Gary Novosielski

At the time, someone should have immediately raised a point of order that the vote was not taken . If no timely point of order was raised, it could be argued by the chair that this was handled as a unanimous consent request and since nobody objected, the motion was, indeed carried. In my opinion you're past the point of trying to remedy this and the statement of the chair stands. If that is unacceptable, you could use a motion to Rescind the contract extensions, presuming nothing has been signed yet. With previous notice this would require only a majority vote; otherwise a 2/3 vote or a vote of a majority of the entire membership.

I think you could also move A, amend it to include B, and if that amendment fails, amend it to include C. When perfected, the motion is voted on, and if it passes, you're done. If it does not pass, move to adopt D, or possibly as E, as proposed by Mr. Gerber above.

You only need one nomination period, as Mr. Mervosh pointed out. Members are free to nominate others (somewhat preferable), or to nominate themselves (i.e. volunteer). Before closing nominations, any statements or debate are in order. Voting occurs when no further nominations are made. I'm confused by the term "interim mayor'. Once the election is completed and you have a new mayor (potentially on the firstballot), I think you're done. Mr. Mervosh's advice on consulting you counsel is apt. I wonder about voting procedures that might be mandated: voice vote, ballot vote, signed ballot vote, or whatever.

Well, except for the quotes above.

Once you "adjourn" you can't move anything, and everyone goes home. If you want to go into executive session, just move to go into executive session. At the end, you can move to come out, and then adjourn, or simply adjourn. I recommend the former, so that the time of adjournment will appear in the minutes of the general meeting, and not those of the executive session.

No. RONR strictly observes the rule of "One Person--One Vote". The characteristics of a deliberative assembly assume that each person's voice in decision making is equal to any other's. The suggestion that directors have ten votes is puzzling, since directors only vote as directors while actually meeting as a board. And if they each had ten votes, they all have equal voting power. General members are not board members, and so would have zero votes in that context. During a general membership meeting, board members are not present as board members, except that the president and secretary often often serve similar roles in both types of meeting. Giving board members extra votes in a general meeting flies in the face of the normal philosophy that the board is elected by, and subordinate to, the will of the membership.

I think the closest analogy to the RONR terms would be a president presiding and a vice president potentially having to preside at some future time. RONR stresses that the president should strive to protect the appearance of impartiality while actually presiding, but places no restrictions on what motions the VP can make while not actually presiding at the time.

From the Latin "globo" meaning a glob. As distinct from "in blobo" or "in lumpo".

That would depend on what rules you make that apply in different ways to different classes of member. In any organization with a board, directors and other officers are already differentiated by virtue of being members of the board, which general members of the organization are not. Assuming that all the members of the board are also members of the general membership then in that way they are the same as other members (except while the board is meeting). If that's not enough of a distinction, then I'd have to ask what sort of consequences are you trying to create?

If the letter was not read, and no motion resulted from it, and the member in question was not present, and no decisions of consequence or otherwise were made, I don't see what entry would appropriately belong in the minutes. As others have pointed out, discussion does not belong in the minutes. Minutes are not a record of what was said, but rather a record of what was done. It appears from your description that while things may have been said, nothing was decided, so there's nothing to memorialize in the minutes.

Well, there's no need for a motion to receive a board's report. Once the board has reported, the report has in fact been received. If there are recommendations in the report that would require action, those individual motions can be made (no need for a second) by the person reporting. Is that the "state officer"? If this "assistant moderator" wants to offer amendments to any of these motions, I see no problem as long as he is a member of the body that is meeting. I'm assuming that he is not chairing the meeting at the time, but maybe you could clear that up and provide some more detail. What sort of meeting is this, and what's the relationship to this "board".

This language is a disaster, but it does say 67% (which is not 2/3) of the total unit votes. Not 67% of units. Is a unit a vote? Is a vote that has not been cast a vote? If someone that was entitled to vote does not attend the meeting, is that a vote? I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

Are we talking about a nominating committee, or was it really the entire organization that is soliciting and receiving nominations? Anyway, there's no rule against it in RONR.

Unless otherwise qualified, a majority vote implies a majority of the votes cast. Abstentions are explicitly not votes.

There's no fool like an April fool, I guess.

This sort of motion (budget transfer) is quite common, especially in organizations with very detailed budgets. It's handled as a motion to Amend Something Previously Adopted. As has been noted, it might require a 2/3 vote, but an ordinary 2/3 vote (of those present and voting) not 2/3 of everyone in attendance. The difference is that abstentions do not affect the outcome of an ordinary 2/3 vote.

It's not necessary that they be members of the assembly. [§4:11]

Questions can be asked using the form of a Request for Information, but the person cannot be commanded to answer. [§33:6]

Float the idea of disbanding the organization. That often prompts hesitant people to accept nominations.

Check your bylaws to see if elections are to be held by ballot vote, and if so whether there is an exception in the case where the number of candidates does not exceed the number to be elected. If the bylaws require a ballot without such an exception, then a ballot vote must be held. As with any ballots, there should be space provided for write-in votes. If a ballot is not required, then the chair may simply announce that those four are elected by acclamation.

Ex-officio members are neither elected nor appointed directly. They are members by virtue of an office they hold, possibly one assigned by some outside entity. It seems likely to me that this Alumni Representative is selected by the Alumni Parents association, and it is they who would have to replace him. Your group could presumably request that the Alumni Rep be replaced, but the final decision may be out of your hands. If this is true (and someone in that group should know) then whoever aspires to that position, presuming he is a member of the Alumni Parents, should take up the question in that group. While this answer is based on the information in your question, I don't know what your bylaws say, nor what the bylaws of the Alumni Parents say, if anything. So consider it my best guess.

If the vote in favor of the motion is tied, then the voting body has decided, and the answer is No.

Unless your bylaws are quite unusual, the board is elected by, and subordinate to, the general membership. Elections take place at general membership meetings over which the board has no control. In this case, not only can the board not cancel an election, but can't overturn any decision of the membership. (It sounds to me like an election is overdue, and some board members need to be voted out. But that's just me. and of course see disclaimer below)

Another "feature" that makes the forum less usable. <sigh> _____ I'm confused by the phrase "regularly called" which appears to me to be an oxymoron. In language I'm familiar with, meetings are referred to as regular meetings or properly called meetings, the latter referring to special meetings which are alternatively referred to as called meetings. A called meeting is presumably not a regular meeting.

The rule says a member has no right to do it. I'm sure the rule is suspendable, but the rule still says no. So I think the president ruled correctly, and apparently the ruling was not appealed from.