Gary Novosielski

Of course not. I just believe they should.

That's why Josh has that statement in his signature. 👇

A single member can't table anything, and nobody can table something because they don't agree with the formatting. So what should have happened was that the chair should have ruled the (motion?) to table as out of order. If the board wishes to prepare a new budget, it was probably not a wise choice to allow the report to be tabled in the first place. But at this point, anyone can move to take the report from the table at the next meeting. Special meetings can't be called except by following the procedures that are (hopefully) contained in your bylaws. See FAQ #12 for more information on the motion to Lay on the Table.

Please post your question as a new topic. Thanks.

That's quite common, and the recommendation of RONR. But the general rule is that the right to remove belongs to those with the right to appoint. So it's unlikely that the chairman/president would have the authority to remove or replace committee members, unless there's some rule of yours that we don't know about. The members of the committee by majority vote could adopt a motion requesting the general membership to replace a member. Or the membership could decide to do so on its own if it got wind of the situation and was concerned enough to take action.

It is likely that the word is defined elsewhere in the statute, or failing that, a prior case may have decided the issue already. In either event the answer will not be found within the pages of RONR, and the aid of a legal professional is probably necessary.

Yes, it does assume that the OP is barking up the right tree, as my signature suggests.

In the typical case, the nominating committee is appointed by and reports to the general membership, not the board, and especially not the president, who, RONR suggests, should have nothing to do with that committee. So it depends on whether you do things that way, or some other way. The questions asked by Mr. Brown are good ones.

Well, if it came down to it, so would I. Bordering on dilatory isn't the same as crossing the line. Besides, I can't read his mind to see that he's in favor, but objecting just to play with the process. Someone says "Objection", I say "Objection is heard." But if I knew, somehow, that he really favored the request, I'd reserve the right to roll my eyes. Inconspicuously, to preserve the appearance of impartiality. 😎

The city manager is obviously incorrect. Can't be changed?? The whole point of reading and approving the minutes is to make sure they are correct--and if incorrect, to correct them. When the minutes are pending, offer a correction to strike "rescinded" and insert "withdrawn". That's what was actually done, even if it was called something else at the time.

Good catch; thank you. I was thinking of one of the other two special cases where a majority is sufficient even without notice: In any case, it appears that a Discharge motion rather than one to Rescind should be on the agenda for next time.

One is either opposed or in favor. If you're opposed and choose not to acquiesce, then object. Otherwise, don't. Preoccupation with process at this fine granularity borders on the dilatory, in my view. Our hypothetical member, Mr. H, would be presumptuous to believe that "these people" are incapable of objecting for themselves, should they feel the need of a chance to speak, or that he knows what they need better than they do. or that if he objected for them, they would not acquiesce after all, but rather engage in debate. They might well wonder why he objected, then had nothing to say in debate. It seems to me that Mr. H. is overthinking it. Or perhaps it's really his own voice he's interested in hearing. 🙄

Thanks for the detail. I was considering rather, the case where the member makes the request in bad faith, counting on the fact that someone will object. When a unanimous consent request is made, a single objection halts the process. The chair would have no way of knowing whether two, three, or all other members also object. Admittedly this is a bit of a strange parliamentary bird, but if the chair is free to require a second, I'm happy.

By objecting to unanimous consent, I contend that he has indicated his opposition to its adoption, There is no rational explanation for being in favor of a question, yet opposed to its adoption.

Oh, that's a different matter. If the matter is in committee, it can't be considered by the full council until the committee has reported, or until it has been Discharged. So neither a motion to Rescind, nor one to renew the funding, would be in order. You might want a motion to Discharge the committee from further consideration of the matter. This would take a 2/3 vote, unless the committee had passed its deadline for reporting, in which case it would take a majority. Then the matter would once again be in the hands of the full council.

This appears to be a way to get a motion before the assembly without a second. If a unanimous consent request is objected to the chair states the question on the motion without waiting for or soliciting a second. Am I missing something?

Yes. Amendments, if agreed to by a majority vote, change the language of the motion under consideration, but do not adopt the motion. It's quite possible that a person will vote for an amendment yet vote against final approval of the motion. For example, suppose a motion is made to paint the clubhouse red. Now suppose that you don't believe the clubhouse needs painting, and that you think that if it is painted, red would be the worst color. Someone (maybe even you) could move to amend the motion by striking the word red and inserting the word white. If the amendment is agreed to, the motion changes to a motion to paint the clubhouse white. When debate and other motions including other amendments are done, and the motion comes up for a final vote, you may still vote No because you don't want any painting done, but at least if the motion passes, you won't have to look at a red clubhouse.

I think it would make more sense for the committee to put whatever information it wanted to convey into the report. And I don't think the committee could authorize the reporting member to provide additional info except by unanimous consent. They could include it the report by a majority. Would it be limited to information on only one nomination? Can this unanimous consent request be qualified that tightly? And only if someone knew, or guessed, that the reporting member might provide info on deliberations if it were requested? Someone familiar with RONR's rules probably would never ask. You may be right as the rules apply, but it strikes me as kinda janky.

There's no rule in RONR to prevent an organization from adopting such a rule. As to whether it's legal according to the laws of Washington, you'd need to consult a lawyer.

That rule appears to say that if the committee wanted their reasoning to be known, they would have put it into the report. I don't see how, having chosen not to include it, they could thereafter go into any detail without alluding to their deliberations.

E-mail voting is prohibited under the rules in RONR, except as provided in your bylaws. If your state has rules that require organizations such as yours to allow voting by e-mail, then you would allow it. If the state law leaves it up to your bylaws, then you'd need to amend them to include appropriate language authorizing the process, and presumably setting forth an appropriate threshold (such as 100% if you like) that would apply to such votes.

If the original question was adopted by a referendum of the entire Student Union membership, the board would not have authority to override or amend it, presuming the rules in RONR apply.

Waaaaaay outside!

That's true, as well as situations where danger threatens, but the question was about a member making a motion to adjourn. If this is merely being done at the normal ending time when its clear to all that the meeting has run its course, then it's a relatively harmless custom, but if members believe they can unilaterally shut down a meeting at will, that's a Bad Thing. At best, it's a bad habit.

No, it's not right, and no it's not good. A majority vote is required to adjourn a meeting. Raise a point of order. Tradition (what parliametarians call custom) falls to the ground in the face of a rule on paper--paper such as the pages of RONR.