Gary Novosielski

That's true, and I would ordinarily point it out if there were the faintest wisp of a hint that it was the case in this instance.

But that's not what was wanted. What's improper about the form? You might not like the effect, but what's wrong with the form? Perhaps, but even if so, I don't see the relevance. Is abstention something to be ashamed of?

But that's not what was wanted. What's improper about the form? You might not like the effect, but what's wrong with the form? Perhaps, but even if so, I don't see the relevance. Is abstention something to be ashamed of?

Out of curiosity, were you just concerned that the chair did not ask if there was any debate, or did you, yourself, actually wish to speak on the motion to enter executive session?

Now yer talkin'.

If a notice is given, the motion can be made by any member, not just the one giving notice. But if nobody moves it, the notice expires. I don't understand what you mean by the "administration" or the "report".

True, but as you noted, in the case of discipline, it is unlikely that the two directors would be lumped into one motion. 45:5 appears to refer to situations where, say, three members are approved for travel expenses to a conference. It may not be perfectly defined, but since this is a "should" rather than a "shall", that's not a grave defect.

How did the president come by this "slate" prior to "releasing" it? Is there a nominating committee? If so, then the report of the nominating committee is made to the membership, not to the president. Also RONR does not refer to this as a "slate" but rather as a list of nominees, each independent of the others. Calling it a "slate" incorrectly suggests that it is voted on as a group, rather than as individual elected offices, with nominees for each. The list can be added to by nominations from the floor, and write-in candidates can also affect the outcome. RONR recommends that the president have little or nothing to do with the nomination process, should not serve on the nominating committee (even as ex officio) nor appoint the committee itself. If there is no nominating committee, and the president is simply drafting a "slate" that's problematic.

More of a technicality. I suspect that "not in common with other members" is not meant to be read as "any other members" but rather as "other members in general". But I'm sure all of us have heard arguments made on thinner grounds than this.

Since there are two directors who face suspension, it may not be the case that this interest is one that is not in common with other members.

Even if it were, RONR does not prohibit voting on those grounds. The right to vote, or to attend meetings can only be abridged by duly applied discipline, which in this case has not (yet) occurred, or by specific rules in the bylaws or the parliamentary authority. Since you're operating in the absence of any rules, including conducting business in a meeting that is already recognized as null and void, I don't see how I can offer a useful answer on any of this. Good luck.

That depends on what rules you're using for this disciplinary action. The procedure you describe is not something I recognize from RONR. Can you cite the section you are following? If you are following your own disciplinary procedures in your bylaws, or something else that would supersede those in RONR then I'm not sure I'll be able to answer your question, since I'm unfamiliar with your rules.

I suppose that if there were not any Yes votes, that could also be considered a unanimous decision.

Is this an inconsistency in RONR? Section 18:8 does not list MEM as an alternative, apparently treating this as a suspension of the rules.

I'm not sure what that means. Let them into where? Do you mean admitting new people into membership? How is that done in your organization? I also don't know what is on your agenda, whether you approve it by voting, or why you use one in the first place. In general, however, the orders of the day can be set aside (i.e., the order of business can be changed, when desired, by a 2/3 vote

Yeah. Turns out there wasn't.

@Atul Kapur, Dan put it better than I did:

No. Once a motion has been placed before the assembly (i.e., stated by the chair), it no longer belongs to the maker. Amendments in the nature of a substitute, or which are claimed to be "friendly", or for that matter amendments of any kind, require no special approval from the maker. In fact, once the motion is before the assembly, the maker cannot even withdraw the motion without the permission of the assembly. See RONR (12th ed.) 4:19, 12:91, 33:11

For details, see RONR 12th ed. 10:54-57.

I hope this is written somewhere. What's written in RONR is that write-ins are allowed.

I don't think that's altering the votes needed for passage so much as it is conforming to the votes needed for such a postponement.

@Catty, RONR does has no advice on the niceties such as what the voting threshold should be for a situation that is completely prohibited, as @George Mervoshpoints out. Unless the organization has amended its bylaws to permit email voting, it has not, in fact, "made allowances". It has simply broken its own rules. It is a bit like asking whether someone who demands your wallet at knife-point should be required to say please and thank you, or not.

Guest Scott I concur with what @Joshua Katz has said. The rules in RONR sometimes fail to transfer unscathed to state law and regulations for public bodies.

Presuming the motion was a proposal to do something, by defeating the motion the assembly has decided not to do that thing. No further action is required.

No. Agendas aren't even recommended in the first place, for most organizations. A fault in the agenda would not affect the validity of any business actually conducted.