Gary Novosielski

If you can get a significant number of members in agreement, it would be in order to move to have the board members seated along with the general membership. There's no point in moving it unless you've done the leg work first, but it is preferable. The only officers who need to be up front are the presiding officer and the recording officer, plus the parliamentarian if you have one.

And there is no motion to Take From the Ground. ☺️

test reply passed reply.

It was not a non-meeting. It was an unfortunately abbreviated meeting, but it was a meeting. Brief minutes should be kept and approved. Did you in fact adjourn the meeting to a future time as the bylaws permit?

It could certainly be argued that the pastor, who was apparently presiding, should have relinquished the chair during consideration of this motion, since it involved a personal concern not in common with others. Nevertheless, the motion was considered without, it seems, anyone raising a timely point of order. And no continuing breach of the rules persists at this point, so even in the absence of bylaws (which should be remedied A.S.A.P.), it makes no sense to say that the motion is still on the floor. The matter has, for now at least, been decided--in the negative. However, a motion that has failed may be made again ("renewed") at the next meeting, so while the motion is not now on the floor, it is just a move and second away from being on the floor again in the future.

Agreed. But it's also necessary to make very sure that the word does not appear in some other context, somewhere in the document that would be inappropriate to change.

Yes, and it is often an indicator that the drafting was somewhat haphazard, and that it is likely more problems will be found in other articles.

Yes, minutes of executive session are taken. The purpose for confidentiality is typically not to conceal what was done, but to allow free debate, so if the proper format for minutes is followed, they should probably be brief. Minutes of executive session should be approved in executive session, unless the actual text of the minutes dos not contain any confidential material. It does not make sense to approve something one has never seen.

I agree as well. There is no reason to question that the assembly can appoint a secretary pro-tem for a single meeting at a time. I would point out that there is nothing in RONR that authorizes the painting of the clubhouse. Yet I would be loath to rule it out of order.

If it's not adopted, then as far as RONR is concerned it's just a random piece of paper with non-binding stuff written on it. The assembly would follow the standard order of business.

I have not run into this. Sometimes I see duplicate posts, but no more often than in the past, and they appear to be genuine duplicates which brand new guests seem to be particularly adept at.

Spoiler alert: Because the General said so. ☺️

Does your group have bylaws?

Well, the problem is that there is an obvious and standard answer, but that is that the remarks of people made during the public hearing phase would not be included at all. I'm sure we'd all say the same thing on that. The standard won't apply, however, if you have a specific rule that supersedes it, which you apparently have. The clear meaning of that rule is that comments must be included in the minutes if supplied in writing and less than 151 words. It might help us if you said what the gist of the disagreement was behind the "bit of a dispute" over this. Given some actual positions we might be in a position to help you differentiate between them.

Very much so.

My advice was intended for the general case. The exception, as it so often does, proves the rule. In some cases the proof may exceed two digits, depending on the souse.

No, that would be called a "plurality" vote. Under the rules of RONR, no one is elected with less than a majority, unless your bylaws say so. In order to achieve a majority, a candidate must have not merely the largest number of votes, but more votes than all the other candidates put together, i.e., a true majority (more than half) of the votes cast for that office. If none of the candidates have a majority, the results are announced so that all voters know the vote counts, and another ballot is held, with no names being dropped (unless they withdraw). Nominations may be reopened between ballots if desired. Eventually, it it hoped, voters will settle on a candidate before food and supplies run out.

In general, people who are soused should avoid serving on boards until they sober up.😵

The obligation is not merely to conduct a ballot vote, it is to complete the election. If it takes 158 ballots to do so, then that is the requisite number. If elections are incomplete, then the action required of the chair is to take another ballot, or take some other action to complete the election, such as entertaining a motion to reopen nominations, or to set a time for an adjourned meeting at which balloting will continue. There is no such thing as a motion to close elections. If there is a persistent insufficiency of volunteers to fill critical offices, it might be time for the society to seriously consider taking actions to dissolve the organization.

But safer than swearing at him in person.

No, you continue to vote until someone achieves a majority.

No, it clearly says "the bylaws, or by action of the assembly in the individual case." Those are the only two options.

I agree the timing should not matter, but Mr. Elsman's position would seem to argue otherwise. I don't think there's any doubt that during reading and approval of minutes, the assembly may decide what goes into the minutes by a majority vote. Therefore, the same threshold should apply at any prior time. Once approved, the minutes then fall into the category of something previously adopted, and the rules for amendment change.

Your bylaws contain the names of the officers? That makes no sense.