Gary Novosielski

I have a copy of PL, but if I'm away from my bookshelf, I go to this link.

If the previous vote was 4-0, and the new member moves to Rescind, and nobody else changes their opinion, the vote to rescind will fail, 1-4. Unwillingness to compromise is not even a thing.

No, not unless that vote is on a motion to amend the bylaws, which has rules of its own. Voting by electronic means, outside of a meeting, would have to be authorized in the bylaws. An ordinary main motion is not sufficient.

The secretary may sometimes notify the chair how many members are present, after completing a roll call. It is the chair who ultimately determines whether that number constitutes a quorum. In the absence of the secretary, who takes that roll call? Since a secretary is required, the assembly would presumably elect a secretary pro-tem as the first item of business, and that person would take the roll call and would take the minutes of that meeting. Having no secretary at all is not an option.

There is a reason why I asked for the exact provision.

The requirement that a committee have not less than three board members of the board does not seem to preclude having a number of other members in addition, does it?

I think there is a third reasonable interpretation: that (3) when the president is made a member of all committees with one or more exceptions, he is not obligated to attend and is not counted for the purposes or setting or obtaining a quorum on those committees where he is still a member. The weakest part of option (2) in my view, is the requirement that the only allowable exceptions are those mentioned (in a rather off-handed way) in 50:16. It would be a departure from the norm for RONR to suggest that an assembly cannot consider what committees it thinks the president should not be on, and implement what it thinks is best in its bylaws. If it wanted the president to count toward a quorum on any or all committees, it could quite simply say so, without depending on esoteric side effects. But I continue to favor (1) because it is the best-fit with Occam's Razor, and because it's precisely what 47:20 says. The language cited in ROR and PL (I don't have a copy of RONR 7.) explains the reasons behind the special quorum rule quite well, and in my view only strengthens the validity of (1). It says nothing about excluded committees, but presumably if there were any, the rule would still apply to those committees not excluded, whether there were one of those or twelve. And most of all, I see no support for any special standing afforded to Nominating or Disciplinary committees. Perhaps it is there in the 7th ed? But on reflection, I think I see why a third option may not be needed. If (3) is valid, it would fully include (1), which says that the president is not obligated to attend committees of which he is an ex-officio member, and certainly has no business attending committees of which he is not made a member. Nothing in interpretation (3) says anything different.

Since I don't believe there is any evidence that the board has any power to remove or not remove anyone, I don't see the point of the meeting. But if the rules in RONR apply, the board may certainly control who can attend their meetings. If no motions can be made then the board cannot decide anything, so although I saw no point to the meeting, I now see even less, if that's possible.

Nothing at all? What exactly do the bylaws say about the process by which the board may remove a board member?

Wow. That is one finely honed distinction. The language on what is best excluded in 56:47 sounds like a few gentle suggestions on what might be a good idea, and has no hint of being an exhaustive list. In reading that section I would have no clue that the drafters of the bylaws would not be allowed to decide what other committees might be best excluded. But you seem to be saying that 50:16 restricts the rule to only those two classes of committees and no others--that adding another committee (say an Election committee) as an excluded committee would nullify the special quorum considerations of all the committees of which the president remains an ex-officio member. That's a reading that does not leap out at me, though it could be read that way. With all due respect, I think if my intention was to disguise that interpretation, I could scarcely have done better than the current text.

But in the first case, specifying all, with some exceptions the president would not count toward a quorum. I thought we all agreed on that. My question was why the second case would be any different.

1. I don't see any limits. Apparently it is assumed that ridiculously long or short intervals would not achieve a majority vote. 2. When the suspension is permanent, i.e., expulsion.

A member has no right to attend a meeting of a body of which he is not a member, except as the bylaws may provide, or when invited by the body to attend.

No, it does not amount to an objection. If a member has a question the procedure is: If a member is uncertain of the effect of an action proposed for unanimous consent, he can call out, “I reserve the right to object,” or, “Reserving the right to object,…” After brief consultation he can then object or withdraw his reservation.

Well, let me answer your question by asking one. If a society had only two committees, Membership and Nominating, and the bylaws provided that the president was an ex-officio member of all committees, except the Nominating committee, do you believe the president would be counted in the quorum for the Membership committee? It seems to me that if the president's portfolio of ex-officio memberships can be specified by saying all except A, B, and C. it could also be specified by saying only D, E, and F, with results that would be subject to the same rule. Or not.

A three-fourths vote, or a two-thirds vote for that matter, means there must be that faction in the affirmative to be adopted. There is no undefined no-man's-land in between. If it does not succeed, it fails. So a vote of 2 Yes and 4 No fails. It does not meet three-fourths, it does not meet two-thirds, it does not even meet a majority.

Somehow we got hijacked from answering the original question by Guest Marianne Nolte.

I think it may be time to switch tactics from asking questions to raising Points of Order. Asking why the minutes were omitted can yield no useful information. There might be excuses for omitting them in the past, but there can be no valid reason for intentionally planning to omit them in the future. And besides, answering questions seems not to be a priority of the president, while responding to Points of Order is required. And the answers to questions cannot be appealed from, while rulings on points of order can be. I'm not sure if you answered some of my questions above:

The trouble is that the minutes appear to have been omitted as an order of the day.

Yes, that was my point. The question was about an action of the board, while the procedures in RONR apply to actions of the membership.

But in the very text you quoted we find: "But only when he is so authorized by the bylaws—or, in the case of a particular committee, by vote of the assembly—does he have this authority and status." Which says that the same rule applies, not only when authorized in the bylaws, and not only for multiple committees. Perhaps the FAQ oversimplifies the actual text in RONR?

It means that in most cases the board has no role in discipline, and where the bylaws give them that role, it is usually only in the early stages, whereas the full membership is required to take any final actions.

It's worth remembering that those sections apply to what steps the membership can take for discipline. The board doesn't have any of those tactics at its disposal.

Assuing It seems fine, if the board is empowered to accept resignations and fill vacancies. Unless those two just resigned from their offices, but not from the board, then you apparently have two board seats left to fill. as well. It's possible they could have resigned from the board at the same time, but I can't tell from your question.

I can't see why you would think acting not interested would be appropriate. I'm not saying that you should feign interest, but you might at least pay attention. Beyond that, a lot depends on what they say. It's not necessary to respond to every comment, but the chair at least should thank the person for the comment. As to the rest of the board, I think responding honestly would be nice. If you're going to respond, make sure you have something to say and your facts straight. If the speaker raises questions that require information that's not readily at hand, promise to look into it and get back to them. Then, keep that promise.