Gary Novosielski

Good. That's what I was going for.

Assuming that you mean they went back and approved the original motion as amended, then yes.

Thank you. For a moment there I was dealing with cognitive dissonance.

The minutes would record the votes of members by name if a Roll Call vote is used. Roll call votes are typically used when the voting members are responsible to a constituency. If roll call votes are not the usual method of voting, then to use that method would require adopting a motion. A majority vote is required to order a roll call unless the bylaws specify some lower threshold. Further reading: RONR (12th ed.) §45:45-54

LOL that's cute.

If the rules in RONR apply: The recording would be considered as part of the Secretary's notes and members would not automatically have a right to them. However there is no rule preventing making the recording available to members. Retaining the recordings is optional and up to your organization to decide. The minutes (once approved) are the official record. RONR is not silent on this point. See §48:6

Well, except for §48:6.

Abstentions are not called for, not counted, and are not votes.

Yes, and then when things go wrong, the finger pointing starts. Responsibility shared is responsibility diluted.

My strongly held belief is that you would be far better off deleting all reference to Co-<anything> in your bylaws. It is nothing but trouble, as you're beginning to find out.

They are not "his" votes. The votes belong to the members who cast them. If he withdraws after a ballot has been counted, and nobody (else) received a majority, another vote will be required. The withdrawing person may endorse another candidate, but everyone is still free to vote however they wish.

Yes, your instincts are correct. Go to https://robertsrules.com/official-interpretations/ and scroll to OI 2006-13, which covers this exact situation. (to reveal the answer, you must click on that number--yeah, I know...)

Ah, but it is. At least it breaks no law in RONR. It's common that some organizations will open nominations at a regular meeting a month in advance of the election, and then hold the election at the next meeting. But there's no rule against reopening nominations at the election meeting to add additional nominees from the floor. If the organization wishes, nominations could theoretically be open for several months. RONR does not have limitations on when or how long nominations can be open. Indeed it does not even require nominations at all. You may find it suggestive to note that closing nominations requires a 2/3 vote, while (re)opening them requires only a majority. __________ [Josh did it again.]

When a motion from a committee is made by the reporting member of that committee, the motion need not be seconded. But when the moderator opens debate the discussion is on that motion. The first person recognized (usually the mover) cannot simply ignore the motion propose a new one (not an amendment of the first one) leaving the first in limbo. There is a procedure where a member in debate can offer a "substitute" for the pending motion, but that is a form of amendment, and must follow the rules for amendments, including the need to be seconded. There are also some quite involved rules regarding how substitutes are debated and decided. Ultimately, if the amendment in the nature of a substitute is not agreed to, the question resumes on the original motion, which is still very much alive. In either case, a final vote is required to adopt whatever the resulting language is. But while the amendment was being discussed, it would be in order to postpone it to the next meeting. What gets postponed is both the original motion, and the amendment attached to it which has not yet been decided. And that combination in that same condition is what would be taken up at the next meeting. Now, if that's not what happened, please let us know so that we can attempt to understand how to deal with it. __________ Edited to add: Mr. Martin and I were typing at the same time, and he clearly types faster. At least we didn't give conflicting opinions. 😊

I'm quite familiar with the term, but confused by the inconsistent use. The sequence of events seemed to suggest that after selecting a mayor, they then proceed to elect an interim mayor. But I appreciate the concern.

My thinking was that once the contract has been signed the motion has been carried out, and there is no unexecuted portion remaining. But I don't doubt that the state of the remainder of the contract could be reached by another motion, so perhaps it's just as well.

I was thinking it might be cleaner to wait for the amendment to be offered, and then before any discussion occurs move to Suspend the Rules and Object to the Consideration of this Question. But then stating the question, taking the vote, and determining the result turns out to be a head scratcher.

Are you saying the first two were incorrect?

Of course they should. I was just seeking an opinion on the general case.

A slightly shorter if not more gentle way would be: Yes, ignore or call to order a member who interrupts another who has the floor. If a member during a lull shouts anything other than "Mmme. President" or equivalent, for example, "I call the question." the chair would respond "For what purpose does the member seek recognition?" The member responds " I want to call the question." The chair replies "The member wishes to move the Previous Question. The member is recognized." The member looks confused, and then realizes that he hasn't yet made the motion, and does so. The chair acts appropriately depending on whether the motion gathers a second.

Fine, but it seems to me that the agenda was posted 24 hours in advance of the first meeting and 48 hours in advance of the adjourned meeting, since the agenda presumably did not change in the interim.

It is in order to vote on the intent to implement a structural change. But the actual change cannot be implemented except by actually changing the bylaws. That's why it makes sense that the first motion should be one to appoint or charge a committee to draft the proposed language necessary to implement the changes to the bylaws, to be adopted over the summer.

I'm surprised that the notice would be considered insufficient. If proper notice was given for the first (inquorate) meeting of at least 24 hours, then surely that notice would be in effect for the adjourned portion of that session on the following day. And if the notice required for the first meeting was slightly short of 24 hours, then surely that would have been cured by the addition of 24 additional hours before the question was taken up at the adjourned meeting. I'm assuming here that the rules in RONR apply, and are not superseded by other laws.

I'm confused. A board member can of course attend a board meeting, whether they are on the EC or not. Or are we talking about an EC meeting? In any case, the general rule is that members of a body have the right to attend, and non-members do not. So a non-member of the board would have no right to attend, but could certainly be invited to attend by the board if it would be helpful to the discussion.

If the bylaws don't address the situation, the VP would presumably resign from his position as VP effective January, and the normal vacancy-filling procedures would be invoked. Whoever is authorized to accept the resignation is presumed to be authorized to elect and appoint a replacement. This may or may not be equivalent to a full special election. In any case any non-regular election requires previous notice.