Gary Novosielski

I agree that it's poorly worded, but the use of the word simple majority, although deprecated by parliamentarians, is usually inserted to indicate an ordinary majority vote, i.e., a majority of those present and voting.

Yes, you're correct. As soon as any debate has taken place on the main motion, objection is no longer in order.

No, the President, after the resolution had been "considered", should have stated the question on the resolution itself. That's what you do with resolutions after considering them.

But the rules in RONR say that where the bylaws are not clear, it is up to the membership to decide their meaning. And in this case they are clear, and call for the names to be listed in alphabetical order. The only question is whether breaking that rule counts as a breach that is so bad that it warrants a new election. I don't think that it does. But if it's already been done, let it be.

I agree with Mr. Mervosh, and I would point out that if the meeting was not properly under control, the presiding officer is most often the person who's responsible for that. Throwing a tantrum is a classic example of being part of the problem, not the solution. The VP acted correctly by assuming a point of order, ruling that the meeting was ongoing, and taking the chair. I have seen situations where things became so tangled that the chair declared (without objection) a recess, to allow the heat to dissipate. Even that is a fairly drastic action, but it allows the meeting to continue once order is restored. Attempting to adjourn it is counterproductive and harmful to good order in its own right.

They sure seem to. Except that they have to be alphabetical. That's not nothing.

I'm not sure what "introduced " means. Typically the first action is a motion to approve the resolution, which is then seconded, stated by the Chair, and debated (discussed). That sounds like a poorly executed amendment to the resolution, presumably by general consent, but it should have been made to the text of the Resolution before it was voted on, so it would be clear, if it passed, exactly what passed. No, the second motion was pointless. When debate is completed, the president should simply state the question and take the vote. What should be in the minutes is: "Mrs. Smith moved a resolution which, after debate and amendment was adopted as follows: "Resolved, that... <exact wording as amended>."

Please post new questions in a new topic, rather than tacking onto an existing topic. See the entry IMPORTANT Read This First at the top of the forum.

By definition, a write-in candidate is someone whose name is not printed on the ballot, presumably because it was not placed in nomination. RONR does not require any seconding of nominations, but your bylaws require a double second, and that would supersede the rule in RONR. What I don't see is any suggestion that only nominated candidates may be elected. If the rules in RONR apply, ballots must contain the appropriate lines for write-in candidates, and these votes must be counted.

A vote of a majority of the members present is clear. But a majority vote of the members present is not the same thing. It is a majority vote. If the rule said a vote of 3/4 of the active membership in attendance, I agree that is a definite number. But saying a 3/4 vote of the active membership in attendance does not say that. It appears to be a 3/4 vote, conducted among the active membership in attendance.

And even if the required notice is received, and the amendments are considered at the membership meeting, is there any chance that the membership will vote Yes to give away their rights? That would seem to be fertile ground for debate, and I would think it's likely it would be voted down.

If I understand DHH's position, the decision of whether the motion is in order or not depends on the motivation of the mover. Once it has been determined that the motion is in order, the motivation of those who support it is irrelevant. A motion can be ruled dilatory. Casting a vote cannot.

Please ask new questions by creating a new topic, as requested in the message "IMPORTANT Read This First" at the top of the forum, rather than tacking onto a four year old topic. Thanks.

I think the word discuss is included within the meaning of the word consider. How can a body consider something without discussing it, apart from sitting silently and thinking about it, which would be absurd.

The distinction is that only one of my examples is a percentage of members; the other is a percentage of votes, i.e. those (present and ) voting.

No need to shout. Matters referred to a committee are not bound by the rules of postponement. Unless instructed by the original motion, or a motion to further instruct the committee to report by a certain date, the committee can take as long as it takes to complete its task and report. If the parent body wishes to reclaim the referred matter to its own control, it can move to Discharge the committee from further consideration of the matter. This would normally require a 2/3 vote, but if the committee had missed a due date as mentioned above, it would take only a majority vote.

And to me it merely identifies the body undertaking the ordinary 2/3 vote. I do not think it's a stretch to assert that in the phrase 2/3 vote, the fraction is applied to the vote, i.e., to those who cast a vote, while in the phrase 2/3 of those in attendance, the fraction applies to the number in attendance. If such a mechanistic rule would reduce the ambiguity of some marginal language, then so much the better. If it strikes some as putting a heavy burden on the turn of a single phrase, I would simply point to the and/or rule for the length of terms, on which hinges the ability to remove an officer--an fair example of heavy lifting by a single word.

And I agree with those gentlemen. It is certainly business, and it is unquestionably (if improperly) unfinished. I'd add to the list of possible methods of disposing of this question when it comes up. If the members don't agree with what it proposes, they can simply vote it down.

A sense of déjà vu, and a nip of autumn, are in the air. We've gone 'round and 'round about the difference(s) between: a 2/3 vote of <some assembly>; and, a vote of 2/3 of <some assembly, and between: a majority vote of the membership; and, a vote of a majority of the membership. In my view, the language in question here is more closely aligned with the first example in each of the above pairs.

NUL

Well, not for silly little things, (although the bylaws could enumerate as many silly little offenses to be dealt with sharply as might be desired). Otherwise, the offense would have to be serious enough that a reasonable person would consider it a blow to the good name of the organization, as mentioned in 61:3. Ultimately it will be up to the organization to determine if a given offense is serious enough. That's where Trials come in handy.

oops, thanks, I'll fix that.

Yes, have a look at 61:22, Offenses Elsewhere Than in a Meeting. §61;3 mentions that serious offenses such as behavior "tending to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work,” do not need to be explicitly mentioned in the bylaws to be subject to discipline. But the bylaws could explicitly list this and other matters that would invoke discipline, as well as other rules on how discipline is administered.

It sounds as though you're assuming that a 2/3 vote means 2/3 of the members present, which is not the case unless you have a bylaws provision you haven't mentioned. Otherwise, the No votes certainly would matter. If the vote count actually appeared in the minutes, what was the voting method used?