Gary Novosielski

If it is? And how do know if it is the same motion? Because the mover is pretty sure it is? And would checking to make sure be completed before you could say "Second"?

I may have mixed up the people, but my advice still stands. There's nothing stopping the VP from running for president, and if the concern is that there would be a vacancy in the VP office, it need not stay vacant for the remainder of the term.

Well, the duty of the reporting member is to accurately reflect the report and to make such motions as the committee directed. The fact that the reporting member does not favor one of the recommended motions does not mean he can simply omit it. If he cannot do so in good conscience, he should ask the committee to appoint a different member to report. A member who was not directed to speak for the committee, does not speak for the committee.

Well, Rescind, strictly speaking, is a motion to strike the entirety of a motion. Rescinding part of a motion is actually a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted by striking portions of the original motion. There does not seem to be a motion to Amend and Partially Expunge Something Previously Adopted

The order of precedence determines when the motion would be in order, not what rank it holds after being adopted. What you describe is simply an assembly deciding to do one thing, and then in a surprising turnaround, deciding to do something else. Presumably an assembly that ordered the previous question would then vote down a motion to extend debate, but not every assembly acts with perfect rationality at all times.

And how does the member propose to do that? If only one member wants it, why is it even being discussed?

Either elect someone with more experience, or chip and and help support the inexperienced president through that on-the-job learning period. Start with a gift of RONR 12th ed. As for the vacant VP position, follow your bylaws provisions for vacancy filling, or if there are none, hold a special election. In the case of a vacancy in the presidency the VP automatically becomes president instantly, but that's an important reason to get a VP in that office right away. What do your bylaws currently say about filling vacancies?

Well, no, that's not how it works, but there is a situation that comes close to that. If a meeting adjourns to a future time, it is called an adjourned meeting, and although it is considered a separate meeting, it is part of the same session as the original meeting, even in organizations where session and meeting are usually synonymous. But this is a result of an intentional act of the assembly, not the whim of the presiding officer.\ No, a recess is a short interruption of business. It's true that upon reconvening, the same meeting (and session) are still in effect, but a recess cannot be extended to a future day.

Agreeing with @Josh Martin, your customized rules go far afield from the discipline procedures in RONR, so you're more or less on your own. In fact, if the rules in RONR apply, boards are not even empowered to amend the bylaws in the first place.

Yes, but it could be just one motion: "I move to suspend the rules and consider the following motion: To donate five dollars to the widows and orphans of the Bowling Green Massacre." It is proper to simply state what you want to do, which the rules would otherwise prevent, rather than to try to craft a motion specifying exactly which rule is being suspend. Although the motion to suspend the rules is not debatable, if it passes, the motion to consider the donation would be debatable. If you want to make that clear, you could say "consider under normal procedure". It's also possible to move to "suspend the rules and pass...." a motion, which if adopted would pass the motion immediately without debate, but that's only useful if the motion already enjoys wide support.

Those rules did not come from RONR, so I have to presume that you have adopted rules somewhere that cover that. RONR simply prohibits voting by email.

Are all the "permanent members" members of the board? If not, they can't vote in board meetings.

Are we talking about moving a special rule of order that conflicted with a previously adopted special rule of order? If it's an ordinary main motion, then any conflict with a special rule of order presumably would be procedural in nature, and not go to the substance of the main motion. I would imagine the remedy would be to raise a point of order demanding that the special rule be complied with, rather than seeking to have the main motion declared out of order.

Since there is no vote on the approval of minutes (see 41:9-11) there's usually no vote to recuse from. The only way to object to the contents of the draft minutes is to offer a correction. Once corrections, if any, are handled, the minutes simply stand approved. There might be a vote on whether a particular correction is in fact correct, but none of this goes to the merits of the motions recorded in the minutes.

Once the resignation has been accepted, the resignation is complete, the employee is now a former employee, and the transaction has been fully carried out and complete. Since only the uncompleted portion of an act can be repealed, there's no parliamentary path toward reversing the action. The bell cannot be unrung. But presumably this person can apply for employment just the same as any other individual, and perhaps be hired, if conditions are right.

You can't rescind a failed motion because it failed, and so there is nothing to rescind. If whoever wants this motion passed moves to rescind the failure, the chair would be absolutely correct in ruling it out of order, and in not entertaining an appeal, as it would violate logic itself to believe that a non-existent act can be repealed, and so there cannot be two differing rational points of view. However what would be perfectly in order is for proponents of the motion to simply make it again. The fact that a motion fails once does not prevent it from being made again, since each meeting is its own distinct session.

Continue thinking until that is no longer the case.

Would not the general power to carry on the business of the society be sufficient? It would normally authorized the acceptance of resignations and, by implication, filling of the resulting vacancy.

Is this a not-hole instance?

See RONR 12th ed. §36. DISCHARGE A COMMITTEE for information on that motion.

This could be a problem if the matter had been referred to an investigative committee. An assembly cannot take up a question that is in the hands of a committee without first discharging that committee, so a motion could be ruled out of order on that basis. But based on what has been presented so far I would not bet that this is the case here. I believe the parliamentary term for this is "Just Sayin'".

Neither did you have any reason to believe they could not be changed. After all, it's pretty well known that bylaws do get changed. And one common reason is for eligibility requirements for office to be amended . The fact that one was eligible before the change does not guarantee that one will be eligible afterward.

Those are suggestions that @Jay M might consider in his organization. Villagers; can't live with 'em--can't shoot 'em.

Never ask a barber if you need a haircut, nor a surgeon if you need an operation.

I agree that there's nothing retroactive about this rule. It affects who is eligible to run in future elections. Yes, it uses a qualification that refers to the past, but it has no effect in the past. If a job application says that a particular job requires a bachelor's degree, you can't be disqualified because your education happened in the past. The "all or nothing" vote on amending the bylaws was probably improper but that's water over or under the dam or bridge, respectively. Another potential problem is the language "eligible to run" if that is indeed what the bylaws say. Inartfully drafted language can create ambiguity over whether a person who is ineligible to run is nevertheless eligible to be elected (say, by write-in vote) or to hold office (say, by being appointed to fill a vacancy). It is important that bylaws language say exactly what it is intended to mean.