Gary Novosielski

I agree it could be read that way. I hope puzzling will state what motions, if any, came before this situation that have bearing upon it. "Puzzling by name, puzzling by nature."

I think the point is that this motion either required, or was given, previous notice, and the question is whether the subsequent amendments would be beyond the scope of the original notice. Why notice might be required here is not clear, but it's not uncommon for societies to require previous notice for large expenditures. In which case, amendments offered from the floor which exceed the scope of the notice would cause the notice to become invalid. This might render the amendments out of order, or possibly affect the voting threshold, depending on the motion.

Sure does. It make me wonder why it was included in the bylaws, in the first place, and why it was never removed.

Thanks, Jim. And may I say that your two-sided "cheat sheets" have come in handy in several situations.

The chair needs to buy a clue. If the motion has been made, seconded, debated, voted on, and rejected, as appears to be the case here, the motion is no longer before the assembly, so the chair has no business ruling it out of order. If for some reason the motion was out of order the chair should have made that ruling as soon as the motion was made. So, since the ruling was invalid, an Appeal is dilatory. If the ruling of the chair is sustained, the motion remains declared out of order. If it is overruled, the motion is not ruled out of order, but as it is already rejected, it is no longer before the assembly. Therefore, the appeal can have no effect either way. More importantly, since an appeal does not bring the original question again before the assembly, the appeal cannot result in a decision to paint the clubhouse yellow or any other color. All it can do is sustain or overrule the chair's decision. It would take a new motion to paint the clubhouse, and since the assembly has already decided not to, a new motion would not be in order. It would be in order to move to Reconsider the painting motion, which could be moved by someone who voted No (the prevailing side) on the motion to paint. To answer your original question, the minutes should include all of the improper steps that were actually done, and none of the long debate interspersed among them. Since no Points of Order were raised in an attempt to get that hot mess back on the rails, the assembly has apparently decided to pain the clubhouse yellow, but I wouldn't hazard a guess on how to describe it in a way that makes sense.

As Mr. Brown points out, RONR will have little to say on this subject directly. In RONR, assemblies have only one kind of member, which is called a member. Members have the right to attend meetings, make and second motions, participate in debate, and vote. So any distinctions regarding classes of membership, and what rights those classes have or don't have must be found elsewhere--i.e., in your bylaws.

Yes, and in particular the rules in the old bylaws that control how the bylaws may be amended are the ones that control how this adoption ias done. It sounds like your board has the authority to amend the bylaws, which is unusual. Normally the bylaws may only be amended by the general membership, who also elects the board. Do your bylaws say different?

Is it a sign of the times that Kindle versions are now more expensive than print editions?

A motion to Suspend the Rules and Pass something is a way to pass it with no debate at all, not even such debate as might occur before moving the Previous Question. However, using this to prevent deliberation on a contentious question is singularly inadvisable.

In 35:1, we learn that the motion to Rescind and the motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted are two distinct forms that do have the same rules and are covered in one section. There certainly is no need for a motion to adopt something that has already been adopted.

It should not be noted in the minutes because it should not be done; it is not in order without a quorum present.

If it is an annual meeting, that makes it longer than a quarterly interval, so I'm afraid those motions improperly laid on the table do die. But there's nothing to prevent their being renewed (moved again) at a future meeting. If the membership can call special meetings, it might not have to wait for the next annual meeting. You say two monthly meetings have passed. If these are membership meetings, then the rule is that motions on the table die at the end of the meeting after the one during which they were laid on the table, so that train has sailed. If these monthly meetings are board meetings, they are irrelevant, since the original motions were made by the membership. My question is how the chair was able to "table" these motions without anyone raising a Point of Order, and if necessary an Appeal. Unless you have unusual bylaws, this is a shameless power grab. [T]he motion to Lay on the Table is not in order if the evident intent is to kill or avoid dealing with a measure. [17:2] If you let the chair do things that are improper, don't be surprised if improper things get done more and more often. There is ample proof of all of this in RONR 12th ed. §17, but you never need to prove anything to the parliamentarian. Parliamentarians advise the chair, they do not make rulings or issue decisions on their own. It is the membership, and not a single officer or employee that makes the final decision on any question. Besides, I can't help but question the expertise of any parliamentarian who did not know this basic rule.

You beat me to it.

Well, I think getting it wrong is not incompatible with "simply failing". But since this sets no precedent, it's hardly worth citing, except as a curiosity.

Not "rescind" but rather "withdraw" the resignation. And the answer is Yes.

You are incorrect unless you can cite some authority for unilaterally nullifying a majority vote, or some reason why the motion would have been out of order at the time it was made. Since it seems no Point of Order was raised that the time, all you can do now it to move to Rescind the action. That would take a two-thirds vote, a majority vote with previous notice, or a majority of the entire membership any one of which will suffice.

Discussion should not be included in the minutes whether there is a quorum or not. Your best bet, if there is no hope of getting a quorum, is to call the meeting to order, note the absence of a quorum, and adjourn (possibly adjourning to a future time and place). If people who are there care to stick around after adjournment and discuss things, that's fine, but no official action can be taken until the next meeting, so there's nothing to record.

You left it out.

If that is indeed the case here, then I would question why the board cannot simply refer to the minutes of the meeting at which the question was previously decided, but I fear I can probably predict what the answer would be. It would not even surprise me to learn that the board lacked the power to suspend these town-hall-style meetings in the first place. Without a full review of the bylaws and minutes, I'd be well into the weeds of wild guessing.

Are we to assume that the measure is one that would require a majority vote? If so, then 4-3 is a majority, and the motion would be adopted. Abstentions are not votes.

No. The minutes of the previous meeting should include only those things that were actually done at that meeting. If there were items on the agenda that were not reached during the previous meeting, they can be brought up under Unfinished Business and General Orders.

I'm confused about what's actually going on. If no meetings have been held, where are these votes to resume taking place? If you're voting on motions, where else but in a meeting could this possibly take place?

If an issue is contentious, that is ample reason not to try to ram it through without debate. It will only become more contentious. But, in order to advance a question without debate, either through the use or the motion for the Previous Question, or by a motion to Suspend the Rules, it will require a two-thirds vote. A majority vote simply will not do. The Chair does not have the power to decide to ignore a properly made and seconded motion. If two-thirds of those present and voting decide to cut off debate, that is their decision, not the chair's.

That would not be the first or only time that the Supreme Court got something wrong. It's clear that they did not actually survey "all parliamentary bodies" before opining on what the "general rule" was. This is the time-honored principle known as stare iniuste.

I suspect the same, and I further suspect that this is the way that the phrase ends up in various bylaws, because someone thought it sounded kewl. I know it is has also found its way into some case law, where it also doesn't belong.