Gary Novosielski

You continue to hold additional rounds of ballots until all offices are filled. It may take a few times. But hopefully you will not take as many as the 1924 Democratic National Convention, which took 103 ballots before nominating a candidate.

Correct.

I looked up Rosenberg's, and it is a sad joke. Only seven pages long, several of which are biographical info and self-promotion. Its lack of rigor is evident in the very first substantive paragraph, on establishing a quorum. It states that in the absence of a rule to the contrary, a quorum is one more than half of the membership. Then it gives as an example that for a group of five, a quorum is three. This is incorrect because Math. Half of five is two and a half. One more than two and a half is three and a half, so three is less than a quorum. From there, the work goes downhill.

As listed in §35, these are actually two very slightly different motions, one is Repeal, and the other is Amend Something Previously Adopted. The rules are exactly the same for both, so both only apply to things already adopted. The only effective difference is that ASPA allows any of the standard forms of amendment to be applied to the language of the motion, whereas Rescind is a special case amendment that simply strikes all the words. I don't agree that rescision makes things the same as if it had never happened. It is quite possible that a motion established a practice that was then in effect for years before the motion was rescinded. But the motion was in full force and effect from the time it was passed until it was rescinded. Rescision does not erase the motion, it merely sets a time after which it is no longer in effect.

Assuming this is a union or union-like organization, you can also look at the bylaws membership article to see the exact language specifying which job titles are included in the membership. If there is a reason that, for example. "lead" jobs are akin to management positions, it could be that the bylaws would need revision. Check with your lawyers for any legal requirements in this regard. If it is just this one individual who is too chummy with management, and you can't establish actual wrongdoing, i.e., acting to the detriment of the union, you may not be allowed to exclude one individual member. Cases like this can sometimes be resolved through individual counseling.

How about adopting RONR as your parliamentary authority? Would that pass?

I'd bet a quarter that many more firms do it that way than have rules which actually say that.

I thought that last sentence was verbatim.

Okay, but @Josh Martin has posted a response that addresses your particular situation, with which I agree completely. As a general comment on "tie breaking" however, RONR does not recognize anything unique about a tie vote. When a majority vote is required for something to be adopted, either a majority is obtained, or it is not. A majority vote is defined as strictly more than half of the votes cast. Anything less than or equal to half of the votes cast is less than a majority, and rejects the question. So whether a vote has 1/20 approval or 1/2 approval, the result is the same. The question is rejected. A tie is just one way that a motion can be rejected. So there is never anything that requires "breaking". It's a binary choice, and counting the votes always tells you whether the question is, or is not, adopted. In the case of elections, the same logic applies. If the rules in RONR apply, no one is elected on less than a majority vote. Candidates that receive less than a majority are not elected. The difference between an election and an ordinary motion is that while an organization may reject a motion to paint the clubhouse, it cannot decide not to elect officers, so second and subsequent ballots are sometimes required.

Actually, presuming a quorum is present, the ways that a motion can be passed include: 6-0 5-1 4-2 5-0 4-1 3-2 4-0 3-1 3-0 2-1 2-0 1-0

I agree with Mr. Martin, although a small voice in my head keeps saying "...but a tiebreaker vote is technically never 'required.'"

You might also specify that the Vice President may sign instead of the President if the latter is unavailable.

First a caveat--your organization may have special rules of order or bylaws provisions that supersede RONR, and you should become familiar with both of those documents, as well as what's in RONR. New-guy level questions are welcome, and suggest that you should get yourself a copy of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised in Brief, 3rd edition, (known here as RONRIB) which will get you up to clueful status in no time. It contains the 20% that is most useful 80% of the time, and citations to the big book when necessary. Now, if the rules in RONR do apply, there should be a section of the agenda (or if you are not using an agenda, a section of the standard order of business) entitled New Business. In an agenda, this may have no items listed in it, but that's fine. Under New Business, you may simply seek recognition ("Mr. President!") and when recognized ("Mr. L.?") rise and say "I move that the clubhouse be painted a pale shade of green." If possible, have someone prepared to say "Second!" even without being prompted to do so. And then you're off and running. There's no need for a motion and vote to consider the matter. That's taken care in a heartbeat by the word "Second!" The chair should state the motion and open the floor to debate, which as the mover you're entitled to first crack at, and you get right down to the merits of the action.

It can go on as long as necessary.

Agreeing with the preceding answers, you can also simply move a new motion under New Business.

Isn't the president already a member of the board? If so, what purpose would it serve to also fill a vacant seat? It would be the same effect as leaving the seat vacant. Having two seats DOES NOT give the occupant two votes! It's common for the board to be elected by the members, but the bylaws may also have a separate paragraph that deals will filling vacancies that occur before the end of a term of office. Often the board is authorized to vote in a person to fill out the remainder of the original term. How this is handled varies, and you'll have to read your bylaws to see how it works in your organization. The other officers, if they are members of the board, have the right to vote at board meetings. If they are also general members of the organization (which they usually are) then they can also vote at general membership meetings. At membership meetings, they have no special board powers, except that the president and secretary often serve those roles at both kinds of meeting. Again this is usual, but your bylaws may vary.

Entering into executive session requires a motion, which would presumably be included in the minutes.

It is not unusual for the term of office for board members to be, say, three years, and the term of office for officers to be one year. In a typical case, a board of nine members might elect have one-third of its membership elected each year. After each annual election, whether or not any seats have changed occupants, and at or before the first regular meeting, a reorg meeting is held, and officers are elected from among the board's own number. In public bodies or corporations, this meeting might also include (re)adopting any special rules of order and standing rules (not necessary under RONR), setting the legal address, things dealing with the corporate seal, and other boilerplate. In this scenario, reorganization meetings are automatic and are never "called" meetings. There may be other procedures to remove officers, but they are not accomplished by a "special" reorg meeting.

This would not match anything in RONR. A reorganization meeting of a board usually includes the board electing its officers from among its own membership, after new members have been elected to some or all of the seats. There is typically one and only one reorg meeting after each election. A motion to simply shuffle all the officers at a random time would not be in order. Do your bylaws contain anything resembling the procedure you're suggesting? It seems to me you need to read your bylaws to determine: How officers are elected? Are they elected directly by the membership, or does the membership just elect board members and the board elects its own officers? What are your procedures for nomination and elections? What are the lengths of the terms of office? Are there term limits that affect eligibility?

Based on the amount of information provided, all I can say is "It depends."

You say you provided notice to the board, but the rules that you quoted say that you should have provided it to the boosters (which I presume is the name given to your general membership).

Depending on how the rule is written, the members could be required to exercise that choice in advance of any given vote, with the choice applying to all votes cast on that particular question. If the rule explicitly requires in-person and absentee votes to be mixed, then it serves as an example of the decidedly finite wisdom of legislatures.

Unless prohibited in the bylaws, a motion to hold the vote by ballot would be in order. I question whether the voice vote would be useful, since most bylaws amendments require a two-thirds vote, which can't be reliably judged from a voice vote.

With respect to the consent calendar, I think it does have some value but I would only favor its use if the rules allowed for removing an item for a separate vote, on the demand of a single member. This is the default RONR behavior for any compound motion containing multiple independent items. In the situation described, I would have Appealed from the decision of the chair.