first meeting, any motions that passed were in full force as soon as they were adopted. If a motion was carried out in the interim before the next meeting, and there is no reason why it should not be, then a motion to Rescind or Amend it is not in order. For example, if a motion was adopted to have the sticker-bushes behind the clubhouse removed, and a gardener is hired to dig up the bushes, and the job is done before the next meeting, members who were absent from the meeting have no right to complain that the bushes were removed without their approval. In general, decisions are made by those who show up, and the fact that some members didn't, and therefore had no vote, is a poor reason to consider the matter again. That is why the motions to Rescind or Amend Something Previously Adopted have a higher vote threshold than simply adopting something in the first place.

Yes, the elections could be by unanimous consent, especially if the choice is expected not to be controversial. In my opinion, a quorum is required to elect a chair pro tem and secretary pro tem. If there is no quorum, and no prospect of obtaining one, the member calling the meeting to order should note the absence of a quorum and declare the meeting adjourned. Since no secretary was present, the member calling the meeting to order should supply a draft of the (brief) minutes of the meeting to the regular secretary.

The bylaws say that the vote may be by viva voce. May, not shall. A voice vote is permissible but not required. Therefore, no suspension of the rules is necessary to move for a ballot vote. A motion that the election be held by ballot would require a second and a majority vote.

If the parliamentarian is not a member, then his opinion on whether a particular motion violates the bylaws is of no more weight than mine. Faced with an ambiguous bylaws provision, the parliamentarian's response should be: "Ultimately, only the assembly can interpret the meaning of the bylaws." The parliamentarian can and perhaps should affirm that motions which violate the bylaws are not in order, but I agree with D.H. that judging whether a particular motion does or does not conflict is beyond the scope of a non-member parliamentarian's duties.

But your question seemed to indicate this was not voted by the Board, but by the general membership. Edited to add: Ah, I think this was clarified in a later post. I concur that, based on this paraphrase of the bylaws, it seems that only a majority vote would be required to adjust the assessment.

It is my understanding that this board member is not an employee. Members are generally not "just like" employees. A resignation is a request to be excused from a duty. The board (if it has the authority to accept resignations) can grant or (in theory) refuse the request. I believe the board could also delay the request to a time later than requested. But "granting" what was not requested amounts to removing someone from office, which is a different kettle of seafood.

I think that's stretching it, but I'd never say so. Ooops, did I type that out loud?

And unless I'm very much mistaken, you're not Congress either. Congressional rules depart from RONR in numerous significant ways.

There would be no point in discussing a motion that isn't in order. There could be a vote on the ruling of the chair if two members (a mover and seconder) move to Appeal from the Ruling of the Chair. Otherwise, it's on to the next item of business.

Apparently, as soon as a second person aspires to an office, an election by ballot is automatically mandatory. Nobody needs to request it. It is simply required.

No. Some organizations provide for this in their bylaws, but I believe most members here would recommend against the practice.

No, but giving incorrect notice can invalidate the election, even if the rules were surreptitiously followed in accordance with what the notice should have been but wasn't. Or something.

My understanding of the definition of "balanced budget" is one in which the income equals the expenditures, so that there is neither a deficit nor a surplus anticipated. Use of money already in the bank is an expenditure, not anticipated income. But as a non-member, my interpretation of what your bylaws mean is of limited (i.e., little or no) value.

I'm inclined to say that the election should be completed as soon as possible. I'm also confused by the statement that this office is not required. Was any decision reached before the election regarding whether to hold the election for this office? Deciding "Oh, never mind." in the middle of an incomplete election seems rather haphazard.