Gary Novosielski

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.

No, that would count as one of the mechanisms that don't exist.

To elaborate on @Josh Martin's correct response, the reason Lay on the Table is rarely in order is that it is not debatable, and cuts off debate on the pending motion with less than the two-thirds vote needed to order the Previous Question. If not taken from the table in a timely manner, it can kill the motion entirely. Its intended purpose justifies this sort of handling, but routine use to put off consideration does not. The motion to Postpone to a Certain Time (a.k.a Postpone Definitely) temporarily suspends debate on the pending motion, but fixes a time and day when it will be taken up again, in the same condition as when it was postponed, which can't be beyond the next regular meeting. Additionally, it is debatable--not with respect to the merits of the original motion, but only as to why and whether it should be postponed, or considered now.

As @Atul Kapur points out, minutes approval does not take place between meetings, and the board cannot pass a motion making it so. But the membership can delegate one of its powers to the board, still retaining the power to correct any errors missed or added by the board. Between meetings, the powers of the board are somewhat limited to routine business. The "between meetings" language is enough to allow the board accept resignations and fill vacancies in offices, but it is not enough to hold elections or amend bylaws. A fairly detailed review is advisable if the board is going to assert powers that go far beyond paying the phone bill and keeping the lights on.

I'd add the condition that if a project failed to receive a majority vote, it should not be funded even if the budget has not been exhausted.

Surprise!

You seem to have the roles reversed. The board is a subordinate body to the membership. The membership, at the annual meeting, can move "that the minutes of this meeting be approved by the board". But the board cannot decide anything about the membership meeting, since it has no authority over the membership. It can receive instructions from the membership--not issue them to the membership.

It depends on the laws in your state. In the meantime, record the names of those who voted in favor of this rule, and remind them of their choice when elections roll around.

You can use the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted to change the resolution to something that can be achieved. If it has been found to be completely unworkable it can be Rescinded. These motions are covered in §35 of RONR 12th edition.

You understand from where? There is no such rule in RONR. A person who is no longer president has no special status unless your bylaws say so. They have a vote like any other member, presuming they are a member. I suspect most knowledgeable parliamentarians would avise against such a change to your bylaws, but I have not asked them all.

If the rules in RONR apply, resignations offered verbally in a meeting are valid, and can be accepted immediately. The resignations are then fully carried out and final. Once accepted they cannot be withdrawn. There is no mechanism in RONR to reverse them under the conditions you describe. The only way for those members to become board members again is to run for reëlection in the normal way.

The lack of a second doesn't invalidate anything, unless some objection was raised immediately. If the chair and the membership proceeded to consider your proposal, the lack of a second is moot. The purpose of a second is to show that more than one person wished to consider the matter. The fact that they did go ahead and consider it proves that someone wanted to, so they did effectively second it. However, you also say that your presentation was not a motion, and a motion would be made at a later time. If that's the case, there is no need for a second at all. The presentation was allowed, and took place. There's no way that does not count. It happened in real life.

It's not clear from your description what the exact prior notice requirement is. But if you can get the report to the membership in sufficient time, and with proper notice of the election meeting, then go ahead and hold the election as soon as possible thereafter. Apparently one or more people dropped the ball and caused a bylaws violation as a result--so get to work and fix it. And be reminded that the nomination committee report must still be given at the meeting, and that nominations from the floor must then be called for, if the rules in RONR apply.

For the phrase "vacate the chair" to have any meaning, i suggest that when the presiding officer is making statements, they should be from the regular place, and not on the way out the door.

As I read it, the only "special" conventions are those called in accordance with paragraph 3, and all the others that are scheduled to take place, as opposed to being called for special times are "regular".

It seems likely that both types of convention, since they are regularly scheduled in the bylaws would be "regular" conventions. Conventions which are not mandated, but called for a particular purpose, are "special" conventions. This is the same terminology used to refer to regular and special meetings. But since you're still providing paraphrases rather than actual bylaws language, my confidence is somewhat attenuated.

Ohhhhhkay

I have no idea. You are presenting conclusions but I have never read your bylaws or other rules. You have some sort of "no confidence" motion that removes people from office. RONR does not. If your "convention" is normally the time for annual elections, why would previous notice be required? It sounds like most of what happened was under your own customized rules that RONR has nothing to say about. If you have questions that actually tie in to the contents of RONR, what are they?

You're missing the fact that the small board rules have nothing directly to do with the math. If any assembly of any size has sufficiently good attendance, the number of votes required for a majority of the entire membership (MEM) can be lower than that for a two-thirds vote. In a 90-member assembly, the MEM is 46, but a two-thirds vote is 60, if all 90 attend and vote. The only difference is that in smaller sized assemblies, high attendance is more common, while in larger groups there are likely to be more absentees Lower percentage attendance lowers the threshold for a two-thirds vote but does not affect that of the MEM, so achieving MEM becomes more difficult, and if 50 % or less, it becomes impossible, even if a quorum still remains. On your nine-member board, if only 6 attend, the MEM remains 5, but a two-thirds vote is now 4, if all vote.

Yes. Small Board Rules do not change any voting thresholds. Whenever a sufficient fraction of an entire membership attends, the majority of the entire membership will be easier to achieve than a two-thirds vote. Attendance is usually better in small assemblies but the principle remains.

Yes, and? There are situations where an economy of words is beneficial. Unfortunately asking for advice on this forum is not one of those situations. Please describe in more detail the background of this situation and then ask one or more questions.

No, once it was adopted it was "finished".

Agreed. That is why I asked for that information. I would still bet that it is "almost" certain, but not entirely. To know whether rules may be suspended, we do need to know if they are in the nature of rules of order, but we also need to know what desired action the rules are interfering with, or we won't know which rule to examine.

Was an election held? Provide ballots to solicit write-in votes. A majority vote is required to elect. Often even if people did not seek a nomination, they may be willing to serve if elected.

Almost certainly not. But if you describe exactly what you want to do (or prevent), and the bylaws provision that is keeping you from doing that, we may be able to narrow this down.